• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Rockwell B-1 Lancer

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
611
Reaction score
123
In my humble opinion, this thread initially dedicated to current options for B-1' improvement and modernization. And now some posts (including mine) are mostly studing problems of information' storage, availabilty for usage after archiving/mothballing, different media types etc. Perhaps, this topic would be splitted - B-1 and infromation preservation?
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
Surprisingly enough there are companies out there that still make 3.5" floppy drives and disks. 5.25" is dead and buried though and presumably everything before that.
I still have a 5.25" with Platoon on it for a C64 in the loft. I have it on tape too. Are we saying that my loft has better data storage integrity than the DoD?
You're assuming they still work. ;) I had more than a few burned CDs from the 90s that no longer work.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
505
Reaction score
166
You're assuming they still work. ;) I had more than a few burned CDs from the 90s that no longer work.
It worked as of 1 month ago. As did Pac-Man on the VIC-20. To get back on topic, a B-1 is no different to Pac-Man, except the ghosts are the Taliban.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
You're assuming they still work. ;) I had more than a few burned CDs from the 90s that no longer work.
It worked as of 1 month ago. As did Pac-Man on the VIC-20. To get back on topic, a B-1 is no different to Pac-Man, except the ghosts are the Taliban.
Best case, and all engineering drawings for the B-1B are in pristine condition, that doesn't mean all the subs did the same (they might not even be in business). Also, the production line is gone, the tooling is gone, etc. The odds of the B-1B being resurrected are zero.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
257
Reaction score
107
There are tools for new B-52 but there are no tools for new B-1? that sad
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
505
Reaction score
166
You're assuming they still work. ;) I had more than a few burned CDs from the 90s that no longer work.
It worked as of 1 month ago. As did Pac-Man on the VIC-20. To get back on topic, a B-1 is no different to Pac-Man, except the ghosts are the Taliban.
Best case, and all engineering drawings for the B-1B are in pristine condition, that doesn't mean all the subs did the same (they might not even be in business). Also, the production line is gone, the tooling is gone, etc. The odds of the B-1B being resurrected are zero.
In that case I hope the USAF have lots of araldite.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,999
Reaction score
780
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,814
Reaction score
287

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
1,014
Looks like one weapon on each external hardpoint on the B-1B (total 6).

Off hand, those weapons hung on the B-1B look like ARRW. The air-breather later in the segment is a different weapon; the video doesn't show it coming off the B-1B, and it has a different color nosecone.
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,999
Reaction score
780
the video doesn't show it coming off the B-1B, and it has a different color nosecone.
Video shows it coming from the weapons bay at 0:13 actually.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,999
Reaction score
780
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
I stand corrected as video actually clearly shows both ARRW and HAWC.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
1,014
the video doesn't show it coming off the B-1B, and it has a different color nosecone.
Video shows it coming from the weapons bay at 0:13 actually.
You're right; I missed the aircraft at the top of the frame in my first slow pass through. So, confirmed two different weapons, one of them likely ARRW, the other apparently air-breathing (HAWC, presumably). I think that lines up with the comments in that article from a couple of months ago about using the B-1 to launch hypersonic weapons.

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
I stand corrected as video actually clearly shows both ARRW and HAWC.

Just for scale, those external pylons were designed to carry 2 AGM-129s on EACH That's 2 x 3700lb+ and the weight of the dual pylon. Anybody know what the hardpoints are rated for?
 

Bhurki

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
79
Reaction score
47
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
I stand corrected as video actually clearly shows both ARRW and HAWC.

Just for scale, those external pylons were designed to carry 2 AGM-129s on EACH That's 2 x 3700lb+ and the weight of the dual pylon. Anybody know what the hardpoints are rated for?
FAS states a 58,800 lbs max payload externally.
Fwd-Int-Aft stations are rated in a ratio of 2-3-2,
so Forward and Aft station rating is 8,400 lbs and Intermediate station rating is 12,600 lbs
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
1,014
Video shows an air-breathing missile, so this is not a Skybolt descendant.
I stand corrected as video actually clearly shows both ARRW and HAWC.

Just for scale, those external pylons were designed to carry 2 AGM-129s on EACH That's 2 x 3700lb+ and the weight of the dual pylon. Anybody know what the hardpoints are rated for?
FAS states a 58,800 lbs max payload externally.
Fwd-Int-Aft stations are rated in a ratio of 2-3-2,
so Forward and Aft station rating is 8,400 lbs and Intermediate station rating is 12,600 lbs
Dennis Jenkins' B-1 Lancer says the design had structural provisions for six dual and two single pylons, but only the six dual pylons were actually wired and plumbed (they could apparently handle external fuel tanks, though none have been ever seen loaded). He describes these six stations as the "forward-most," suggesting the two non-wired stations are further aft, presumably along the tail section behind the aft bomb bay.
 

Bhurki

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
79
Reaction score
47
two non-wired stations are further aft, presumably along the tail section behind the aft bomb bay.
These two non wired stations are right abreast outboard the Intermediate main stations, not aft of all other main stations.
(Technically they are still aft of forward stations, obvio)

images (27).jpeg
(Not official. For creative use)
Non-wired stations are shown in red arrows.

Loadout for Agm 86B on B-1b prior to Salt2 -
Fwd - 2x(2)
Int - 2x(2) main station + 2x(1) abreast station
Aft - 2x(2)
Salt2 brought it down to 12 and these 2 stations were not used.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
1,014
Those pics are B-1R; are all the hardpoints necessarily in the same spots as the B-1B?

I only ask because Jenkins is very good otherwise, and it seems odd he'd be wrong on those two pylon locations. Unfortunately, the book has no drawing of all the pylon locations.

And now for something completely different --proposed Strategic ALCM Launcher configuration of the B-1A from 1979. Very different layout, with six single ALCMs under the fuselage and four twins under the wings. Plus 16 on two internal rotary launchers (total 30 ALCMs), with fuel tanks rearranged to make it all fit, I think. Obviously, this was not an as-built configuration, though.
 

Attachments

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
1,789
Looking at that video it’s interesting how they’ve picked up tricks from Hollywood with the overly dramatic music as if from the latest Michael Bay movie.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
687
It's the paradox of war in the 21st century: more and more wars oppose rows of kids that have grown with the same culture.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
Those pics are B-1R; are all the hardpoints necessarily in the same spots as the B-1B?
This box art from years ago suggests the same location:
Captureddd.PNG

The video looks like they've got one big missile on each of these positions:

aaa.PNG
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
159
Reaction score
199
We could see something similar on the other shore of Atlaintic ocean (Pacific as well) - Russia restore production of Tu-160 Blackjacs after decades of launching the last (Soviet-time) example. I'm sure that's not an easy task, though...
Difference is the line never went anywhere. It just collected dust. Big difference.
I think that makes way more sense than destroying production lines. Keep the line, even if nothing is being produced (although ideally you should have some minimal production to keep the supply and spares lines intact), until a replacement is in production. That way if there is an emergency you can build something rather than having no options. Witness the C-17 and F-22 debacles, with lines destroyed and then - hey, we could use some more of those.

Those pics are B-1R; are all the hardpoints necessarily in the same spots as the B-1B?
This box art from years ago suggests the same location:
View attachment 640619

The video looks like they've got one big missile on each of these positions:

View attachment 640620
Those are the six two station pylons. The two single pylons aren't attached.
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,043
Reaction score
1,014
That model art is a good clue. Thanks.

In one of the screen captures flateric posted, you can just make out another pair of missiles on the pylons alongside the engines.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,814
Reaction score
287
We could see something similar on the other shore of Atlaintic ocean (Pacific as well) - Russia restore production of Tu-160 Blackjacs after decades of launching the last (Soviet-time) example. I'm sure that's not an easy task, though...
Difference is the line never went anywhere. It just collected dust. Big difference.
I think that makes way more sense than destroying production lines. Keep the line, even if nothing is being produced (although ideally you should have some minimal production to keep the supply and spares lines intact), until a replacement is in production. That way if there is an emergency you can build something rather than having no options. Witness the C-17 and F-22 debacles, with lines destroyed and then - hey, we could use some more of those.
It's not the production line that withers it's the supply chain. They have all of the tooling for the B-1B and the F-22. (don't know about the C-17).

In the B-1B case, they have had to build a new 47.5 ft long center longeron with that tooling; thankfully the boron/expoxy
material supplier was still in business and still producing the same material.

For the F-22, the workforce and supply chain that built it is now busy building other things
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
Those are the two station pylons. The two single pylons aren't attached.
He's right, the B1-B is stated to have been capable of carrying 14 AGM-86Bs externally.
There are smarter people than myself here but the bone never did because of aerodynamics
Evidence? Aside from being forbidden by Treaty (which would be unnecessary if external carriage were impossible) I've never seen any such information. I also read somewhere that the AGM-129 was designed for supersonic EXTERNAL carriage, and the B-52 damn sure wouldn't be doing that. :D
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
177
Reaction score
65
The acoustics under the B-1B are -terrible- with high pressure vortices flows that curl up around the glove root and beat the skin with something like 170 decibels of constant thumping. Tore the AGM-86 to pieces. The AGM-129 was designed to handle the aeros environment but the drag on the jet became so bad that it could neither make range nor refuel at a safe height

The 1B would probably run out of fuel trying to dash supersonic with all that drag...
 
Last edited:

Bhurki

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
79
Reaction score
47
Thanks for confirming. Its 14.

Also second row of graphics show how the bulkhead is moved forward to fit the hypersonic missiles (ALCM in the graphic)

So, a total of 10-12 ARRW could be mounted (6 external+ 4-6 internal (?))
Could it even fit on the existing AF rotary launcher, if yes, whats its weight limit?
images (32).jpeg
 
Last edited:

mkellytx

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
76
Reaction score
29
Thanks for confirming. Its 14.

Also second row of graphics show how the bulkhead is moved forward to fit the hypersonic missiles (ALCM in the graphic)

So, a total of 10-12 ARRW could be mounted (6 external+ 4-6 internal (?))
Could it even fit on the existing AF rotary launcher, if yes, whats its weight limit?
View attachment 640902
Forward bulkhead position, 8 AGM-186B at 3,150 lbs a piece comes to 25,200 lbs. My guess though is clearance will be the limiting factor, if GBU-31's already have clearance issues then the much larger ARRW will be worse.
 
Top