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

Rockwell B-1 Lancer

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198
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...

Still waiting for a source.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
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...

Still waiting for a source.

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198
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...

Still waiting for a source.

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...

I could see air getting all jammed up with 6 abreast as well as the 2 nacelles. Maybe that's why they're sticking to in-line only, and going with bigger weapons. :confused:
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
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...

Still waiting for a source.

Probably not going to get one. Everything forward of the nacelles was pretty benign, the flow aft of the nacelles was pretty challenging. If we had problems with a separation test on the Bone chances were it was an aft bay test. Got to see some pretty interesting video back in the day of aft bay tests...

I could see air getting all jammed up with 6 abreast as well as the 2 nacelles. Maybe that's why they're sticking to in-line only, and going with bigger weapons. :confused:

We got the dirty air with nothing on the pylons. The test accel. to field Sniper paid a lot of attention to safe separation. The final mission, which I was the test conductor, was a GBU-31 out of the aft bay at .94M and 1,500 ft AGL. It came out clean and the rest is history. If everything were so easy...
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
255
Reaction score
132
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...

Still waiting for a source.
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.

 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
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...

Still waiting for a source.
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.


Good find Rooster, the info is on page 37. The high acoustics were high speed and low level 165 dB. Not surprisingly aft stations the worst, downstream of the tunnel right next to 4 exhaust nozzles.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198
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...

Still waiting for a source.
sferrin, you wil find some information in this document. The rest is gleaned from memory in documents and interviews probably no longer found online.

Thank you!
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198

That is fast for a bomb drop, 41.2 seconds, especially for the bombs to be the Small Diameter Bombs. Another thing were they dropped onto separate targets?

The time and being on separate targets isn't beyond belief. It's just that I think it might be fan art, It definitely isn't a real video.

 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
590

That is fast for a bomb drop, 41.2 seconds, especially for the bombs to be the Small Diameter Bombs. Another thing were they dropped onto separate targets?

The time and being on separate targets isn't beyond belief. It's just that I think it might be fan art, It definitely isn't a real video.


Taken in by fan art yet again. Damn it. Thanks sferrin. Got to be extra careful with those people doing fan art these day's.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,854
Reaction score
1,991
Heavy bombers married to PGMs is just an awesome warfighter overmatch and a real strategic conventional deterrent.

US should continue to support a large robust bomber force of high-low super stealthy / bomb truck / arsenal plane force.
 

FIMMCH98

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I know the B-1 has never used it's external hardpoints. But let's say there are used to carry B61s or AGM-86s. Would that block the internal bomb bays?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
829
Reaction score
451
I think the external ordnance had to be released before the bomb bays had clearance.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
1,917

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
829
Reaction score
451
I have a hard time believing anything could come out of the back two bomb bays in the configuration. Everything I've heard is that the turbulence between the nacelles gets really bad. I read once that the B-1 was limited to just sixteen Mk82 (500#) JDAMs and when I actually found a guy who claimed to be a B-1Nav named Calvin, he confirmed. I asked him about that; he said that to drop that size bomb they had to use the same rack as the CBU-87s (10x per bay) but that ordnance had separation issues - the front bay could carry the full ten, but the next one only four, and the back bay only two, for the total that I'd read of sixteen. I assume something about the aerodynamics or weight of TMDs allowed for the full number to be carried. But point being, that's rough air and I doubt lining the area around the bomb bays with draggy pylons and 3000lb missiles is going to smooth it out.

Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
829
Reaction score
451
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
Not seeing anything that contradicts my post.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,906
Reaction score
2,198
Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.

Yeah, that's not true. Go to the previous page and the top of this one.
Not seeing anything that contradicts my post.
"You can lead a horse to water..."
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
712
You could skip the oblique references and spell it out. Or link to the item.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
I have a hard time believing anything could come out of the back two bomb bays in the configuration. Everything I've heard is that the turbulence between the nacelles gets really bad. I read once that the B-1 was limited to just sixteen Mk82 (500#) JDAMs and when I actually found a guy who claimed to be a B-1Nav named Calvin, he confirmed. I asked him about that; he said that to drop that size bomb they had to use the same rack as the CBU-87s (10x per bay) but that ordnance had separation issues - the front bay could carry the full ten, but the next one only four, and the back bay only two, for the total that I'd read of sixteen. I assume something about the aerodynamics or weight of TMDs allowed for the full number to be carried. But point being, that's rough air and I doubt lining the area around the bomb bays with draggy pylons and 3000lb missiles is going to smooth it out.

Academic I think, because no one is investing any time or money getting the externals operational (outside the SNIPER pod) on the small number of tired aircraft that are combat coded. B-1 is I think the first platform due to be replaced by B-21 now.

Yes, Calvin from the old RAM days...Back in the day we were both at Dyess at the same time. When GBU-38 first arrived on the scene you are correct it could only be carried in the 10 bys since they were the only 1760 enabled bys with 14 inch lugs. Granted it's been over 15 years, so memory is faded, but fin clearance was the limiting issue for number of GBU-38's in a 10 by as they were intended for CBU's. I forget the total number carried but it was less than 10. The air was clean for the front two bays, but you are correct the rear bay couldn't drop GBU-38 at least up until 2008-9 when I finally left bombers. FWIW I've actually seen some of the GBU-38 separation videos, it isn't so much that the bomb separates unsafe, like a certain configuration on the BUFF where GBU-12 from the bay came back and hit the aircraft, but that it causes the weapon to be ineffective.

Well after I left, they added GBU-38 to the rotaries, two for every 30 inch lug. With the demise of CBU's not even sure if the 10 bys are still around these days. Don't get me started on the 28's...
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
829
Reaction score
451
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.

I never really knew him well, just ran into him a few times in the hallways in the squadron, chatted and knew who he was. How many, GBU-38's can a 10 by carry is an academic discussion these days, since a rotary can carry up to 16 or mix and match with 2000 lb class weapons.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
829
Reaction score
451
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.

I never really knew him well, just ran into him a few times in the hallways in the squadron, chatted and knew who he was. How many, GBU-38's can a 10 by carry is an academic discussion these days, since a rotary can carry up to 16 or mix and match with 2000 lb class weapons.

I had seen a photo where they were carried that way as a test (they looks like they were slightly staggered on the rotary position) but I didn't know that upgrade/carriage was fleet wide. Thanks again.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.

I never really knew him well, just ran into him a few times in the hallways in the squadron, chatted and knew who he was. How many, GBU-38's can a 10 by carry is an academic discussion these days, since a rotary can carry up to 16 or mix and match with 2000 lb class weapons.

I had seen a photo where they were carried that way as a test (they looks like they were slightly staggered on the rotary position) but I didn't know that upgrade/carriage was fleet wide. Thanks again.

NP, Libya was the first time that mod was used IIRC. Pretty sure there's something on the AF webpage about it if the archives go that far back...
 

MAMA CASS

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Has the B-1 ever been named "Excalibur"? I could swear I saw somewhere that the B-1A was named that but have never been able to track it down. Trying to find the source of this "memory".
Excalibur was a name given to a alert aircraft. It was the nose art 1986-1990 Dyess AFB.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
214
Reaction score
200
Thanks for the info! I perhaps incorrectly remembered the GBU-38 discussion I had with Calvin; it was years ago. Wish him well if you are in contact; I met him on TankNet but haven't seen him there for a year or so.

I never really knew him well, just ran into him a few times in the hallways in the squadron, chatted and knew who he was. How many, GBU-38's can a 10 by carry is an academic discussion these days, since a rotary can carry up to 16 or mix and match with 2000 lb class weapons.

I had seen a photo where they were carried that way as a test (they looks like they were slightly staggered on the rotary position) but I didn't know that upgrade/carriage was fleet wide. Thanks again.

Josh_TN,

Here's a few pictures to give you an idea of GBU-38's on a 10 by and on the rotary adapter. The first are 10 bys and the later are on rotaries. All pictures from the AF, either AF website or the Eglin wing.

090129-F-9919G-842 10 by.jpg
090422-F-7824S-969 10 by.jpg
110401-F-KI416-001 Rotary.jpg
110401-F-KI416-003 Rotary.jpg
110401-F-KI416-103 Rotary.jpg
110404-F-JZ021-936 Rotary.jpg
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
243
Reaction score
404
 

Similar threads

Top