Thanks guys, I was thinking of the 20,000lb tank and didn’t realize there was a shortened option for ALCM carriage. Actually I didn’t realize B-1s had a configuration for internal ALCMs. The B-1 uses a separate shorter rotary launcher than the common strategic used for AGM-86 (and other stores), correct?

Also at this point there isn’t any limitation to what the B-1 can carry so long as it isn’t nuclearized? Were not the hard point and bulkhead limitations part of old START, with New START just limiting the total number of launch platforms?
 
Thanks guys, I was thinking of the 20,000lb tank and didn’t realize there was a shortened option for ALCM carriage. Actually I didn’t realize B-1s had a configuration for internal ALCMs. The B-1 uses a separate shorter rotary launcher than the common strategic used for AGM-86 (and other stores), correct?

I showed up long after START, so I never saw the ALCM rotary for the Bone. The CSRL’s now in use were the nuclear ones modified for conventional weapons. It’s also pretty questionable how well the aircraft would fly with 20 ALCM’s on board, lots of weight and lots of drag. The plane doesn’t have enough wing and thrust to fly heavy in the 20’s when it’s heavy. That said, the thought was when the B-2’s took over the penetration role that the Bones would become ALCM shooters. With the end of the Cold War and SAC The capability was never pursued, the boxes never purchased and in the early 2000’s the space was used for data link boxes.

Also at this point there isn’t any limitation to what the B-1 can carry so long as it isn’t nuclearized? Were not the hard point and bulkhead limitations part of old START, with New START just limiting the total number of launch platforms?

The only limitation to what it can carry is what’s certified, there are some weapons that won’t come out of some bays nicely. Some were dropped but never certified. The OAS also would need the right software for some other weapons, so there’s stuff that isn’t/won’t be integrated given the limited life left on the airframes.

I was a START escort and did escort the Russians for one of their visits (they seemed to like the Taste of Abilene weekend). The external hard points had to be disabled by a ”process equivalent to welding”. When we integrated Sniper we had to get the Russians to agree that it wasn’t a treaty violation to use the pylon. To be honest I was long gone from bombers when new START arrived, so what you’ve read is as good as my knowledge Of the topic.
 
Thanks guys, I was thinking of the 20,000lb tank and didn’t realize there was a shortened option for ALCM carriage. Actually I didn’t realize B-1s had a configuration for internal ALCMs. The B-1 uses a separate shorter rotary launcher than the common strategic used for AGM-86 (and other stores), correct?

I showed up long after START, so I never saw the ALCM rotary for the Bone. The CSRL’s now in use were the nuclear ones modified for conventional weapons. It’s also pretty questionable how well the aircraft would fly with 20 ALCM’s on board, lots of weight and lots of drag. The plane doesn’t have enough wing and thrust to fly heavy in the 20’s when it’s heavy. That said, the thought was when the B-2’s took over the penetration role that the Bones would become ALCM shooters. With the end of the Cold War and SAC The capability was never pursued, the boxes never purchased and in the early 2000’s the space was used for data link boxes.

Also at this point there isn’t any limitation to what the B-1 can carry so long as it isn’t nuclearized? Were not the hard point and bulkhead limitations part of old START, with New START just limiting the total number of launch platforms?

The only limitation to what it can carry is what’s certified, there are some weapons that won’t come out of some bays nicely. Some were dropped but never certified. The OAS also would need the right software for some other weapons, so there’s stuff that isn’t/won’t be integrated given the limited life left on the airframes.

I was a START escort and did escort the Russians for one of their visits (they seemed to like the Taste of Abilene weekend). The external hard points had to be disabled by a ”process equivalent to welding”. When we integrated Sniper we had to get the Russians to agree that it wasn’t a treaty violation to use the pylon. To be honest I was long gone from bombers when new START arrived, so what you’ve read is as good as my knowledge Of the topic.
I know it's a pipe dream but would a swap for F135s fit and if so how do you think it would change things?
 
I showed up long after START, so I never saw the ALCM rotary for the Bone. The CSRL’s now in use were the nuclear ones modified for conventional weapons. It’s also pretty questionable how well the aircraft would fly with 20 ALCM’s on board, lots of weight and lots of drag. The plane doesn’t have enough wing and thrust to fly heavy in the 20’s when it’s heavy. That said, the thought was when the B-2’s took over the penetration role that the Bones would become ALCM shooters. With the end of the Cold War and SAC The capability was never pursued, the boxes never purchased and in the early 2000’s the space was used for data link boxes.
I know it's a pipe dream but would a swap for F135s fit and if so how do you think it would change things?
Well @sferrin it’s very interesting that you ask that particular question. When Col George was the 7 BW/CC a group of Washington think tank types flew to Abilene to pitch the F119 re-engine proposal to get his feedback since he just got out of a staff role for SECAF, and I got an advance copy and invite to the pitch. The sources that group used were seriously suspect, which I pointed out to my squadron commander, but wasn’t about to point out in a room full of Lt Col’s and Col’s, especially since Col George was highly supportive of my application to go to UPT. Pretty much use F135’s was my recommendation to my squadron commander, so funny you mention that!

That said, at the time of the pitch, 2003-4, the F135 was very much WIP. It’s all highly speculative, what ifs, but they would definitely improve higher altitude performance. The lower bypass ratio would have a better thrust lapse than the F101, and the F135 would put out as much static thrust in Mil as the F101 in full burner. It’s questionable if the structure could handle 50% more thrust without massive upgrade. It’s also a fair question if the fixed inlets would be able to provide adequate flow to the engine that would allow super-cruise. Now, bring back the variable intakes of the A model…

Here are a few screen captures from my 1986 USAF TPS manual performance section that illustrate the engineering at work. IMG_0253.jpeg
IMG_0250.jpeg

Now, the aerodynamics aren’t going to change so the wing loading subsonic will not be affected regardless of how much thrust is present. The amount of help though can be extrapolated from the turn charts in the -1 by comparison of the Mil level turn versus the full burner for level turns at altitude. Now, if the inlets are reworked for supersonic then the level flight turns get higher. The only problem there is that bomb bay doors are limited to .94 M, not an insurmountable problem, but again a lot more work plus all of the safe separation work for supersonic flight, shock waves make that a lot of fun. If it works though it could give a lot more range for JDAM’s.

It’s an interesting intellectual bunny trail, no doubt.
 
Le Bourget airshow will host a B-1 this year. Not quite sure yet if there will be a flying demonstration but landing and takeoff will be something to see for most visitors.
 
Let's see what happens TomcatVIP, it will be interesting to see if the BONE gets to fly at Paris. One of the loudest planes I have ever had the pleasure to see.
 
Erik Johnston said:
B-1 Walkaround Lancer Bone
The most detailed walkaround documentary of the B-1 to this day!! It's crazy long but full of tons of information about this amazing airplane and the people that maintain and crew it.
Would like to thank my friends Jeff Bolton, Justin Oakes, and all the Air Force Personnel at Ellsworth AFB for helping me make this video. This was an amazing experience that I will never forget!!
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/gqDj7o19CWw

Code:
https://youtu.be/gqDj7o19CWw
 

This one hits home, one of my old jets, on the flight line I used to work, on a maintenance check that I’ve performed and seen done hundreds of times…. Glad no one was seriously injured.
 
Wasn't the bulkhead supposed to be removeable anyway?

Yes, and it looked like they did that with one B-1 and put a mock up AGM-183 in there. But I have no idea how practical it is to actually carry ARRW or HACM internally for testing in terms of wiring, separation, etc., nor whether there's any physical limitations or drawbacks to moving the bulkhead between the front two bays. It may still be easier to just mount things externally, especially if you are only using one hard point for testing. Less moving parts.

EDIT: about half way down this article there is a pic of a B-1 with an AGM-183-ish mock up internally; I assume this involved the bulkhead being moved or removed:

 
Last edited:
How hard would it be to move the bulkhead and carry an oversized piece of hypersonic ordnance internally instead? More of a pain than rewiring the external hard points?
Pain is a relative term. As laid out in your post way less. Now, when it comes to treaties, compliance, foreign governments and such the relative comment comes into play ;). That of course presupposes the thing with fit inside the bay on a rotary.
 
View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

 
Last edited:
View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

Glad everyone got out okay!

Will have to see what the cause of the crash was...
 

Attachments

  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (3).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (3).jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 44
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (2).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (2).jpg
    123.3 KB · Views: 42
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (1).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (1).jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 34
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc.jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 33
I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.
 
Probably waiting for the crash investigators to arrive (because they can't fly into that base with the airspace closed!)

They would want to do a detailed assessment of the aircraft and its salvageability before they touched it. In the case of the last B-2 accident, that meant closing the main runway for weeks IIRC. In this case, the aircraft is off the runway and seems much more likely to be an open and close write off, but they won't want to bring in bulldozers until they confirm that and strip anything salvageable off the wreck.
 
In the case of the B-2, toxic damaged composites. Also massive effort to figure our how to move the $2 billion National Asset. You don't want to be the crane operator who dropped your end and broke the B-2 in half.
 
That reminds me of the crash of the B-2 and subsequent fire at Whiteman several years ago now aim9xray.
 
Live ammunition on board? Waiting for everything that might blow up to cool down?
On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.
 
On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.
Yeah, the BDU-33's account for the most injuries of any USAF munitions from drops. Most of what gets dropped for training are concrete shapes, so no cook off risk. We did table top the incident in Qatar where the bombs did cook off when I was in the 419th, scarry AF.
 
I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.
The gear are either sheared off or up and the spine looks burned through, no way that bird can be safely lifted. I used to run Maintenance Flight at Dyess ages ago and the AR troops worked for me (they're the ones who get the bags out to lift jets, yes, I got to see it done for practice, the time they actually had to lift a jet whose nose gear collapsed they used the Navy's crane).
 
These are pictures from a Rockwell Appreciation folder dated 1973. It has some nice shots of a B-1 engineering model being built. Might have been given to the modeler, don't know. The base of that finished model is 12" x 6"ish. It's a big model.
Interesting look at shape details and how they built these cool models. I have a few more if interested. ab1a (2).JPG ab1a (3).JPG ab1a (5).JPG ab1a (7).JPG
 
Are thumbnails better than full size images to attach?
Thumbnails reduce the time it takes to load entire pages. In my experience, smartphones and tablet load pages in a fraction of the time it takes to load pages with multiple full images.
Desktop and laptop are less affected.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom