I was today years old when I learned the B-1 has a larger payload capacity than the B-52. That's crazy.

We used a B-1B in close air support in Afghanistan. It flew at about 100ft off the ground over a village. Literally scared the shit out of them. I was on the ground with the Army and we appreciated their help and the devastating effect on the morale of the enemy.

@matt3950

2 жыл бұрын

Not gonna get that effect from a drone flyover.

@craiganthonyfutch

2 жыл бұрын

😆 🤣 😂 😹

@ThomasLee123

7 ай бұрын

Can't imagine that huge monster flying over your head.

The fact that the AC130 enters a turn to fire is a feature and not a constraint.

@rangerman375

2 жыл бұрын

A pylon turn reduces the overall aiming errors because the deviation of range from aircraft to target is reduced, a "fixed" gun allows more accurate and less complicated (read lighter) associated equipment allowing more ammunition to be carried, and lastly having it in a manned bay vs autoloader allows for more readily adjusted projectile characteristics on the cheap IE manually by crew vs electronically. Barely-smart (ie, basic GPS guided gravity) SDM's are a better use for a fast bomber like a B1, as not everything needs (and I hesitate to say this as a former Infantryman who appreciates our usual battlefield airspace monopoly) a two thousand pound bomb, and the B1's speed allows it to flex more in terms of rapid battlespace coverage.

@N330AA

2 жыл бұрын

@@rangerman375 Also once you are past the target your effective muzzle velocity is going to be way lower. You either do a strafe or pylon turn or as you say, use a cheap bomb.

@MajesticDemonLord

2 жыл бұрын

"It's not a Bug, it's a feature" Spoken like a true Developer....

@N330AA

2 жыл бұрын

@@MajesticDemonLord Guilty as charged

@mickberick8575

2 жыл бұрын

It's both

Having been on the ground in the thick of it, I can attest to the fact that these pilots will do a show of force, even with empty bays, just to give other support assets time to move into the area. Theres something majestic about knowing Bone is coming and catching a glint and not hearing anything as you realize they are really booking it, then that pass overhead, the thunderous roar, the boom, and the turn and climb like they are a pissed off hornet that has your name after you just kicked the hive. Watching them disappear out of sight and knowing the bad guys are deaf, shaken, and hunkered down expecting another pass or a bomb. Everything goes quiet after they make their presence known. I'd honestly love to see the idea come to pass and have their squadron called the Grim Reapers and the plane designated the B1-S Scythe.

@chrisward4576

2 жыл бұрын

I love that attitude

@danielboatright8887

2 жыл бұрын

Scythe ? Ok, that fits. And the gun pod doesnt even need to be that special, just design a module for the bomb bay that uses the same weapon system that the AH64 uses, you get something that can punch armor and is explosive so you only have to hit near the target If it wasnt so jam prone Id say put a Mk19 on the gun pod, cause that area of effect would be great for reducing/killing enemy foot mobiles.

@Deathbomb9

2 жыл бұрын

@JZ's Best Friend that is fluid. Depends on who is shooting at who first from day to day and the goals set forth. And a good portion of the fighting in Iraq was by foreign nations from other countries in the region or abroad. If I may make a correction, the term you're looking to use is Afghans, Afghani is the currency of Afghanistan. I'd honestly like to say that taking a war started on us soil to the fields and caves of the group that plan ed and executed that attack would make NATO the good ones. When the vast majority of what we did was trying to support that country to handle it's own issues and not running the show the entire time. There were rules, but that would be the same if the US became a government against the people and a foreign military came in to assist in both prosecutions and trials, as well as stabilizing the country to allow us to get back on our feet and hold elections and reconstruct the government. They would be a military presence that would deter outside proponents from stepping in to possibly steal power or take over and become the rulers of the land. They would support local governments and public service members like police and federal agents to ensure no land defined as that country was taken by another. Not that many countries would want to or try to do such a thing if civil war happened in the US. They all know there are more guns than breathing souls in this country and that becomes a nightmare on several levels, especially when those people hold world records, and tend to be steady on the trigger. A single sniper can stop an entire brigade and possibly a division. And not knowing what else is hiding would be another worry. I could go into extreme detail of how far I think a foriegn military would make.it into the US before coming to a dead halt and not being able to gain anymore ground and the nightmares they would face. Even if the military wasnt involved, they would face so much criticism as well as backlash. Think red dawn but cut it down to about a week at most and less civilian deaths.

@usonumabeach300

2 жыл бұрын

Many of the fighters in both theatres were non native combatants there for jihad.

@Deathbomb9

2 жыл бұрын

@@usonumabeach300 more so when talking about Iraq. There were some in Afghanistan, but they were a small percentage.

Tell me if the Bone isn't one of the sexiest planes out there, God what lines!

@douglaswims5763

2 жыл бұрын

I do agree

@sfertonoc

2 жыл бұрын

And when it goes on climb outs from Nellis on missions at a late dusk with the 4 ABs on, it is like wow!

@xx_insert_cool_username_he6876

2 жыл бұрын

sending this to rule 34 artists rn

@robertcook2572

2 жыл бұрын

Beautiful, menacing, spectacular; all these adjectives apply, and yet, it has never really found a proper role. Overshadowed operationally, and in longevity, by its grandfather, the B52, and threatened with obsolescence by its grandson, the B21. It will be remembered for never quite living up to its potential, and for giving the lie to the phrase 'if it looks right, it is right'.

@timberwolf27

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertcook2572 The B1's prototype was fast as hell, like mach 3 almost?

What people seem to forget or may not know, is that when congress approved the building of the B-1, they limited the amount of spare parts built. This was in order to get it through the congressional budgeting process. This has always been the limiting factor in the further extension of the B-1 utilization. It's simply running out of spare parts. This is unlike the B-52 that had a butt load of aircraft and spare parts built. And is a major reason that the B-52 is planned to be used until approximately 2040.

@classicgalactica5879

2 жыл бұрын

The last B-1B Lancer is slated to be retired in 2036, the B-2 Spirit in 2032. The B-52 Stratofortress is slated to fly into the 2050's, serving alongside the B-21 Raider which will presumably eventually be the sole heavy strategic bomber operated by the USAF.

@davidr1676

2 жыл бұрын

Not enough bombers either way. Should have come back with a later bill adding another 50 to 100 B-1 types and spare parts. B2s had an almost jokingly small end production number and we've already lost one plus they aren't all set up for the same intended use but a mix. I still remember all the frigging B52s flying in the 70s as those, refueling planes, and cargo had the same approach that brought them over our roof in Guam. After a couple of months we only maybe noticed if we were outside. The fighters must've landed differently and the Naval and Marine planes had a different location to land at when the carriers came to town. Unsure if they had anything calling Guam home that wasn't assigned to leave with the carriers. The B52 had enormous numbers built over the years. We should have match those numbers with the A10 but upgraded that, perhaps even adding some gun pods on the wings to take out troops without wasting 30 mm depleted uranium on humans as even a burst fires alot of ammo.

@teddy.d174

2 жыл бұрын

Ahhh yes…..Congress…F’g up America one bill at a time.

@anydaynow01

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidr1676 Yeah it would be interesting to see an A-10 with the minigun pods they use on some of the gunships. They do have the "steel rain" cluster munitions though which are pretty effective.

@gungadinn

2 жыл бұрын

I worked for a sub contractor to Rockwell building the B-1a and B-1b. Jimma Carter was the one that got the B-1a canceled as he believed there was no need for a supersonic bomber. (whats a sub guy know about aircraft?) We built 4 ship sets of horizontal and vertical stabilizers and mode control vanes, then the B-1a was canceled. There was over a 4 year production halt, while a redesign was hatched into the B-1b. Cheaper to build, and no longer supersonic. 2 (mach 2+ for the B-1a vs mach 1.2 B-1b) The contract for the B-1b was 100 ship sets, however 101 sets of horizontal and vert cal stabilizers were built when a transportation accident consumed a set in a fire. Final assembly was completed in Palmdale California. As a contractor, we heard all kinds of negative things about the aircraft. Sluggish handling, over weight, under powered, and of course, over budget. I was in Wichita Kansas working a project at McConnell AFB that had a squadron of B-52 and B-1b's at the time. When the B-1's were fired up, everyone took notice. They did a low level fly-by into a vertical climb, full after burner. The entire hanger shook and the noise was deafening. So much for being under powered.

In Vietnam having high speed low drag assets appear as if from nowhere made me smile. They came at a subsonic speed, just short of supersonic, at what looked like just short of the trees or terrain. If the B1 B can give tomorrow's troops the same feeling, I am all for it.

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

It can come in supersonic at treetop level if you want.

@douglasgault5458

2 жыл бұрын

It does this very well. I was in Nam in 74 & so i know exactly what your taking about. I've also worked out at the Nellis bombing & gunner range & the B1b can watch my back anytime. It's great at everything it does & its on target.

@ryankiesow8440

2 жыл бұрын

F-111 ardvark? Edit: just figured this would be the high speed low drag strike bomber of the time

@garrypeek897

2 жыл бұрын

I was in Nam in 70 and I never saw one.I spent a couple of mos in Thailand and we had a bunch of 52s.

@rancidpitts8243

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryankiesow8440 The F 111 should have been named the B 111. It was meant to be a low flying, to avoid Radar, get in quick, drop bombs and get out as quick. It maneuvered as well as a loaded Dump Truck with a flat tire. It was NO Tactical fighter.

Jesus. It’s like mounting a mini gun on a vette. Fastest drive bye ever

@eugenebridgesii7582

2 жыл бұрын

Add railguns or a high powered laser, like they did in that movie starring Val Kilmer.

@animalanimal7939

2 жыл бұрын

@@eugenebridgesii7582 I love it. You have great ideas.

@legionx4046

2 жыл бұрын

Physics would slow the vette

@anydaynow01

2 жыл бұрын

Nap-of-the-earth flying with the precision munitions they have today would put on one hell of a show, the battery of miniguns would be icing on the cake! Still no replacement for a few A-10s or AH-64s once air superiority is established in really close quarters fighting though.

@air_

2 жыл бұрын

@@legionx4046 if you point the minigun the opposite way you get more thrust

Best use for the B1B would be using it for anti ship warfare, it would give a quick response to any navel threat.

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

It could also make a great refueling station & ordinance truck for F-35's in any theater.

@safetyfirstintexas

2 жыл бұрын

With the flying bombs online now a high speed bombing run would be ideal. Launch at speed from 45 miles away.

@akithemeatball6768

2 жыл бұрын

F-35's and F-22's can be equipped with LRASM and it would be easier to take down ships rather than using a heavy bomber

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

@@akithemeatball6768 Depends on where the ship is.

@thereyougoagain1280

2 жыл бұрын

@@akithemeatball6768 the B-1 has a much larger payload, can maintain high speed for longer, and has a greater overall range. As an anti-shipping aircraft, it’s superior, especially when dealing with entire fleets rather than individual ships. The Russians have long recognized the practicality of heavy bombers armed with anti-ship missiles defending the coast from major naval threats. The only downside of the B-1 is the cost. Also, the F-22 can’t carry the LRASM.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Back in the 90's, in the Corps, I had one opportunity to work with a B1 for CAS in The Stumps. It was nothing short of majestic.

i worked at Edwards Air Force Base, and saw B1-B fly right over me on the edge of a bombing range. Got to tell you, It just looks like the best thing since sliced bread. like a goose profile. you don't even hear it coming. also saw the first B2 land at EAFB and the space shuttle a bunch of times. what a fun place to work and play with bomb stuff.

@deanludwig3687

2 жыл бұрын

I was stationed at Edwards AFB from 82--84. At that time I worked on Mickey D's F4 Phantom IIs. I worked on various Avionics/Nav systems and in the shop repairing all the sub-systems thereof. Also trained other troops in my squadron in the same field. When I exited the USAF at Edwards I was hired at the Boeing Mojave Test Center, Edwards. When a max load four engine afterburn minimum runway takeoff was performed at midnight on a certain day. That was the most impressive takeoff I ever witnessed while standing next to runway 22 at the first runway access point just after the hammerhead launch point. The noise of those engine's was so extremely loud that even though I was wearing double hearing protection. My body was vibrating unbelievably and so was the ground and our radio van. The aircraft rolled up about fifty yard's past our point of observation. The blue flames coming out of all four of those engine's were being deflected off the runway when the Aircraft rolled up and left the ground. With it's speed rapidly increasing the pilot had kept the aircraft high enough to retract the gear but, the blue flames were still being deflected about a mile down the runway before pilot started a radical climb upwards. The only other aircraft that I witnessed that was very loud was a sr 71 however, the b1-b is much louder. All the technician's from all the companies that were working on the b1-b dubbed it the b1rd or bird. We wanted to name it the Penetrator as it could penetrate an area without notice... Hope you enjoyed this tidbit of history and trivia.

Gekko: _Ollie! Get me in on a 90-degree angle on Boeing stock! AND I MEAN ALL THE WAY IN!!!_ Ollie: _You betcha Mr. Gekko!_

While an interesting "what if?", this concept ignores the fact that the fleet is worn out and in the process of being retired. As of 2019 the AF had only 7 fully mission-capable Bones out of a fleet of 62, and earlier this year sent the first of 17 sleighted for retirement to Davis Monthan. They are canabalizing them at a fearsome rate to keep a handful flying. There will be no AC-1 gunship

@GeoFry3

2 жыл бұрын

They've been poking around with this what if since before I worked on it 1996-2006. There was a similar idea for the B-52. Personally I want to see an AC-747. That would be something to behold.

@GeoFry3

2 жыл бұрын

@Ci Absalon usually what I saw on the ground was it leaking hydro and oil and the sound of freedom ringing in my ears from its four engines was tinnitus. It was awesome to watch her go when we could coax her to fly. It was very much the Milenium Falcon.

@GeoFry3

2 жыл бұрын

@Ci Absalon yep. Nothing like being piled into a launch truck just across the ramp when they lit the burners and blast off. So loud couldn't hear yourself in your own head.

@GeoFry3

2 жыл бұрын

@Ci Absalon I got kind of jaded being around them all the time. Ellsworth B1B and Edward's B1B, B52H, and B2A. I lived 15 miles from base and I could hear them running engines late into the night. It meant I would be doing system checkouts all the next day. Didn't start loving heavies again until after I changed over to the HH-53.

@IshijimaKairo

2 жыл бұрын

@Ci Absalon you sure? We've got some cool stuff planned.

I was stationed at Dyess AFB from 82/90, we were the first home of the B1B and I was there for it's arrival in 85 after we lost our B52 mission. The original 96th!

B1 is the most beautiful plane ever built.

I seem to recall reading an article, some time back, suggesting that the B-1B's potential as massive a2a missile platform, used in concert with smaller stealth aircraft, might be a potent tactical live-war solution. In that scenario, the F-22 or F-35s would open the door, followed by the B-1B that, in the face of an intensive enemy fighter response, would unleash an a2a missile salvo in such numbers as to essentially 'clear the skies' of any opponents. Thus letting the gunships stick to the 'big and slow' ground-pound support role, and letting the Lancer fly in fast, unload hell on an enemy air force, and be back in friendly skies before anybody can do anything about it. Kinda like that solution...

@chriss-nf1bd

2 жыл бұрын

It was called the B1R A concept never funded.

@tomkelley9847

2 жыл бұрын

I saw that too.

@colinhobbs7265

2 жыл бұрын

Eh, that sort of job could be performed by payload carrying drones such as the Loyal Wingman that would accompany the F35s in.

@Robert-Cinque777

2 жыл бұрын

Like in the doku "dogfights"? B-1r

@W1ldTangent

Жыл бұрын

That's basically the Air Force's idea of kicking the door in and spraying the room with automatic weapons fire

Over the years I've grown into a fan of the B1. I've done quite a bit of work out at the Nellis Bomb & Gunnery Range in Nevada. And over the years I've witnessed that amazing capabilities of the B1. And what a high speed ground hugging capability. It's amazing to watch these things at 75 feet off the ground. And by the time you hear it it's gone. Once time while on top of a ridge one flew no more than 25-30 ft over the crew. Then dropped down into canyon floor 1700 below us for his bombing run. It was an amazing masterful maneuver he rolled into a right banking dive coming over this ridge and was leveled out just above the desert floor. And when he pulled out his jet wash was kicking up a cloud of dirt. I was surprised to see them survive this maneuver and still hit their target 5 miles away. Your always carrying a good set of field glasses working out there. This was also the closest that I've ever been to a bombing target.

I've seen those B1Bs personally. I lived on the end of that base for several years while my wife and I lived and worked at Ellsworth Air force base in Rapid City, S.D. and those are the Black Hills you see behind the planes taking off and my house was at the base of that hill , literally. And The city in the background is Rapid City.

Super cool video! That B1 still has a lot of potential with all that speed.

I mean it could be used as oversized A-10, just imagine A-10s main gun times 3 underwing gunpods

@kolideoskope

2 жыл бұрын

B-1 has 3 bomb bays, put a GAU-8 in each of them

@ML-sc3pt

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine how much that would stress the hull though

Would love to see this channel do a deep-dive on the B-1 starting from the A model and its resurrection as the B. It was a striking aircraft that always seemed the victim of poor timing when trying to find its mission.

@dianapennepacker6854

8 ай бұрын

A model would have been awesome honestly. Can't believe how much speed it has over the b1. I thought the military already had plans converting the b1 into a missile boat to work in conjunction with other aircraft? Saw that on future weapons over a decade ago...

One of weaknesses of C-130 is it can not escape quickly from Hot Sky (Heavy Air defense) as an contingency plan but B-1B can swing its wind and leave the area

i was living by the las vegas speedway for a few months and these beasts where always coming in and out. beautiful !

I was not far from a b-1b run when he dropped his full load only about a mile from me and he was down on the deck incredible speeds and wipe that Target off the face of the Earth. Also the fact that they could get into the Battle Zone faster from the base when seconds count would make me feel a whole lot better in the middle of a shitstorm. This concept is got two thumbs up for me.

@dougmoore7855

2 жыл бұрын

Ok but was it really 86K lbs of ordnance?

I remember seeing on history Channel a show where they had f 22's targeting multiple fighters around 20 or so and also ground/naval targets and then relying it to a b1 as a missle truck that fired long range missles at the target

@charles97th

2 жыл бұрын

I remember seeing that, too.

@kazansky22

2 жыл бұрын

That's what the F-15EX is for.

@alexanderscott9001

2 жыл бұрын

Was hoping to see this comment...lol beat me to the punch. And yeah, looks like the F-15EX is taking that role...

Nothing more badass than a B1B gunship! The concept itself just gives me chills.

It's funny, there's an American author by the name of Dale Brown, who in a book called 'Flight of the Old Dog' wrote about a trials unit based at Boeings Skunkworks which designed and built a B-52 flying battleship fitted with fighter avionics, air to air missiles, cruise missiles, HARMs. The idea being to fly in as a bomber escort. Later books added a B1 -B version, and a stealth F15

@JinKee

2 жыл бұрын

did they call the boeing team “phantom works”? they’re a little sensitive about their identity

@kinte1870

2 жыл бұрын

SKUNKWORKS ISN'T BOEING

@chriscarbaugh3936

2 жыл бұрын

Good book

@paladamashkin8981

2 жыл бұрын

Dale Brown has a very many good books about high tech ideas. Almost every idea is also completely viable.

@frankbuck99

2 жыл бұрын

That is a great book.

Definitely an impressive plane to begin with. I remember seeing, one after the other, take off over I-20 while driving to Dallas, some years ago.

Fun fact. In the 2000's the B-1B was so unreliable from break-downs that they would prep and ready 4 aircraft for 1 sortie. In my unit (AWACS) we would prep 1 spare for 4 to 10 sorties in a given day.

very well produced and presented, thanks!

Your new format sound is waayyyy better. Great work on the improvement.

The B1 bomber seems to be a cold water relic that was caught in between a technology void similar to the B36 peacemaker right after ww2 and its successful B 52

@raym909

2 жыл бұрын

got that wrong. B52 is upgraded and can be again, will be used another 50 years. Go USA

@joemaloney1019

2 жыл бұрын

B1b is a survivor not a relic and it is a survivor be cause it can do things no other plane can. It is basically a semi-stealthy supersonic b52 with swing wings. Of course one political party wanted to scrap it and thank God President Reagon brought it back to life.

Upgrade the avionics, engine, and install laser would still be a good bomb truck for the F35

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

More than that actually, it's a pretty powerful EW platform. Also the B1-B and F-35 have similar speed profiles. Laser would be a great match, due to the B-1's massive power generation. Doesn't really need an updated engine I think, it's the runway model for the updated engines put into the F-15/16/14 in the 90's. Many of it's electronics are reasonably advanced as well. Strategic Air Command gets all the best toys. There's always room to update/upgrade though. More than anything it needs a superstructure overhaul i think. It should have a refueling boom added to refuel F-35's, with optional modular internal fuel tanks replacing (if wanted) the internal ordinance load. Could carry much more than bombs (which would only be viable in safe air space). It could carry a huge load of long range ordinance for less safe territory where the F-35's scout ahead. Anti-air/ship/ground are all possible from very long range with the F-35 picking targets out in front. Could also make a point defense version with a laser, and a 20mm point defense turret. Imagine 1 point defense and 1 refueling B-1B, both with a substantial EW suite and external ordinance load, accompanying a squadron of F-35's for a 2 or 3 thousand mile strike mission, or a half-day long loiter away from an airbase...

@ikabody

2 жыл бұрын

Upgrade the engines, avionics & ew suite & then sell 12 to Australia. We need a capable strategic strike asset with stand off capability.

@Muromez2010

2 жыл бұрын

I bet they did even more on down low

@Muromez2010

2 жыл бұрын

Also AI upgrade to make it a drone

I LOVE THIS AIRCRAFT. This plane may have saved me and the team I led on a mission in Afg. All it took was that incredibly loud aircraft to break through the clouds. When she did, nobody wanted to play anymore. My team had been compromised and we were cut off from the main element almost 2 miles away. Incredibly hostile area in Pattaya Provence.

Used to watch B-1s from Dyess out my dorm room window in Abilene. Gorgeous, deadly aircraft. And this idea-wow!

Great idea use as interdiction fighter with several rotary missile holders and upgrade system to fighter specs and put Vulcan chain gun for up close problems.

I’ve always thought they would do really well as a long range interceptor. Basically a large missile bus with the radar cross section of a smaller aircraft. It could loiter inside friendly airspace and fire salvos of long range air to air missiles that could be directed by friendly aircraft at formations of enemy aircraft or cruise missiles.

@massoverride478

2 жыл бұрын

Strato fortress

@kenm4678

2 жыл бұрын

Dig out some copies of Dale Brown's "Old Dog" books specifically "Battle Born", look for the EB-1c Vampire 1/2.

@nocare

2 жыл бұрын

As stated that is the B-1R concept, however it can't actually loiter in friendly airspace. The only reason the B-1R has longer range than fighters is that it would reach mach 2.2 before missle launch allowing for a 10-30 mile range increase over a more modest mach 1.5-1.8 of an F-16. Also with room for rear aspect radar it could turn cold but maintain lock thus allowing it to maintain range using its superior top speed. The problem is there is no good reason to develop a longer range missile just for the B-1R so its limited to extending AIM-120 range by flying faster. I still love the concept but since missiles are defeated primarily kinetically (bleeding off the missiles energy so it can't achieve intercept) rather than by Hollywood's depiction of it loosing lock. The large number of missiles isn't actually much of an advantage because 10 missiles will all fail the same as 1 if the enemy fighters respect the MAR (minimum abort range)

@craiganthonyfutch

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

@@nocare especially with the „present day/modern” air to air missiles, it won’t bring much to the table besides payload. With missile tech getting more and more advanced the initial speed of the aircraft becomes less and less of a factor, i believe nowadays the major benefit of the launching platform speed is getting the missiles supersonic before it is launched!

The AC-130 is a great crowd-pleaser but it's large size and low speed also make it a SAM and Flack magnet. The B-1 has been optimized as a low-level, terrain hugging, penetrator already, and it's swing wing design allows it to come in either fast or slow. They may want to look into some of the improvements that were planned for the Super Tomcat for ways to improve the low-speed agility over the target. LBJ broke up the molds for the '52, so we aren't getting any more of those. The Lancer is just as good, if not better, so even if SAC is going to stealth, it's still worth having around.

Good video thank you very much keep up the great work

Sounds like someone caught a re-run of "Real Genius".... " hey Steve, come look at this... we should try this!"

Technically it wouldn't have to be as good as the A-10 or AC-130. Just fast enough to get their first and provide the best cover it can, while the slower but more precise groundpounder planes can arrive. As anything providing support is better than nothing to save our troops and allies. Just have the B-1B as the test bed, then later the military once it figures out the effectiveness and its future needs can replace the aging B-1B with a newer plane as eventually a newer plane will just be more cost effective and better designedfor the role. It's a win/win. Troops get faster support with a weapon that can be used danger close, Boeing can keep a plane in the air for a bit longer and the DoD can test out the new patent. I also love the idea of using the B-1B as a long range air-to-air missile platform that uses targeting data from more forward stealth aircraft.

@babylegs5049

2 жыл бұрын

I never considered the b-1 for an air-to-air missle platform. If it housed a bunch of long range missiles, it could have the f-35 pick out all the targets and just let loose not even being close to the engagement area

@DeltaEchoGolf

2 жыл бұрын

Would be good platform for Area Denial weapons. Or to prevent a build-up of enemy forces headed toward friendly forces.

@Generic_Name_1-1

2 жыл бұрын

Except the A10 isnt more accurate than guided weapons, even from seven miles away in the B1Bs case. As much as people like the A10, when it come down to a full scale battlefield with an advanced enemy, the A10 is a flying coffin. Platforms that carry guided munitions like the B1B, F35, F15E, F18 are much better options than the slow, heavy A10.

@Jakob_DK

2 жыл бұрын

We should probably consider the possibility of having to fight an enemy with more advanced weapons. Syria was not attacked, partly because USA did not expect to be able to do so without heavy losses.

@Jakob_DK

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnonYmous-of8ep You have not even looked into how russian air defence works.

I'm New to your Channel BUT I have to say that I LOVE IT! I'm a US Air Force Veteran and have always loved our Aircraft. I have LEARNED SO MUCH from you so far! Excellent 👍 Work 👏

I retired from USAF in 1989 and love to see these types of videos. I've never seen the B-1 in action but I have seen the C-130 gunship in action in South East Asia and I actually got to fly as an observer on one during a Red Flag in 1978. The idea of a C-17 gunship is almost enough to make me want to re-enlist and I turn 70 this year.

@anotherdave5107

2 жыл бұрын

You'd have to pass your critical race theory and social justice courses just to get on base.

Another use would be to carry long-range air-to-air missiles that could be used by F-22 and F-35 stealth jets when they exhaust their onboard weapons. With a data link the crew could select the targets identified by the fighters and each B-1 could carry more than 100 missiles I expect. This would go a long way to eliminate the numerical superiority of our near equal opponents.

@Ocker3

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, airborne designators and missile trucks, all kinds of nasty uses for that strategy.

@josephahner3031

8 ай бұрын

They're already doing this on a smaller scale with the F-15EX. That thing can carry 22 AMRAAMS, A 4 ship flight can manage 88 and can target their own weapons.

Loved the idea of a missile truck for f22 raptors to fly ahead and target all the B1's missiles.

@patta8388

2 жыл бұрын

There's no missile in the US armament that would have the range to pull this of safely

@bbaff8622

2 жыл бұрын

@@patta8388 that we know of.

@patta8388

2 жыл бұрын

@@bbaff8622 New missiles aren't secret...

@patta8388

2 жыл бұрын

@@bbaff8622 New missiles aren't secret...

@bbaff8622

2 жыл бұрын

@@patta8388 The capabilities we know about are about 20 years behind.

I am shocked it has more payload than a B-52, I assumed that is why they kept the old bird around, massive, long distance payload delivery.

Another cool idea would be the EB-1C Vampire from Dale Brown's books. Flying battleship that can carry air to air and air to ground weapons.

Laser particle beam weapons out the bomb bay. Real Genius coming to life! 💥

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

Lasers yes, particle beams no. Particle beams (if by that you mean a hyper-accellerated stream of ionized particles) have terrible range. The particles collide with atmosphere, and repel each other, spreading out. Also you can't aim particle beams like you can a laser because they have a long acceleration path and you can't change the emission point without steering the whole rig around. Particle beams are really only good as a space shot-gun, which isn't all that useful in space either due to the distances involved. Lasers are getting pretty good though.

“So it’s a super sonic quick response, close air support aircraft with a chandelier style weapons platform” “Why are we not funding this!?”

@HuntingTarg

2 жыл бұрын

Because Congress exults in being strategically stupid. Adm. Rickover harangued two sessions of Congress to get them to fund the prototype _U.S.S. Nautilis_ . Once it was built and in front of their faces it was a no-brainer, even for career politicians who don't generally get technology or military strategy.

Such a beauty, love the swing wings.

That would be an amazing platform, I loved working on AC-130'S both H and J models but to put that in a B-1 would be an engineering marvel as would a C-17 or C-5 variant

Dual avenger canons, one on each side of the fuselage.

@Deathbomb9

2 жыл бұрын

Now we're talkin. I like the way you think. Slap a high velocity 76-47mm cannon in the forward bay. The ones that were tested back in the 70s and were the idea for light and medium tanks before the MBT was a fully practiced concept.

@LordOfNihil

2 жыл бұрын

would be awesome, and just think of how big of an ammo drum you could fit in that bomb bay. this thing could stay up all day and take orders. your target is dead in 30 minutes or less or your next one is free.

@legionx4046

2 жыл бұрын

A b-52 with with 8 of the A-10s guns or 3 105s on each side 😂

@Deathbomb9

2 жыл бұрын

@@legionx4046 I think the 3 105s would rip the plane apart if they weren't heavily braced and given a slow return to battery

@sixstringedthing

2 жыл бұрын

"Never let facts stand in the way of a good story". :)

1 multi gigajoule partcle canon, and a modified wing to lower flight speed. Make it netcentric sensored.

@44R0Ndin

2 жыл бұрын

Since you specifically said "particle cannon" and not "laser", that's going to remain science fiction. I know how particle cannons work, and where they're best used. And let me tell you, inside the thick atmosphere of a planet is about the worst place you can fire one. You'll do more damage to yourself from the back-scattered radiation from all those particles hitting the atoms in the atmosphere than you will to your target. Particle cannons of all flavors are almost exclusively for use in the vacuum of space, there's simply too much "stuff" in the way for a particle cannon to have any significant range in the atmosphere. Even then, they're quite limited in range, the damage drops off quickly for proton cannons, and the damage is mostly to electronics for electron cannons. Neutron cannons are pretty much science fiction at the moment because you can't use an electromagnetic field to accelerate a neutron since, well, it's electrically neutral. Plus, where are you going to get the energy for that? Set off a nuclear weapon? There's a lot of issues with doing that, yet it's pretty much the only way we know of to get "multi-gigajoules" in the blink of an eye like you need for a particle cannon. I like the idea of having a B-1 with an advanced weapons system on it, but directed energy tech just isn't there yet, and the power requirements are always going to be an issue unless you use a chemical laser (those have their own issues, the chemicals they use are highly reactive and extremely toxic, usually some sort of fluorine compound is involved and that stuff is just seriously bad news unless it's Teflon). My best bet is have more traditional fighter aircraft be the "scout" that paints targets and sends targeting data back to the B-1, and the B-1 uses its high payload capacity to carry around a lot of long-range and/or stealthy weapons systems that have conventional warheads (or no warhead at all if collateral damage is an issue, simply using the kinetic energy of impact to cause damage, go look up "laser guided concrete bomb" for more info on that).

G.I.JOE needs to make a toy of this, with the gunship version!

For those unaware, if such an aircraft was made it would not be called the AC-1 as I keep seeing posted in these comments. AC stands for Attack Cargo, the first letter is a modifier on the base role denoted by the second letter. The C-130 is a cargo aircraft. When modified to be a gunship it gains the Attack role and A code designation. This is the same reason that the Coast Guard operates the HC-130, H being the code designator for a search and rescue aircraft. If the aircraft is not a standard fixed wing aircraft it doesn't get a primary role and instead gets a type designator, H for helicopter (MH-60 Blackhawk, multirole helicopter, AH-64 Apache, attack helicopter), Q for drone (RQ-4 Global Hawk, reconnaissance drone, MQ-1 Predator, multirole drone), V for VTOL aircraft (AV-8 Harrier, attack VTOL), Z for lighter than air, G for gliders, and S for spaceplanes (not really in use yet). I the B-1 was turned into a gunship it would be the AB-1.

Fit it for the laser.... we all know that's where it belongs. I think the gunship fitting is just a red herring to work on the targeting system for just that.

How about configuring it as an anti-aircraft missile ship? Imagine one leading a group of fighters in against a group of enemy fighters. It opens it bay doors to deploy drums of long distance air-to-air missiles which our fighters would follow. That would break up enemy formations, get a few and leave a scattered enemy for the fighters to mop up. Seems impactful to me.

@arkadious9320

2 жыл бұрын

This could have worked but if you're going this route using a C17 as a stand off missile truck would actually work better. (something they are actually looking into doing now btw) but currently the b52 is also doing this with cruise missiles. The B-1 was obsolete before its actual reveal. . hence why they converted it from the B-1A ( high speed 2.2+ deep pen bomber) to the B1-B (low speed 1.2 low level ground following bomber)

That afghan comment from one side of the country to the other for TIC gave me chills about American fire power 🇺🇸

I like this idea. Especially because of it's speed and experience. These plains can really shake the ground when flying overhead. I work within an 1/8th of a mile from Nellis AFB. They are fun to watch take off.

She’s a beauty; Still my fav. bomber ever; I thought an F-16 was loud taking off full afterburner until I heard a B-1B.... I would like to see this become reality; thinking outside the box 👍🏻

@fw1421

2 жыл бұрын

You should her an A-6 Intruder take off……it’s painful to hear!🙀😩😩😩

Australia should really lease some B1B's that are being retired, if at all possible. It would be extremely beneficial for Australia's defensive capabilities ... ...... ......... 369

@SailfishSoundSystem

2 жыл бұрын

Your defensive capabilities would also be better if your government wasn't draconian on semi-auto rifles and pistols. You should be like Switzerland in case the Chinese come at you from your doorstep.

@craiga7652

2 жыл бұрын

@@SailfishSoundSystem yes very true, a well armed populace is another highly effective deterrence against hostile invasion. That's why the NWO New World Order is trying to collapse America and disarm the people. So the country is open to invasion and they can bring in their One World Government ... ...... ......... 369

@stephenmcdonald7713

2 жыл бұрын

Good idea, certainly anti shipping threats. Add some A10's along with 75 Grippens for the possible shit coming our way from guess who?

An idea I once saw somewhere was using the B1 as a missile truck. Flying behind the fighters or drones giving them more firepower.

Most beautiful plane ever built.

As long as you have air superiority / supremacy anything goes, will it function against a (near) peer enemy, probably not without first gaining air superiority. But for the average asymmetrical war or counter insurgency ops, sure - but would it be more efficient than more suitable platforms?

If it can loiter for hours, then it can spread its wings and fly slow enough for a gun run just fine.

@mrrolandlawrence

2 жыл бұрын

also manpads :(

@iexcaliber2

2 жыл бұрын

There is almost 200,000lbs of fuel on board one of these jets. That’s why it can loiter, not it’s speed. When it’s loitering it’s still probably doing 350kts. Whereas an AC130 is going 150-200kts.

@bryanrussell6679

2 жыл бұрын

@@iexcaliber2 It won't fly as slow as a prop plane, that's for sure. It does gain slow speed flying ability by being able to open the wings to the max @ 15°. It's just that the turbofan engines don't operate efficiently at slower speeds. I think it can maintain speeds lower than 350 knots, but that's just my opinion. I've been trying to find out what the stall speed is for the bone, but I haven't found it published anywhere yet. If boeing's engineers think they can make a gunship out of it, the plane must be able to fly within those parameters. It would be cool if they even just built one as a technology demonstrator.

@kokomo9764

2 жыл бұрын

It cannot loiter for hours. even if it could it is a huge target that would be shot down pretty quickly. This was a nonsense proposal by Boeing. The entire thing was designed to milk the government for money. Boeing is notorious for that. Just like turning the F15 in to a missile truck. That isn't a bad conceptual idea but the F15 is not the right plane. The B1B would be a much better choice for a missile truck.

@jamegumb7298

2 жыл бұрын

@@kokomo9764 The B-1 already loiters for air support. Make the call, get a bomb to drop. Lase if you want or have to. Just adding a gun as an option as opposed to just bombs does not seem too farfetched if you ask me.

Imagine flying this 100 feet above the ground at mach 2 plus! Has to be the best ride in the park!

@therealrvasinger241

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think it goes Mach 2. (The B-1A did). Also, very few Mach 2 planes can go that fast at ground level.

Great video. As in all things, balance of force is what wins the battle. If I were a grunt, calling for an interdiction by means of an airship, the A-10 may make me feel better by being a low flying aircraft, with the ability to actually sight the enemy, but seeing a beautiful B1 at 35000 feet and a few seconds later, seeing an enemy position annihilated by both large, and small caliber munitions has to give you the great pride, and confidence of our ability to protect our service people.

Sounds like a Bone with a load of small diameter bombs or Griffin or Hellfire missiles in one bay and 500-pound bombs in another bay might be more useful.

@paladamashkin8981

2 жыл бұрын

Except you can also wing load the 500s and then put in a gunpack

@hackerjohnt

2 жыл бұрын

@@paladamashkin8981 I guess. But with the SDB and the Griffin you can carry almost as many shots as a gun of useful size those shots would be more accurate and your B-1 is not right on top of the battlefield where it’s getting shot at by shoulder-fired AA missiles.

@paladamashkin8981

2 жыл бұрын

No arguments about keeping it safe. That is always a priority. The reason they still use guns is simple. SDB $250k+ Griffin 750k+ 30mm cartridge w/ bullet $27 And to prevent possible argument these are made up numbers for an example.

Imagine using the B1B as a transport to quickly deliver drones mid air for prolonged close ground support . Sort of like an aircraft aircraft carrier💁🏽‍♂️

@wilhelmheinzerling5341

2 жыл бұрын

Why wouldnt you just use the b1b to do the cas....?

@p4inmaker

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilhelmheinzerling5341 Loitering

@tbusch63

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilhelmheinzerling5341 if a drone gets shot down, it is less of an expense and no human lives are at risk. you could easily buy several hundred drones for the price of 1 B1B Lancer. which in my opinion is one of the Badest ass bombers ever! just the sound of that thing flying over at 500 ft. at Mach 1 would have a whole lotta people shitting themselves, which would temporarily ABSOLUTELY remove them from the battlefield, not counting several enemies dying of a Friggin' Heart Attack!! they wouldn't even know it was coming until it flew over them, and then they would have no time to shoot at it!! just the sound of those engines Rumbling would scare the living shit out of them. and then, add a little sonic boom on top?? F'n Priceless!! : )

John Woodall from Australia. Hello there everyone, Hope your Thursday 04/08 is going nicely, Can't believe how fast this year has gone by. I wrote about this Aircraft being the B1B Lancers some time back, This is a much underated Aircraft. This plane's capabilities are exemplary and her Low Capable flying like the F-111 has not gone astray on many in Australia. With sweeping wings like the F-111 we here are used to the type which has such ability as swing wing. I put it across that the Defence Department here in Australia would do worse than to look at brand new versions of this Aircraft Built for Australia. As a Gunship oh boy you look at the Spectre or Spook C130 Aircraft and say wow where to fit all that is unless they gutted the current bomb Bay's and made use of these over missiles even though let's not forget that missiles can be carried external to the Airframe. On pivot points like the F-111 where the Weapons pylon moves as the wing sweeps to continue to be parallel to the Airframe. In terms of Australia at the moment do we need to look at the B21 Raider or wait a while but not leave us unsecure. We are having all sorts of problems with the Nuclear Submarine settlement. It seems far from complete. The New Build B1 Lancer with in Gunship mode but also Missile carrying ability Makes for a Low Level nightmare for enemies. Regards John Woodall

Amazing aircraft. Keep em flying!

I am thinking that the B-1B might be a better airborne laser...

@canto10mosha65

3 жыл бұрын

Kinda reminds me of that 80’s movie “Real Genius” with Val Kilmer.

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

it would be a great airborne laser as well as an ordinance truck for long range weapons as well as a supersonic refueling platform for F-35's.

A howitzer on a gimbal? Umm, that's a lot of extra stress on the airframe....

@rhubarbpie2027

2 жыл бұрын

The 30mm from the A-10 might be of use, or even a 40mm Bofors.

*Amazing to see. Liked & Subcribed!!!*

All questions best answered by just putting one together and testing it.

A great idea...flying 500' over the deck with "twin" mounted 30mm cannons or special railguns for stand-away bombardment ??!! Lord help me...

How about stuffing a B1 with AIM 120 or Phoenix type missiles and have it go along with fighters.

@Deathbomb9

2 жыл бұрын

You're sick. This would be a Sukhoi or Migs nightmare, but I like it. Have them hang back at max operating altitude, and recieving target data from F-22 and F-15 fighters as the F-16s make it look like they intend to merge for a fight.

@kfeltenberger

2 жыл бұрын

This is an existing proposal; the B-1R Regional Bomber concept. It would be ~Mach 2, have about 80% of the range, but be fitted with more modern engines, avionics, and be capable of carrying a *lot* of AIM-120 (or its successor or Meteor) missiles. The one scenario I read was that it would use F-35s or other Gen-4/5 fighters to acquire and target the enemy aircraft and then it would act as a sort of "arsenal ship in the sky" by launching the missiles. Forward thinking to be sure.

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

You could also add a retractable refueling boom... PS: I'd go with AIM-260's, or air-launched SM-6 (it's a thing actually). alternatively, they could carry LRASM or JASSM-ER... or in safe skies, just carry a truly obnoxious quantity of GAU-39/B's. But i think safe skies are better suited to the BUM.

@kfeltenberger

2 жыл бұрын

@@kathrynck Let's not get carried away...the boom is a bit much and adds excess weight and complexity for minimal, if any, return.

@kathrynck

2 жыл бұрын

@@kfeltenberger being able to carry a large amount of ordinance & fuel, and take a handful of F-35's out 2000 miles from the nearest airstrip as a strike team, where F-35's penetrate and mark targets, and the B-1 uses long range ordinance on them... is not minimal return.

Gorgeous plane.

About time she's back to work 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

I'll say this about high-speed close air support. so what, every air platform has provided CAS even predator drones. I've even been under CAS support from B-52's !!!! And I'll tell you that having Buff laying down 1 - 20+ 500lbs get 'em running for cover that ain't there.

How about a Bone with 8 GAU-8's that drop out and fire? Okay, enough fantasy, that concept like you mention could roll to all kinds of platforms, with a lot of the modularity thinking going on now, so a supersonic gunship? Why not? Still, the A-10 did make an appearance as the preferred platform by ground pounders. But, the A-10 like the AC, struggles (loaded out) as it nears 400. Slow compared to fasties, but loiter time by contrast is through the roof.

@dougmoore7855

2 жыл бұрын

10K lbs thrust per gun is why not.

B-1B Gunship is impressive, especially with heavy duty ordnance, but maybe it's time to think about using that hefty frame support for megawattage energy generation to support laser and other directed energy systems, altitude variable: seems like a promising partnership that easily accommodates future advances!

Got to love the Bone. I sourced a good bit of the “A” support electronics. Got to finally see where my “stuff” was used at Wright Patterson air museum. The “A”was parked outside in those days. I walked around it several times. A guy came up and asked if I was lost. “Nope. Just admiring my handiwork.”

I'd rather have a Warthog, thanks.

@iowasucks9494

2 жыл бұрын

Why not both?

@robertwright7937

2 жыл бұрын

@@iowasucks9494 If you're offering, how could I say no?😄👍

Too expensive to operate in such a role and useless for the new strategic threat against China. Using these aircraft to fire anti-ship missiles would be the best use of the aircraft.

A beautiful piece of equipment.

Well it's speed is a great asset. I hear few veterans saying a gun ship overhead is very comforting, guns are in many cases better than a jdam. So I see it useful as an emergency response aircraft

The B-1B is too difficult to maintain. At various points in time the entire fleet of 63 were grounded and rarely has the B-1 had better than a 60% availability. It's a great bomber, and I'm a big fan....but it's time to move onto other platforms. We can't afford multiple high cost platforms. At some point we have to make up our mind and decide....maybe continue with the A-10 program, but a B-1C flying gun platform isn't going anywhere...unless there's a major breakthrough with lasers or photon torpedoes.

This was a really good video, though it highlights an impressively stupid concept. A B-1B gunship would certainly fill a gap in U.S. military capabilities, as a high-speed, long-range, high-precision CAS platform. However, I would argue that a better use of money would be to ensure that ground forces have dedicated CAS already assigned to them when they go on missions, which would necessitate the exact opposite type of CAS aircraft: That is one that is incredibly cheap, like the AT-6 Wolverine. IMO, concepts like this exist because the American public, and by extension, American politicians lack an understanding of the benefits of specialized capabilities. People want all of the military to fight the current enemy, and if it doesn't they're offended. For example, there was enormous clamor for the F-22 to die because it wasn't dropping bombs on terrorists, and it succeeded. The F-22 program died at 187 aircraft. As a result of these sorts of lessons, military acquisition folks and defense contractors alike want their stuff to be like Swiss army knives, filling as many roles as possible to save them from budgetary cuts. Unfortunately, Swiss army knives are lousy knives mashed together with lousy versions of other tools.

LOVE the idea of close air support that gets there FAST! Can u put a cost on THAT?!?!?! Fascinating episode, Sandy! :)

I don’t care what anyone says, the B-1 is the best looking aircraft ever made, military or civilian.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 KJV, Jesus Christ is the only way.

I know the B1B is not a new aircraft but it’s designed to me is beautiful. A 105 is a perfect fit for the C-130. If the B-1B had a forward facing 155 and an auto loading system it could do some hard work. The technology for targeting is available that could be doing just that. Maybe it’s not feasible but it would be worth a thought? Thanks for letting share my thoughts on this.

I really hope they could do something to keep at least some of the B-1B aircraft going, it's my favourite bomber of all time. She's fast, powerful, sexy and always looks like it wants to kill anything that moves.

Excellent video and rare praise from Terrible Hirst!

Many years ago, there were plans for a new variant of the B-1 to be developed, it was called the B-1R Regional Bomber and was designed to be an airborne missile truck, assisting fighters in air-to-air combat.

B1 gunship would be badass as hell itself.

Seeing one of those bad boys doing a low level show of force then smashing out a bomb run was one of those things that stick with you for life, utterly awesome

The military is definitely NOT about to get rid of the B-1B any time soon. My brother is a software engineer working for a defense contractor that is updating the avionics on the Lancer. A gunship sounds pretty sweet, so we'll see if they go in that direction.