previous post next post  

Bomber Zen

In which we suck up to the leisure class.
b-1b1.jpg 

08/03/2010 - A B-1B Lancer aircraft takes off from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., Aug. 3, 2010, for a training mission. (DoD photo by Airman 1st Class Corey Hook, U.S. Air Force/Released)

15 Comments

Sweet.  Gonna go practice dropping engines on the enemy.
 
Ya gotta hand it to those bomber guys -- they've never had a load miss the Earth, even though they don't have a chin bubble to look through to pick out an aiming point...
 
Dang, that there's purty!

F#$% you, Jimmy Carter!
 
Yes, because a high-altitude supersonic bomber was such a great idea... ;)

 
Now now, Casey.  Greyhawk is a retired AF WXWarrior, gotta cut him some slack.
 
I do wish they were more resistant to bird strikes, and that we had more of them, and that they hadn't cost us so much.
 
You are looking at the best CAS platform the US have, according to Petraeus (so it's true)!
 
Heh.  That almost sounds like a "choose any two" triad, JTG.
 
My pa (LTC D) was an old EW on BUFFS.  He was never sold on supersonic bombers...but then again, he started his career on B-24's and B-17's...ya think he was a little biased?  His crew picked up the last 52 built...days before I was born...and I'm 47.  You do the math.
 
I barely remember the B-47s at March AFB east of Riverside, California (where I spent most of my life before retiring and escaping to Pullman in eastern Washington state).  On Armed Forces Day they'd have an airshow.  I was probably six or seven and I still remember the B-47 demonstrating toss bombing, which was designed to loft that nuke high and far enough while the B-47 did  the old "bring it on over and roll out to run like hell in the direction from whence you came."  They had KC-97s and the B-47 was so (relatively) fast fueling behind a KC-97 was closely akin to fueling an SR-71/A-12 behind a KC-135.

Then they transitioned to B-52s, and yes, SFC D, they have been around a long time.  If they don't have to hassle with AAA, SAMs and interceptors they're perfect dump trucks for dumping smart bombs on the bad guys over that a way and they don't burn fuel as fast as the B-1 nor are they so expensive to keep as the B-2..

Oh, and John, thanks for explaining a few weeks ago what TINS meant.  A fellow could learn all kinds of neat and interesting stuff hanging around the Castle.
 
Ok, John. :) I do admit the Lancer looks very cool, but if they really wanted killer supersonice, why not continue with the B-70? Valkyrie; that was a kick-butt name.

Fun -but not so difficult- trivia queston: what other plane carried the name Lancer? 

JTG, the B-1 would show an even higher cost if they hadn't "reset" the program, so all the costs for the original supersonic B-1A program weren't counted. If a private industry company tried that, they'd be thrown in jail.

 
Casey - the Seversky/Republic P-43, one of the forebears of the P-47.
 
SFC Clark;

LTC D retired out of March in 1968.  I was in RIverside last month...I damn near cried when I saw what was left of March.  Felt like a huge chunk of my childhood was gone.
 
I figured that would be an easy question. :) I'm tempted to ask about the other Eagle fighter, John, but you prolly know that one too.

Bill, I may have conflated some memories about those low level passes. Only movie that comes to mind right now is Firefox, although I recall hearing a tale that some special forces guys once enjoyed watching a B-1 go low-level supersonic over a Taliban position, back in the first year of the war.

Terry Pratchett wrote a similar scene in his novel Guards, Guards! describing a battle between a very little dragon and a very big one. The little one could go very, very fast. ;)

 
Casey - the P-75... body by Fisher?