Skip to comments.In War With Iran, B-1s Would Be Vital
Posted on 11/22/2010 8:26:53 PM PST by sukhoi-30mkiEdited on 11/22/2010 8:46:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
A U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities might look just like this: a B-1bomber lancing along just above the desert floor at 900 feet per second, ducking behind mountains and beneath ridgelines to hide from enemy radar, carrying a bellyful of 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
Saw a B-1 do its thing at an airshow about 10 years ago. Amazing sight. That thing must’ve scared the devil out of the Soviets.
You can thank President Ronald Reagan for bringing the program back after it was canceled by jimmy.
Obastard isn’t going to do anything. He thinks that it isn’t fair that the Iranian nutcases don’t have nuclear weapons.
And if you aren't advancing, you are falling behind.
God have mercy.
Not to be a spoil sport, but aren’t getty images not allowed?
Just think how many jobs Obama could have saved or created if he had used the stimulous wisely and built more B-1’s or B-2’s or F-22’s... The one area we should not be thrifty on (national defense) is where Obama will be thrifty..
...and I'm not quite sure they ever got to push it to it's maximum capability. At least not for an extended time.
The B-1 is a competant aircraft but throughout its lifetime has been a waste of resources. Variable geometry wings are expensive to maintain and impossible to justify for their cost. The existing B-1 aircraft have served well in our current conflicts but there’s nothing in the B-1’s combat history that couldn’t be accomplished just as effectively but at far less cost by other aircraft in the US’s current inventory. The B-1’s only strategic accomplishment has been encouraging the Russians to waste their own money on keeping their their Blackjacks serviceable.
That’s because the B-1, and the Blackjack, are based on designs the Germans did a long time ago.
Every single design of aircraft, especially military, that we have today, that the Russians have, that everyone has, was based on the designs from the Germans between WWI and WWII.
When we occupied Germany, so the history books say, the scientists there were split up between the conquerors.
It’s where we got Werner Van Braun.
You are GROSSLY underestimating the capabilities of the Lancer.
It has twice the range, twice the payload of a B-52 (which is still effective) and can get to the target at 200ft above ground and Mach 0.9.
At elevation, to get to target range, Mach 1.3.
It can carry 96 1,000lb precision guided bombs.
It is STILL the most capable Strike aircraft in the world...nothing else even comes close.
I always laugh when I read about the unfavorable rating of congress. Most people vote for their own incumbent over and over but want everyone elses sent packing. It’s not just the politicians who are hypocrites.
Washingtonians are unhappy about the direction of the country. Patty Murray is well known to be among the most ignorant of persons in the Senate who is a rubber stamp of administration policy. Yet she is reelected to her third term.
We’re doin’ the same thing over and over ...
The new B1R upgrade will make it 20% less range and Mach 2.2.
Must be a member of the B1 “mafia”
At what point would it reach the target and then climb to sufficient altitude for such munitions to be effective... without being shot down??
It doesn’t need to go anywhere near the target since satellite guided munitions are stand-off weapons. The need for nap-of-the-earth flying is obvious since Iran is a very large country with nuclear and missile installations across the breadth of the country.