PDA

View Full Version : British V Bombers



Nick_Toznost
07-23-2005, 06:15 PM
I've been drinking heavily tonight and suddenly felt very nostalgic about the mostly unused V bombers. How I wish there was a flight sim based around the concept of an early 60s cold war ficticious situation. They were obsolete by the early 70s. Still, very nice planes.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/raydeacon211.jpg

Vulcan

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/raydeacon206.jpg

Victor
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/raydeacon202.jpg

Valiant

p1ngu666
07-23-2005, 06:19 PM
i dont really know much about them, but i was at the vulcans final flight at a airshow, i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

really loud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nick_Toznost
07-23-2005, 06:36 PM
Yup, they are loud, saw a vulcan at an airshow when I was a kid. Nothing quite like it.

Secudus2004
07-23-2005, 07:06 PM
The big three were streets ahead of anything else at the time, the Valiant being the first, followed by the peoples favorite, the Vulcan and finally the most advanced of them all the Victor‚‚ā¨¬¶ It is said that the Victor on more than one occasion went super sonic, it also broke all the windows when it flew over the works on one of its early test flights. Pilots say it flew more like a fighter than a bomber, it could do a barrel roll no problem‚‚ā¨¬¶

You might like this‚‚ā¨¬¶ There were plans to have three Gnats slung underneath the Vulcan, it would then fly in fast and low, drop off the Gnats, who would then in turn continue on and drop their nukes at the designated target‚‚ā¨¬¶ Although it would be a one way mission‚‚ā¨¬¶ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Vulcan01.jpg

Nick_Toznost
07-23-2005, 07:11 PM
wow, Secudus, never knew that, a cold war Zveno, a Gnat eh? the old Red Arrows job. Cool. I'm too drunk to be of any value anymore. Thanks for posting. The EE lightning though, my favourite plane. Enjoyed v.much in FS2004. Great plane. Shame about the sim. Aagh, gotta collapse, too much booze.

nakamura_kenji
07-23-2005, 08:31 PM
it would have been one trip most likly for vulcan crew as chance are they nothing come back to, same also for lightning interceptors, though they wpuld probably run out of fuel

zetareticulan
07-23-2005, 09:04 PM
Ahh, the Victor. Universally recognised by me -what better authority?- to be the most beautiful aircraft known to humanity.

Accounts (uhhh..duh duh me no know) state these aerial pulcritudities were victims of surface to air missile development. Missile developers caught up quickly with the V family's stratospheric operational altitudes, forcing them into work closer to the 'dun earth'. Conditions at these levels, turbulence etc, played havoc with their airframes and the rest as they say is tanker duties and metal fatigue.

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/6268/b1axh648bombing4jj.jpg

Capt.England
07-24-2005, 06:04 AM
I was at one of the last Mildenhall Air shows in the 90's on the last season of the Vulcan Bomber flying. Next to me was a group of American pilots watching the display. One loud mouth was going on about how much better the B52 was when the pilot of the Vulcan tipped the nose up nearly vertical and accelerated on full power. You should of seen the open mouth of the American pilot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Then the Vulcan turned like a fighter within the boundary of the airfield so I just had to say to the American pilot `I did not know that your B52 could turn better than that!`

He just mumbled `God **** Limeys always have to show off` and walked off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hoarmurath
07-24-2005, 06:16 AM
http://www.thirdwire.com/

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 06:27 AM
Umm..arent Victor and Valiant pics misplaced?

Would Vulcan reach Moscow with some large nukes taking off from US, like B-52http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? I say this instead of that US airman who was obviously too shocked to think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Obsolete or not, team of Victor as a tanker and Vulcan as a bomber, bombed Port Stanley airfield/attacked Argentinian EW radar in 1982 in number of Black Buck operations taking off from Ascension Island!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Ehm...11 Victors to provide with fuel 1 Vulcan. Number of refuelling both Vulcan and other Victors which would refuel the Vulcan and rest of Victors, which would later refuell other Victors and the Vulcan and so on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-24-2005, 06:35 AM
You know the earliest memory of aircraft I have is when I was a wee boy seeing a vulcan bomber over my home town. Only ever saw it once and It was in the 70's so I guess it may have been making an airshow appearance as I dare say they had been rolled out to pasture by then.

Actually it was so long ago I may have imagined it but for some reason it sticks in my head.

I hear there is a project ongoing to get one of those big ol monsters airbourne again and I sure hope they succeed.

Thanks for the memory jog Nick.

Capt.England
07-24-2005, 06:36 AM
The Vulcan would not of made it to Moscow taking off from the US, but I don't think that the B52 would of survived an attack by an Soviet fighter without escort as well? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

At least the Vulcan could off try to evade an fighter attack. All that the B52 could of hoped for was the tail guns shooting down the fighter!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Capt.England
07-24-2005, 06:44 AM
Balrog,

The Project that you have heard about is the last airworthy Vulcan which is now based down the road from me at Bruntingthorpe Airfield (South of Leicester). There is an web site for the group Vulcan 558 club (http://www.vulcan558club.com/) , and the last that I heard about funding was that the money was available to get the old girl flying in the next 2-3 years again.

I cant wait for the day when I will go down and see the old girl fly.

Capt.England
07-24-2005, 06:53 AM
Just a couple of pictures of Vulcan 558.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/pigman1971/wp101024x768.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/pigman1971/wp51024x768.jpg

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 07:01 AM
Dont think Vulcan could do much evading full of fuel and nukes or Blue Steelhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The only fighter B-52's could encounter in 1960/70's on the way from North Pole, through north Russia to Moscow were armed with missiles only Tu-128's, formerly (tactical) bombers themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Quite early, in the 1960's, SAC discovered that for purpose of making through enemy territory low flying is better (as if there was any choice after 1 may 1961 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), and soviet fighters, until MiG-31 were blind looking downhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But lets not argue! V's were euro-strategic bombers, thus were smaller, lighter and more manouverable than intercontinental B-52's for sure. Yet i dont think that would matter much in tasks they were to perform.

Capt.England
07-24-2005, 07:06 AM
True, I must say that the B52 must have something going for it as it's still in service and you just can't beat the sight of them flying over head! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

skabbe
07-24-2005, 07:11 AM
At hendon i stud right under that vulcan, an my god it was big.

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 07:12 AM
I guess that if RAF had more money and more strategic ambitions Vulcans could stll fly! Just to give them new, more economical engines and JDAM's! Great tactical/operational high flying precise strike bombers for peace forcing operations they would be. And the way Vulcan looks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif!

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 10:22 AM
Would Vulcan reach Moscow with some large nukes taking off from US, like B-52

Unsuprisingly, given that it was expected to fly from the UK to the USSR, it wasn't designed with sufficient range to make it from the USA. Since the B-52 might well have to fly from the USA to the USSR it was designed to be able to do this. Not really very surprising at all.

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 10:26 AM
I guess that if RAF had more money and more strategic ambitions Vulcans could stll fly!

The role was taken over by Tornados. A single Tornado might not be able to carry the same weight of munitions, but it is a more modern plane with a similar operational range that was seen as reducing the number of types required to fulfill a number of roles. I suppose it is a bit like the relationship between a Lancaster and a Mosquito. Some suggested during WW2 that it would be better to use massed Mosquitos rather than Lancasters.

Also in the 1960s the threats changed. The USA had Vietnam, and a plane capable of level carpet bombing was useful. The UK was engaged in small conflicts (e.g. Aden). At the same time missiles came to prevalence for strategic nuclear attacks, and the UK bought, and also tried to develop strategic nuclear weapons. It was even suggested that interceptors be replaced by missiles. This changed a bit in the 1970s, hence the Tornado.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2005, 10:41 AM
Im afraid the Victor and Valient photos are mislabelled.

They should be the other way around.

Nevertheless great idea, Mig Alley was around that time, got pretty good reviews too but it very old now (around 1998)

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 12:05 PM
Aaron_GT Posted Sun July 24 2005 09:22

"Unsuprisingly, given that it was expected to fly from the UK to the USSR, it wasn't designed with sufficient range to make it from the USA. Since the B-52 might well have to fly from the USA to the USSR it was designed to be able to do this. Not really very surprising at all."

Undoubtly! What I meant was B-52 is much larger, heavier and unable to do airshow tricks, that Vulcan could, because it was supposed to fly at longer distance.

"The role was taken over by Tornados. A single Tornado might not be able to carry the same weight of munitions, but it is a more modern plane with a similar operational range that was seen as reducing the number of types required to fulfill a number of roles."

Right! My phrase about "strategic ambitions" was unfortunate. Of course in cold war conditions Vulcan, originally built to fly high subsonic, very high, has become obsolete and in operational scale roles was replaced with Tornados capable of penetrating WP air defences using TFR. But what if Vulcan got equipped with TFR like B-52's were at certain stage? If Vulcans survived until now in service, modernised of not, they could have a niche of precise strike tactical bomber with strategic range and endurance. I can imagine it hovering at 15k with load of JDAM's or those small guided bombs (SDB?), phase array radar and Link16, above places like Bosnia or (before these days) Iraq. Interesting how B-2 has become, or at least was used, as a tactical bomber (in terms of the targets) but with worldwide rangehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
07-24-2005, 12:56 PM
As my career USAF father was stationed in the UK during the early sixties, and we had been housed at RAF Shepherd's Grove (approx. 20 miles from Bury St Edmunds, Lakenheath, and Mildenhall), I saw quite a bit of the Vulcan in all its glory.

There was an RAF/RAF base (as opposed to an RAF/USAF base-all airbases used by USAF in the UK are 'on loan' from RAF) that operated Vulcans and during the summer, their takeoff runs took them over our housing at quite a low level (less than 5000 ft, probably, although I'm working from the perspective of a 9 year old with 20-15 vision). Their undersides were painted all white, and they were almost as loud as the B-36s I barely remember from our days at Mountain Home...

As my 12 year old son would say, it was awesome.

They were the coolest bomber in the world at the time and remained so (like the EE Lightning) in my mind until I got a close look from my car at a pair of B-1Bs screaming across US 60 at low level near Springerville AZ 30 years later...

cheers

horseback

PS- the Lightning was replaced by the Tomcat the first time I saw it from the deck of my fast frigate in '76...they crawled up along our starboard side at less than 500ft with the wings, flaps and slats hanging all the way out, and just as they came even with us, less than 200 yds away, snapped everything back, hit the burners, and shot away in a manner no Phantom could hope to copy. They had the old hi-vis paint schemes too-very gaudy, and way cool.

Kocur_
07-24-2005, 01:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

briyeo
07-24-2005, 01:50 PM
I was at Finningly early 80's airshow, the highlight of the show was 4 Vulcans simulating a quick reaction take off, an unforgetable experience. I am glad for the younger generation of air enthusiasts that it looks like they will be able to experience something of the might of the Vulcan.

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 03:11 PM
If Vulcans survived until now in service, modernised of not, they could have a niche of precise strike tactical bomber with strategic range and endurance. I can imagine it hovering at 15k with load of JDAM's or those small guided bombs (SDB?),

I think it was just seen as too expensive to keep on an additional type for that role when the Tornado (and Jaguar, etc., at the time when the Vulcan was phased out) could fulfill a lot of the roles. The raids on the Falklands are a different matter, but at the time the decisions were made it was probably anticipated that such raids would need to be made so rarely it wasn't worth keeping them on just in case it was a mission profile that would turn up again.

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 03:13 PM
As an aside an uncle of mine, when in the RAF, accidentally almost scrambled a Vulcan. He assumed the button in the hangar he pressed was the 'ring for attention button'. Instead it was the scramble button, which he recounts as also being attached to a mechanism to automatically start the engines!

Nick_Toznost
07-24-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Im afraid the Victor and Valient photos are mislabelled.

They should be the other way around.

Nevertheless great idea, Mig Alley was around that time, got pretty good reviews too but it very old now (around 1998)

Not anymore, I did say I had been drinking. hic.

MEGILE
07-24-2005, 05:35 PM
Cool pictures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
07-24-2005, 08:47 PM
the government didnt want to pay for stragic bombers anymore, thats why we dont have any.

i think they only heavy bomber in RAF service is the lancaster, with the BOB flight...

Capt.England
07-25-2005, 12:33 PM
Right Chaps! What is this plane?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y251/pigman1971/CoolPlane.gif

Any RAF types, let a couple of Johnny Foreigners answer first!

Kocur_
07-25-2005, 12:39 PM
TSR-2? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaBallz
07-25-2005, 04:17 PM
I saw an AVRO Vulcan at two airshows at AAFB Guam
in 1977 and 1978. Fantastic flight demonstration.
At the time I was working WC-130's in the 605 MASS
at the North East end of AAFB.

Those were great airshows. Only a B-52D and the Vulcan flew.
BUT we had a SR-71A from Kadena AB Okinawa on display.
It made for a unique experiance.

Most don't realise that the Vulcan is fully areobatic.
Still my favorite British plane.

Da...

Nick_Toznost
07-25-2005, 04:33 PM
Just thought I'd post a pic of an EE Lightning. One of the first supersonics. I don't know why but it's my favourite plane of all time. So advanced in its day, so primitive now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/ee_lightning_800.jpg

Secudus2004
07-25-2005, 05:30 PM
Nick, here's something that should have been...

World beater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/HawkerP1121.jpg

Aaron_GT
07-26-2005, 01:27 AM
One of the first supersonics.

Is it time to mention the M.52 and the scrapped Miles supersonic fighter?

MrBlueSky1960
07-26-2005, 01:52 AM
Oh, Aaron don't lets start on the M-52 again... Lest we are judged as the 'sour grapes brigade' Lol!

Gave it all away, lock stock and barrel.....

AWL_Spinner
07-26-2005, 04:10 AM
Hey, English Electric Lightning - the first jet able to Supercruise, some forty years before the F-22 made it fashionable again!

Regarding sims featuring the Vulcan, you may want to keep an eye on this Falklands one (doubt the big beast will be flyable but who knows?)

Jet Thunder (http://www.thunder-works.com)

http://www.thunder-works.com/media/acmodels.jpg

alert_1
07-26-2005, 04:41 AM
It's really sad that Vulcan is gone. B52s prove itself as very valuable weapons system in Afghanistan, where they loiter in combat area providing CAS with JDAMS.

ClnlSandersLite
07-26-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Capt.England:
True, I must say that the B52 must have something going for it as it's still in service and you just can't beat the sight of them flying over head! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm 90% sure that we have stopped manufactureing b-52's and are starting to phase them out.

If we aren't yet, there are plans to do so very soon.

This is mainly because of the questionable usefullness of a subsonic non-stealth aircraft against a modern capable military. The B-1 is a much more formidible platform, arguably so is the b-2. The B-52's have been relying on strategic advantages as we have not engaged an enemy capable of shooting much of anything down in years.

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 08:51 AM
ClnlSandersLite Posted Tue July 26 2005 05:39

"If we aren't yet, there are plans to do so very soon."

Last time I checked B-52's were to remain in service until 2040! But it might have changed.
In fact B-1's are to be phased out sooner. Mainly because of their age. Sounds like paradox, but fact is, its easier to keep fit planes built in late 1940's technology than 1960/70's one. Planes airframes get older and their parts have to be replaced with spare ones. Its easy to manufacture simple spare parts like longerons, ribs or skin panels of B-52. Much, much more difficult and expensive to manufacture B-1's parts like large parts of wing structure: skin panels integrated with ribs and spars, milled of single large aluminium blocks.

"This is mainly because of the questionable usefullness of a subsonic non-stealth aircraft against a modern capable military."

Right. But unless US decides to perform strike against lets say Russia, B-52 are more or less safe up there. For few countries have air defence systems with SAM systems capable of reaching above 15k and difficult to locate, jam and destroy. Surely not Afganistan, Iraq or Serbia. As long as there is high probability of low intesity conflicts B-52's will remain useful. Vulcans would be too...

Capt.England
07-26-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
TSR-2? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well Done! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 12:19 PM
Thank you Sir! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As a competitor to F-111 in a way, TSR-2 is mentioned quite often. If you asked about that M.52 or "Miles supersonic" I would go: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


OT i know, Im sorry, but cant resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:
my riddle:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1406/ugly2ru.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

pretty, isnt she http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Secudus2004
07-26-2005, 01:46 PM
http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x1.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A882272

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 02:23 PM
Thanks! Post WW2 UK aviation history seems to have many "almost's"...

Aaron_GT
07-26-2005, 03:11 PM
I'm 90% sure that we have stopped manufactureing b-52's and are starting to phase them out.

If we aren't yet, there are plans to do so very soon.

They are apparently due to be in service for another 20 years.

LStarosta
07-26-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Thank you Sir! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As a competitor to F-111 in a way, TSR-2 is mentioned quite often. If you asked about that M.52 or "Miles supersonic" I would go: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


OT i know, Im sorry, but cant resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:
my riddle:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1406/ugly2ru.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

pretty, isnt she http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

PZL M-15 Belfegor.

IIRC, the world's first agricultural jet.

And surely, it's got to be the first jet biplane.

I saw one in Krakow last summer. It's a funny looking plane, but I really like it.

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 07:54 PM
nah there was a italian aircraft i think, waay early in the age of flight, think that had what was more or less a jet..

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 10:44 PM
LStarosta Posted Tue July 26 2005 15:56

"PZL M-15 Belfegor."

Dobrze m√¬≥wi! Dań"° mu w√¬≥dki! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ehm...The prize (right to hang this pretty plane pic over his bed) goes to this gent! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Designed in Mielec, Poland with "help" of soviet comrades, was intended to be agricultural plane for those vast kolkhoze fields. 3000 were to be built, but only 150 actually were. Why? The story is much similar to Tu-144 one: after a while they realised that EVEN Soviet Union cant afford to use something THAT uneconomical! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666 Posted Tue July 26 2005 18:54

"nah there was a italian aircraft i think, waay early in the age of flight, think that had what was more or less a jet.."

Most probably you mean Henri Coanda plane. Piloted by its designer, Romanian engineer, it made one "jump" in like 1910. The engine was row piston one to power compressor. Behind it fuel was injected and burned. Pretty much like in Campini propulsion, so not real jet engine, yet idea was revolutionary!

ClnlSandersLite
07-26-2005, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
ClnlSandersLite Posted Tue July 26 2005 05:39

"If we aren't yet, there are plans to do so very soon."

Last time I checked B-52's were to remain in service until 2040! But it might have changed.
In fact B-1's are to be phased out sooner. Mainly because of their age. Sounds like paradox, but fact is, its easier to keep fit planes built in late 1940's technology than 1960/70's one. Planes airframes get older and their parts have to be replaced with spare ones. Its easy to manufacture simple spare parts like longerons, ribs or skin panels of B-52. Much, much more difficult and expensive to manufacture B-1's parts like large parts of wing structure: skin panels integrated with ribs and spars, milled of single large aluminium blocks.

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm 90% sure that we have stopped manufactureing b-52's and are starting to phase them out.

If we aren't yet, there are plans to do so very soon.
They are apparently due to be in service for another 20 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're not scrapping them. They're just not replacing losses for the moment. It's estimated that they'll be in the fleet for another 20 years or so, but if not, they'll start coming out with something new sooner than expected. As to the B-1, it's kinda a shame, but we really don't need all that many of them. They're supersonic low profile cruise missile platforms. If we ever got hot and heavy, just a squadron could do a <span class="ev_code_RED">LOT</span> of damage. Sooner or later we'll come out with something better though. Thing is we're just not really fighting anybody except for little antiquated militaries so the politicians don't want to spend the money since the cold war is over. Same reason SAC got scrapped really.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
"This is mainly because of the questionable usefullness of a subsonic non-stealth aircraft against a modern capable military."

Right. But unless US decides to perform strike against lets say Russia, B-52 are more or less safe up there. For few countries have air defence systems with SAM systems capable of reaching above 15k and difficult to locate, jam and destroy. Surely not Afganistan, Iraq or Serbia. As long as there is high probability of low intesity conflicts B-52's will remain useful. Vulcans would be too...
We're on the same page here, the B-52 is still effective at pummeling ****ty third world countries. If say we decided to attack england (for whatever reason), they'd be just so much fodder.

MrBlueSky1960
07-27-2005, 01:49 AM
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm

ClnlSandersLite
07-27-2005, 06:26 AM
The B-52H BUFF [Big Ugly Fat Fellow] is the primary nuclear roled bomber in the USAF inventory. It provides the only Air Launch Cruise Missile carriage in the USAF.

Wrong. I've seen footage of the B-1 using them. I'm not sure how acurate the article is considering it has a rather large error in the first sentance.

Edit: Actually, the second sentance.

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 08:53 AM
B-1's are ALCM carriers indeed! Their original weaponry was AGM-69 SRAM/B61/B83 in revolver lounchers, one in each of two bomb bays. Then were adopted to carry ALCM's but them being longer than SRAMS made B-1's carry them in front bomb bay only plus most of lenght of back one in long revolver louncher. Rest of back bomb bay lenght is used to install extra fuel tank.