Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rockwell B-1 Lancer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Rockwell B-1 Lancer has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated GA-class)|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Why no mention of the TU-160 Blackjack which was obviously inspired by if not an outright derivation of the B-1 design? It seems that for some reason, connections are often missing in WP articles between US designed aircraft and their soviet counterparts, unless it is an exact copy like the B-29. Redhanker (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, Tu-160 and B-1 have little in common except for appearance. They aren't even same weight class. B1's closest soviet counterpart is Tu-22, Tu-160s closest counterparts in USAF are B2's.
- And I'm talking about their mission (intercontinental bomber vs strategec bomber). B2 and Tu-160 don't look alike, but that's because soviets and US people had different approach to problem of survivability.
- B2 was relying on stealth and sacrificed everything other than stealth, Tu-160 relied on it's high terminal speed and 2500km+ (1350nmi) standoff missiles (kh-55) to get away from harms way or attack before enemy can even get interceptors into the air. Everytime I see B1 and Tu-160 Comparisons I want to throw up. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- The project for a new Soviet swing-wing supersonic heavy bomber, which resulted in the Tu-160, was instituted in 1972, two years after the Rockwell design was selected for the B-1 and in direct response to that programme. The Tu-160 weighs 20 tons more than the B-1, but then it's Russian and Russian copies of Western designs always weigh more. The Tu-22 is an older design, weighing about half as much as the Tu-160. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\bairforce-technology\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
Under the Upgrades section, the 5th paragraph talks about introducing a Central Integrated Test System in 2013. I was an avionics tech at Dyess in the early 90's and there was a CITS on board at the time, so this can't be accurate. In fact it was near impossible to troubleshoot anything electronic without the dang thing, since it was so tightly integrated into all the systems. It was also fun since the display was right above the ladder hatch, and since it was a royal pain to close we would frequently (despite QA rules) leave the hatch open and balance over a roughly 15 foot drop onto concrete with a phone book sized T.O. in our hands while using it. Perhaps they meant "introduced an upgraded CITS"? I don't have immediate access to the source, so i can't verify it, and I know my anecdote can't be used as a source, but perhaps someone can look into it? 2602:306:83BC:8CA0:0:0:0:3A (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)