34

I saw this picture today in a news article about the current conflict in Iraq/Syria.

Plane Silhouette

The caption claims it is a US warplane, but I don't recognise the silhouette. Can someone identify this plane?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 9
  • 28
aaronsnoswell
  • 451
  • 4
  • 6

2 Answers2

57

This is a B-1B Lancer.

It is a 4 engine (afterburning engines mind you, very rare for a bomber) variable sweep wing bomber, designed during the Cold War to use its terrain-following radar to stay low and fast, weaving between the mountains of Russia to stay below radar to deliver nuclear warheads.

It carries more bombs than the B-52 as well.

Essentially, it is a bomber built like a fighter. It is actually the only swing-wing aircraft in the entire US military right now.

Fun fact: The canards near the nose aren't for control. Because the aircraft is flown by autopilot using terrain-following radar (TFR), weaving into and out of mountains, autopilot makes many quick pitch adjustments. The canards are to cancel out sine waves in the structure of the fuselage.

It can carry a whole lotta' bombs:

24 nuclear bombs, 48 JDAMs, 84 Mk82 bombs, or 48 AGM missiles.

100 were built, 66 remain.

I leave with my current desktop background:

enter image description here

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 9
  • 28
Bassinator
  • 5,490
  • 7
  • 35
  • 56
  • 3
    24 nuclear bombs. That is pretty crazy powerful. – Peter Oct 10 '14 at 04:40
  • @Peter: Only the small 1.2MT ones ;) – PlasmaHH Oct 10 '14 at 09:07
  • @Peter penetration missions, it lobs small ones at airfields, radar sites, SAM batteries, for the B-52s with their megaton range weapons to have a clear path to their targets. Used to be they carried some 20 SRAM missiles but those were retired in a cost cutting attempt so now it's gravity bombs, putting the crews in risk to save the beancounters some $$$ signs. – jwenting Oct 10 '14 at 11:35
  • AFAIK the B-1B is the only supersonic US military B-series aircraft in operation, although the B-2 is faster at <1000' MSL. – zamnuts Oct 10 '14 at 21:24
  • 1
    @HCBPshenanigans had to steal that sweet-looking background :-) – raffian Oct 10 '14 at 23:25
  • @zamnuts You are correct. – Bassinator Oct 10 '14 at 23:41
  • @raffian Consider it a donation! – Bassinator Oct 10 '14 at 23:42
  • 1
    Mother of God @ payload capacity O.O – Burhan Khalid Oct 12 '14 at 12:01
  • 1
    @PlasmaHH 1.2MT may be small, but it's still way more than I'd ever want to be around when they go off. – Jules Nov 03 '16 at 19:20
  • @Jules: in case 24 of them do, I don't know if thats not maybe the better option... – PlasmaHH Nov 03 '16 at 22:01
  • @jwenting: Wouldn't the B-1 be the U.S. bomber best-suited to surviving the blast of its payload, given that it's the fastest of the three and carries fairly low-power nukes? – Vikki Aug 19 '18 at 00:25
  • @Sean Honestly? When it comes to nuclear payloads, they don't really care if the aircrew survives. Cold fact, but true. Once they make it to the target, that's good enough for SAC. – Bassinator Aug 19 '18 at 21:15
  • @ChrisM.: That would be the AFGSC; the SAC was disbanded in 1992. – Vikki Aug 20 '18 at 02:52
  • @Sean this was the mission profile created for the B-52 when the B-1A was canceled. The B-1A would indeed have been a fast penetration bomber thought to not need that operational profile. The B-1B was envisioned as a more survivable replacement for the B-52 and would use the same profile, but blast itself a narrower corridor. – jwenting Aug 20 '18 at 05:00
  • 2
    @ChrisM. yes and no. Over time crew survivability became ever more important as nuclear war was becoming something that was meant to be limited in scope, so bombers returning to bases for reloading with either nuclear or conventional weapons for a second wave of strikes became important. – jwenting Aug 20 '18 at 05:01
  • The F-14 was also swing-wing so either there are two of those aircraft types active or I missed it when the remaining F-14 were deactivated. – Kelly S. French Apr 15 '19 at 20:12
  • They've been retired for over 10 years now, haha. – Bassinator Apr 15 '19 at 20:25
10

Yep. That's a B-1B Lancer: B-1 on the Wikipedia

I'm surprised to see it over Iraq, I thought they were using smaller attack aircraft, F-15E's for example. The B-1 is a substantial (and, I can report, extremely loud) bomber with a big load.

They US have been flying them since the mid-80's.

Maxcelcat
  • 474
  • 2
  • 6
  • 1
    You aren't lying about loud. Spent the night in a tent on MacDill AFB once and couldn't hear for an hour. – Bassinator Oct 10 '14 at 00:16
  • 2
    it seems to be rather high up. Loud doesn't matter there... And a single B-1 needs both less people in danger, and is less loud as well, as say half a dozen Strike Eagles. Loudest I've ever experienced was a full squadron of F-4s taking off in formation, 3 abreast, on full burner. – jwenting Oct 10 '14 at 11:38
  • Hey, why use a mallet when you can use a sledgehammer? – Vikki Aug 19 '18 at 00:27
  • @Sean precision strike is ever more important. It both limits collateral damage, allows you to strike closer to your own or friendly forces, and is cheaper. In case of the use of heavy bombers at the moment, the heavy bombers employ precision weapons, their size allowing them more time over target and the ability to strike more targets in a single mission. Plus their range means the dependency on forward operating bases in potentially unreliable countries is greatly reduced. – jwenting Aug 20 '18 at 05:06