The USAF received the first upgraded B-1 bomber with an integral combat station

The US Air Force 21 January received the first B-1 bomber "Lancer", equipped with an integrated combat station (Integrated Battle Station) manufactured by Boeing (Boeing). This was reported by the US Air Force.

A set of new equipment includes the installation of fully color displays, automatically guided maps, a new diagnostic system, which can significantly improve the combat effectiveness of the aircraft. This upgrade is the most comprehensive in stories flight operation B-1. As a result, the crew receives more information about the combat environment in which the aircraft is located. Enhanced secure communication channels allow pilots to improve their ability to engage designated targets.

The bomber was upgraded at Tinker Air Base (Oklahoma).

As reported earlier by ARMS-TASS, the modernization of the B-1 Lancer fleet provides for the installation on board of an integrated combat station (Integrated Battle Station) and the Block-16 modernization kit to support the B-1 combat capability (Sustainment-Block 16, SB -16). The integrated combat station will provide B-1 bomber crews, in particular, with a high level of situational awareness, as well as a fast and reliable digital communication channel.

The modernization program provides for the installation of all in-use "Lancers" with three systems, including the vertical situation indicator VSDU (Vertical Situation Display Unit) in front of the cockpit, as well as the fully integrated data link FIDL (Fully Integrated Data Link) and the centralized system CITS (Central Integrated Test System) integrated testing at the rear of the cab. All three systems are installed on B-1 aircraft in a single set of "Integral Battle Station" in the period from 2013 to 2019.

Installing the VSDU system involves replacing two outdated monochrome displays (the aircraft commander and co-pilot) with four new multi-color displays.

The FIDL system includes a new digital avionics and data link in the Link-16 direct visibility zone, which uses a wider communication format than the existing Joint Range Extension Applications Protocol (JREAP) and integrates the information of the latter, displaying generic data on color displays in visual graphic symbols and interactive terrain maps.

With the installation of CITS in the back of the cab will add a new color display. This system will replace an outdated computer that continuously monitors flight information. CITS can also be used by ground personnel to diagnose aircraft system problems.

Comments

[piocor03]

Yes ... strong weapons will work against us.

[Krilion]

Quote: piokor03

Yes ... strong weapons will work against us.

I doubt it very much .... considering that after the last modernization, B-1 lost the ability to carry cruise missiles (and long-range cruise missiles could never carry at all) but can only carry planning bombs, and to strike at Russia they will literally have to fly here and go into the air defense zone ... our Tu-160 can distribute lyuli so far from our American friends that they don’t even know that he is in the air ...

[bif]

Quote: Krilion

I doubt it very much .... considering that after the last modernization, the B-1 lost the ability to carry cruise missiles (and long-range cruise missiles could never be carried at all)

I agree, on a useless bomber, change the screens with b / w on color and computers - from intel 386 to pentium, there was no added benefit.
P.S. Incidentally, he cannot carry cruise missiles, and long-range aviation and / or nuclear equipment has long been simply not in the US Army.

[Windbreak]

Quote: bif

and long-range aviation and / or nuclear equipment of the Kyrgyz Republic has long been simply not in the US Army.

What kind of missiles AGM-86 then?

[Vasek]

Quote: bif

change screens with b / w on color and computers - from intel 386 to pentium, the benefit has not increased.

But the factory-installed Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and solitaire significantly reduce the crew's chartering ability!

[Su24]

I understand that according to the nomenclature of weapons, no changes have occurred.

[Geisenberg]

Quote: Su24

I understand that according to the nomenclature of weapons, no changes have occurred.

The nomenclature of weapons itself does not change yet, when new models appear, then changes will appear.

[avg]

Quote: piokor03

Yes ... strong weapons will work against us.

What if the cleaning lady in the Pentagon got the wrong battery from where? How do the guys orient on the map?

[Geisenberg]

Quote: piokor03

Yes ... strong weapons will work against us.

This is if they somehow pay off their external debt, which is unlikely of course.

[Thirsty for wind]

This station, I think, is made. Utu-Ty.

[Krilion]

"..B1b is inferior to its Russian analogue Tu-160 in a number of characteristics: maximum carrying capacity, range, maximum speed, but the piloting qualities of both aircraft are approximately the same. This is evidenced by the Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief PS Deinekin, who visited in May 1992. The United States paid a visit in response to the visit of a representative of the US armed forces to Russia in 1991. On May 11, Deinekin flew in a B-1B bomber. The plane took off with a small mass (about
150 tons) and after refueling in the air 4 meters after take-off, he went to the proving ground area (evada) to practice a strike against a tactical target, which was a model of an airfield. The flight to the target at a distance of about 800 km took place at an altitude of 90 m in the automatic mode of following the terrain with flying around from above and avoiding ground obstacles in the horizontal plane, the height of which reached 1500 m. The aircraft launched a tactical bombing strike on the target and carried out an anti-aircraft maneuver, after which control of the aircraft was transferred to Deinekin.

Honored military pilot Deinekin, prior to his appointment to the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, was the commander of long-range aviation and is well acquainted with heavy bombers. He has extensive experience in piloting the Tu-22M bomber, on which in 1976 he flew at altitudes up to 45-50 m (100 m on the instrument), he also performed several flights on the Tu-160 even before this aircraft was put into service. Therefore, piloting the B-1B aircraft was not a problem for him. He tested the plane in several modes and finally dropped to an altitude of 65 m, and then 50 m. The American pilots were "pleasantly surprised" and emotionally stated that "our generals don't fly like that."

According to Deinekin, expressed in an interview with the authors of the book, B-1B has
approximately the same controllability characteristics as the Russian Tu-160, however, the practical control techniques of the B-1B and Tu-160 are very different due to the different piloting techniques adopted in the United States and Russia. For example, when piloting Russian heavy aircraft, more severe restrictions on overloading are imposed; when landing, the aircraft does not go on a box, but turns "pancake". American pilots fly boldly on rolls, overloads,
range of heights and "piloting the strategic B-1B as a front
bomber ". For example, immediately after takeoff, the American pilot laid a turn with a large (up to 60 °) bank. After refueling in the air, which took place at an altitude of 6000 m (he gained this height in 4 m due to high climb rate), the output to the automatic mode of following the relief the terrain at an altitude of 90 m was performed with a steep dive. Before landing, the B-1B flew along a box with sharp turns (roll 30-45 °) and sharply decreased ("fell like an iron") for landing. Among other advantages of the American machine, Deinekin noted the good ergonomics and high quality of instruments in the V-1B cockpit .... "

[Panikovsky]

but it seems to me that v-1v should be compared with tu-22m3, because Tu-160 has no direct analogues.

[Hort]

I don’t understand those who are minus such articles - after all, they’ll throw off useful information about the weapons of a potential enemy to us. This will not be superfluous to know, even in general terms at least (open information)

[Lord of the Sith]

Quote: hort

I don’t understand those who are minus such articles - after all, they’ll throw off useful information about the weapons of a potential enemy to us. This will not be superfluous to know, even in general terms at least (open information)

But people still don’t understand why to give grades. Either give thanks for the news, or how do you feel about the news?

[propolsky]

The plane is good, although the story about banks at 60 degrees can be accepted if the plane was half loaded or even empty, aerodynamic formulas for roll and overload do not give such an advantage, despite the nationality. On the IL-76 did 62 degrees in the horizon. It is necessary to substantially prepare for the maneuver and you will not fly for a long time. And in the set on take-off ...? This is unusual.

[misantrop22]

Quote: Panikovsky

but it seems to me that v-1v should be compared with tu-22m3, because Tu-160 has no direct analogues.

Yeah, now I looked at their pictures on the Internet in different angles (TU 160 and B-1B) as two drops. Who licked someone?

[xtur]

> Yeah, now I looked at their pictures in the internet from different angles (TU 160 and B-1B) like two drops. Who licked who?

and you probably didn’t have enough time to look at the history of creation? Aircraft were developed in parallel

and yes, the differences even in the pictures are quite noticeable.

[AVV]

Quote: Su24

I understand that according to the nomenclature of weapons, no changes have occurred.

They invested money, that is, sawed into their old project !!!

[Nayhas]

Most commentators either did not understand the article, or because of envy they write nonsense.

after the latest B-1 modernization, they lost the ability to carry cruise missiles (and long-range cruise missiles could never carry at all)

Does the B-1B carry 24 AGM-158 JASSM / ER, or is the AGM-158 JASSM / ER not a cruise missile?

to strike at Russia they will have to literally fly here and go into the air defense zone

Range AGM-158 JASSM 370km, option AGM-158 JASSM-ER 1000km., This is enough to hit targets without entering the ground defense zone.

The reference to Deinekin’s experience with the B-1B control is not entirely clear, in the article we are talking about the next modernization of the aircraft, since 1991. The V-1B has undergone more than one modernization (the Tu-160 has not undergone a single one) increasing the range of used guided weapons and the possibility of communication and on-board equipment.
Regarding the article, the point of modernization is to increase awareness of the target situation, to receive data on targets in the air from various sources located in the direct radio-visibility zone, to retarget launched missiles in case of changes in target data. One B-1B in August 2008 could, without entering the Georgian air defense zone, destroy all the targets for which Tu-22M3, Su-25 and Su-24 had to sacrifice. Where in August 2008 were the Tu-160? At home, in Engels, as it was not their war. Continuing the topic, it is worth noting that the Tu-160 in that strategic configuration in which it exists is absolutely useless, it is easier to launch a nuclear strike by Topoli.

[Vasek]

Quote: Nayhas

The reference to Deinekin’s experience with B-1B control is not entirely clear, the article discusses the next modernization of the aircraft

Dear, do not be mean. Not all visitors and site participants are aviators.
For example, I, the land, it was interesting to know the opinion of the most authoritative general about this car. Just as flattered by the high praise by American pilots of the qualifications of our Air Force commander in chief.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Vasek

Dear, do not be mean. Not all visitors and site participants are aviators.
For example, I, the land, it was interesting to know the opinion of the most authoritative general about this car. Just as flattered by the high praise by American pilots of the qualifications of our Air Force commander in chief.

As of 1991 The Tu-160 was really a cool bomber, better than the B-1B. But time passed and the shortcomings of the B-1B were eliminated, the concept of its use changed, and the Tu-160 was only getting old ... In order to understand this, you do not need to buy specials. literature, online a sea of ​​information, you need only curiosity

[twviewer]

B-1 with Integrated Battle Station
VSDU (Vertical Situation Display Unit)
"Block-16" to support the combat effectiveness of the B-1 (Sustainment-Block 16, SB-16)

with such an interpretation, anyone will get confused :) another 10-15 years of putinka and we will forget how to read at all, at school they say directly if you want to teach your child pay, "for additional classes" according to the Soviet program :) 30 years of degradation starting with "Misha" alas and ah.

[Anaris]

equipped with an integrated battle station (Integrated Battle Station)

Can it still be integrated?

[alone]

As you can see, when it comes to state interests and defense, US states do not save money.