Another idea B-1B?

[Redacted but not so]

We have the Tu-22M, but not the B-1B, it would fit in the original game's timeline as deliveries started in 1985.

[Soylent_Greene]

At what point did the Bones start carrying ALCM's and SCRAM's?

Or were they always nuclear bombers?
Were they ever equipped for Harpoons and Tomahawks?

[Redacted but not so]

Yeah I was thinking about that but then I remembered that after the cold war I think the b1s lost the nuclear capability and I know for a fact that dumb bombing has little effectiveness in the modern day, however looking at the google..... Yeah all the cruise missiles are WAY too advanced for the game.

[Redacted but not so]

I am getting conflicting answers from google on if the b1b used the agm-86c conventional variant

[Redacted but not so]

It could carry the B version so mod devs could stretch things a bit and give it the c, after all, crazier things have been modded in. This being said, the b52 carries more of this stuff but I would like to see a fast bomber for NATO, would be fun.

[strykerpsg]

Was nuclear armed 1985-2007. After 2007, conventional guided and dumb bombs.

Source:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by strykerpsg:

Was nuclear armed 1985-2007. After 2007, conventional guided and dumb bombs.

Source:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

Seems like a good fit for the game.

[supersound99ss]

For one, the Tu-22M and B-1 are not even the same class or role. The Soviet equivalent of the B-1 is the Tu-160.

Two, the B-1Bs during the game's timeframe were solely tasked for nuclear deterrent. They didn't carry anything else until after the Soviet Union dissolved. One could argue they could carry dumb bombs during this time, but never did operationally.

I'm all for it being added as a mod, but not a plane that the devs should work on. We need more aircraft that actually had some naval role first. And since there are no nukes in the game officially, no need of a plane that only carried them during this time frame (very much like the A-5 on US CVs).

[Soylent_Greene]

SuperSound,

I read that the TU-160 is actually quite a bit bigger than the Bone, and more capable.

Then again, I also believed our briefings while assigned to Germany in the 80s that the Russians were going to roll over us through the FULDA GAP, making our units minor speed bumps.
Seems the Ukrainians have shown us just how overblown the USSR was!

[lamarax]

Well, the Ukrainians *were* part of the USSR, weren't they? ;)

[Redacted but not so]

time to cope with nation override tu22ms

[Redacted but not so]

The B-1B could carry the AGM-86B nuke so it would not be a stretch to add the conventional c version, and while yes, the b52 can do that, the b1 will be much more fun because it is faster.

[supersound99ss]

Originally posted by Soylent_Greene:

SuperSound,

I read that the TU-160 is actually quite a bit bigger than the Bone, and more capable.

Yea it is quite noticeably bigger, and they differ quite a bit in designed strike profile. The Bone was designed for low level penetration. The Tu-160 was followed the original B-1A profile. High altitude, high speed stand off strike.

[supersound99ss]

Originally posted by Redacted but not so:

The B-1B could carry the AGM-86B nuke so it would not be a stretch to add the conventional c version, and while yes, the b52 can do that, the b1 will be much more fun because it is faster.

Except the AGM-86C was not introduced until after 1985 in limited numbers on B-52s. They were first used in Desert Storm again by the B-52s. It should be noted that no B-1s participated in Desert Storm because they were standing nuclear alert.

[Tennguy72]

YES....with all ordnance. Missiles included.

[Redacted but not so]

Go out of history a bit... and we could give it non-nuclear cruise missiles