# Talk:Rockwell B-1 Lancer

According to this Wikipedia page -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
a B1 was shot down in Afghanistan.
This should be added here.￼ 109.144.29.220 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot cite itself, so we need a reliable published source for the claim. There is a cited source in that article for the claim, but it's behind a paywall. Since I can't verify the claim, I won't add it. It does seem odd that an event that supposedly happened over 20 years ago is already the article, and I certainly don't remember hearing about it in 2001. BilCat (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
According to https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-loss.htm there were two losses near Afghanistan, but neither were due to combat. Mysticdan (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Seperating from the standard notion of flying fast and high, the F-14 on steroids instead flies low and very fast. the small murican' Tu-160 has a top speed around mach 1.8 or, one bajillion miles per century. the actually useful murican' MiG-23 is one of the 3 American strategic bombers. the oversized Tu-22m is far more useful and overall better than the Tu-22m.
I will delete this if required Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to start a forum type discussion. Wikipedia talk pages are meant for discussion and article improvement related activities. See WP:TPG#YES for Good practices to follow. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
oh no I was just joking around, do you want me to delete this? Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not necessary now. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/bombers4.html
May 8 2006 B1-B landed gear up at Diego Garcia. Conclusion of investigation was that the crew never lowered the gear and took numerous steps to silence the alarms. 49.224.13.227 (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's essentially a person's web site and not a reliable source, see WP:RELIABLE. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: While not an accident, the 1991 Lancer/tornado incident fits in that section, right? The section says Accidents and incidents, but feel free to let me know if I'm wrong. It's a relatively well-known incident, I mean if that tornado did hit actually hit the Lancers it'd be one of the costliest tornado in history. :) EF5 17:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Accidents and incidents" section is for notable aviation accidents and incidents. That is not an aviation accident and I moved (not deleted) it to another section. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
So "accidents" and "incidents" are the same thing? Why isn't the section header just named "Accidents" then. I'm clearly not experienced in the aviation side of Wikipedia. :) EF5 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
See Aviation accidents and incidents for info and background... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Avionics section says the APQ-164 is a "passive electronically scanned array" system. The source cited for that sentence does not mention it being "passive". I have found two sources that state it has a phased array antenna system, but no mention of it being a PESA system. As a transmitting X-band radar, it's kinda' hard for it to be "passive".

Anyone have a problem if I update that part of the article to say "phased array" and drop the "passive" part? — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk-Email) 19:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Disregard all of the above – I had somehow become hyper-focused on the word "passive". — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk-Email) 02:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)