I didn't say the B1-B, I said the original B-1A that had variable air intakes that inabled it to go to Mach 2 at high altitude. I don't know the full story but it was canceled while in the prototype stage. Then years later the B1 programe was relaunched and the result was the B1-B, which sacrificed the ability to go mach 2 for stealth traits like fixed and patialy hidden engine intakes (which slows top speed to just over mach 1) and radar absobing paint.

So upwards of mach 2 was a bit of a stretch... he says up to mach 1.35 but at low altitudes only for short sprints cause at that speed it would use up all the gas in less than an hour... still, the B-1's low level cruising speeds are much faster than fighters, around mach .95, fighters couldn't sustain that rate of fuel consumption so they cruise 100 knots slower at low altitudes...

Still, my point holds that flying a B1 at 500 ft at those speeds would be the best experience for a bomber pilot..

Fixed it a bit. Saw you used a strange world. lol:-P

lol your fix might be more acurate too, seems the B1-B's are starting to fall apart.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...lancer_040808/

I'd take a Tornado GR.4 over the B1-B for low level interdiction, their speeds are comparable. No doubt Soviet Ace will take the Tu-160. Now thats a Mach 2 bomber!!

I just love it when people can know what I'd like. :D It may not be the best looking Mach 2 bomber, but just look at it's..... I dunno. From what I've read, they're supposed to hold up much better than the B1 due to structural redesigning on the earlier ones?

http://www.topmdi.com/pesawat/pics/tu-160_16.jpg

It was also the first bomber with control columns as opposed to the normal steering wheel affairs