Where to for B-1 Bomber?

[rjmaz1]

Actually i think the F-22 is needed, probably more so than the F-35.

Bomb trucking after the door is knocked down can be done easily by the B-1b and legacy fighter jets. Without the F-22 and B-2 the door would not get knocked down.

With just the F-22 added the USAF could simply use new F-16's and the existing bomber force and everything else and get by fine. The same couldn't be said with the F-35.

As spectre said the current fighters are getting old and need to be replaced. They are however more than capable of performing the current missions so replacing them with an aircraft 10 times the price would be far from ideal.

The ultimate cost cutting measure would have been to cancel the F-35 completely and put the money into the backbone of the USAF being refueling tankers and airlift.

That is water under the bridge.

 

[Magoo]

How old are the "tactical" C-130s?

>25 years old

How old are the KC-135s?

>40 years old

How old are the E-3s?

>25 years old

How old are the C-5s?

C-5A - >35 years old
C-5B - >20 years old
C-5M will be a good fix, although I feel more C-17s would be a better long term solution.

The B-52s need replacement now...but with what?

If the desired IOC of 2018 for the next manned bomber is to be achieveable, the solutin will probably be subsonic and manned, but very stealthy. Something smaller than the B-1B, but larger than the F-111, and with a payload range of about 20,000lb/2,000nm.

I honestly feel the LAST thing we need right now are F-22s
We do not fight those type of battles anymore and still the F-15 can beet anything in the air right now.

The F-15s are tired and have fatigue issues. Even the early F-15Es are going to need some structural work in the next decade.

Sure, they need replacement and the f-22 is a damn good plane to do it but, right now, we need airlifters, bombers, attack planes, tankers and AWACS for the most part, these are ALL older than the F-15s and, they are used so much more.

Agreed. The replacement platforms for the C-130E, KC-135 and 707-based force multipliers will need to be in-service in numbers by the middle of the next decade.

Most of our airplanes are old, most need to be replaced...I agree with the F-16s but the F-15s get so little use

The F-15Cs are deterrents, and whether they are actually used or not, they assure air superiority simply be their presence because few enemies will want to come out to play against them. The F-22 will be the same, only much, MUCH more so!

I can't but help feel that, yes, replace the transport and tankers as soon as possible, but also get more F-22s under a MYP as well. The USAF will probably never take 1700 F-35s, as a one-for-one replacement of F-16s and A-10s is simply not necessary if the F-35A turns out to be as capable as the manufacturer calims it will be.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Rich]

In the last post I did I refered to returning the B-1 to it's original role, I did not mean to it's role as the B-1b, but as the B-1a. The supersonic high level long range bomber. Remember a few years ago the US got intell about the location of Osama, but by the time they got a warhead to the location he had left, and only civilians were left. I don't remember whether they used a B-52 or a Tomahawk, but the result was there was nothing that could get there fast enough to get the job done, the B-1a may have. The US is working on hypersonic missiles and conventional warheaded IBMs, but in the interim, a return of the B-1a would be welcome. It doesn't need to carry a hugh bombload, it needs the original variable intakes, and a conventional warheaded SRAM with GPS guidance or similar.

Yeah but why waste resources upgrading 20+ year airframes, in the already stressed maintenance environment they are in,
trying to turn the bomber into something its not?

The B1b is a different airplane then the original B1. Its airframe will not be able to take the stresses of long supersonic flight. The original B1 design had a far stronger airframe integrated into it to take higher speeds, for longer times. As it is the B1b is pretty good at low level penetration and that's an edge that may pay dividends in a future conflict. In other words the doctrine of LRCS, and low level penetration, have proven so sound it would be madness to change it. I'd rather have a 200 million$$ intercontinental bomber setup to beat the PLA then to beat Osama Bin Laden.

I'm not against this system profile your suggesting ; I'm just against using old technology to do it when we have systems under development that will eventually fill that role.

You cant blame systems for human Intel, and command, failures.

 

[abramsteve]

Havent been able to follow the thread for the past couple of days, finally just caught up!

Some really great info from all! So the BUFF to soldier on, the B-2 to be the tip of the sword and the B-1B to be left behind. Such a shame for such a great looking aircraft!

Moving slightly off topic, but what are the chances of a new, more F-1111 like bomber, sort of a cross between the A-6 and the B-52? A medium range, low level bomb truck? Somthing wich is capable of supersonic penetration, has a good subsonic loiter time and a wide range weaponary/EW systems...

 

[Todjaeger]

The B1b is a different airplane then the original B1. Its airframe will not be able to take the stresses of long supersonic flight. The original B1 design had a far stronger airframe integrated into it to take higher speeds, for longer times.

I have to step in and disagree here Rich, the original B-1 didn't have a stronger airframe. One problem that was found after flight testing was stress cracks in parts of the airframe. This was a result of the bomber design of the B-1 having a flight performance more akin to a fighter jet. The B-1s when designed, were not anticipated to undergo high speed maneuvers aside from in more or less level flight. Therefore the weight distribution and need for airframe integrity was initially thought to be required only in a limited axis. Due to some of the extreme maneuvers done when not in level flight, cracks started appearing because the weight wasn't being distributed to reinforced parts of the airframe. As a result, the B-1 underwent a redesign which IIRC increased the weight and had the airframe reinforced in all axis like fighters usually are.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Havent been able to follow the thread for the past couple of days, finally just caught up!

Some really great info from all! So the BUFF to soldier on, the B-2 to be the tip of the sword and the B-1B to be left behind. Such a shame for such a great looking aircraft!

Moving slightly off topic, but what are the chances of a new, more F-1111 like bomber, sort of a cross between the A-6 and the B-52? A medium range, low level bomb truck? Somthing wich is capable of supersonic penetration, has a good subsonic loiter time and a wide range weaponary/EW systems...

Take a look at this link to globalsecurity here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm

Right now it seems it's only a paper concept, but it seems to be what you're talking about. Given the retirement of the F-117, and the potential for an increased capability need for mid-range stealthy strike (beyond what any F-22 or F-35 could provide), the FB-22 seems to fit the bill. I think part of the appeal for the design is that it's awfully expensive to fly a B-2 halfway around to world to drop a few bombs, if a closer, smaller stealth aircraft could be used instead.

-Cheers

 

[Rich]

My understanding, and I'm going from memory here, is the B1b had less strength built into her airframe in an effort to reduce weight, increase range and payload, especially low level flight range. My understanding was always that the reduced titanium and steel in the airframe was deemed acceptable because the bombers mission profile did not include 2,000 mph dashes anymore as the B1 did.

When I have time I will research this. Ive been terribly busy lately.

I have to step in an disagree here Rich, the original B-1 did'nt have a stronger airframe. One problem that was found after flight testing were stress cracks in parts of the airframe. This was a result of the bomber design of the B-1 with a flight performance more akin to a fighter jet. The
B-1s when designed were not anticipated to undergo high speed maneuvers aside from in more or less level flight. Therefore the weight distribution and need for airframe integrity was initially thought to be required only in a limited axis. Due to the some of the extreme maneuvers done when not in level flight cracks started appearing because the weight wasn't being distributed to reinforced parts of the airframe. As a result, the B-1 underweight a redesign with IIRC increased the weight and have the airframe reinforced in all axis like fighters usually are.

-Cheers

 

[spectre]

Not to be an ass... I would like a source for that. I doubt that the frame was built very differient from the original B-1A

My understanding, and I'm going from memory here, is the B1b had less strength built into her airframe in an effort to reduce weight, increase range and payload, especially low level flight range. My understanding was always that the reduced titanium and steel in the airframe was deemed acceptable because the bombers mission profile did not include 2,000 mph dashes anymore as the B1 did.

When I have time I will research this. Ive been terribly busy lately.

 

[Rich]

Not to be an ass... I would like a source for that. I doubt that the frame was built very differient from the original B-1A

You are not being an "ass" at all. You have every right to request supporting material to a definitive statement made here.

Which I apparently dont have. I was going from memory and it appears my memory was flawed. Anyway here's a link to an interesting conversation on Yank B1b's.
http://yarchive.net/mil/b1.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8629/lancer.htm

Thanks for keeping me on course.

 

[abramsteve]

Good post Rich, the first link was very interesting!

 

[spectre]

You are not being an "ass" at all. You have every right to request supporting material to a definitive statement made here.

Which I apparently dont have. I was going from memory and it appears my memory was flawed. Anyway here's a link to an interesting conversation on Yank B1b's.
http://yarchive.net/mil/b1.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8629/lancer.htm

Thanks for keeping me on course.

Thanks for the links!

I was not trying to hammer you to the wall, I had just never heard that before

 

[Rich]

Thanks for the links!

I was not trying to hammer you to the wall, I had just never heard that before

No problem. Sometimes I have so little time to sit in front of the computer I post things hastily without properly researching. 20 year old memories of a supersonic high altitude nuke truck all of a sudden being turned into a low level/Low RCS penetration bomber weren't good enough. There were some design changes but I think I got them mixed up a bit.

The B1b came into being in not only an interesting time but also in an interesting way. The program was crash started as if national survival were dependant on it. Its low level, Low RCS mission profile was a significant threat to the Soviets and the Bone, along with systems like cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, Trident, MX, were the strong cards Reagan was able to parlay into Soviet concessions at SALT/START and other negotiations with the Soviets. They were the fist in the velvet glove.

Of particular scariness to the Reds was the thought of dozens of B1bs sneaking into the vast perimeters of the USSR , at 100', launching long range ALCMs/W-80 warhead that blows at 200 kt, and with pinpoint accuracy. Imagine that? Each B1b armed with 12 or more ALCMs like that? Combined with Ohio SSBNs and Trident D-5s America would have a war winning first strike option. Most of all when the prevailing thought at the time was that MX would be a rail deployed system.

Gorbachev really had no choice to making concessions. There was no way the Soviets could keep pace with the Yank military/industrial/techno complex. Reagan made common sense concessions too, the point being he was holding a strong hand of cards. He knew it, and so did the Reds.

So we will never really know exactly how much gratitude we should owe to the B1b bomber in its contribution to winning the Cold War. But one thing is for sure, we owe it a lot. To bad that in the operational sense it will be remembered as unremarkable and unless we get into a conflict with a nation that has modern air defenses, like China, we will never really know its full worth.

Todays B1b, with its upgrades, armed with JDAM, JASSM, JASSM-ER, JSOW, and others, is still a weapon to be feared. Even in conventional fit it would be a serious threat to a potential enemy.

 

[alexsa]

Great post, good to see something looked at in perspective.

 

[Scott]

Concur, excellent post, lots of great info.
USAF website
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83
says there are 92 B-52H flying, last delivery taken 1962, speed mach 0.86, payload approx 70,000 lb.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=81
says there are 65 B-1B, last delivery 1988, speed mach 1.2, payload
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/
maximum internal 75,000 lb, maximum external payload 59,000 lb.

IMO the Bone is the prettiest bomber we've ever built. If you've ever seen one screaming down the runway to take off, you might not notice it if an extremely attractive naked woman walked up next to you.

But those aren't reasons to keep the aircraft alive. On the other hand I continue to wonder why we keep updating 45 year old Smokey Joes. Maybe they should rename it Cougar. They seem to be slow and highly vulnerable that can only be flown over areas where we own the sky. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks.

 

[Rich]

But those aren't reasons to keep the aircraft alive. On the other hand I continue to wonder why we keep updating 45 year old Smokey Joes. Maybe they should rename it Cougar. They seem to be slow and highly vulnerable that can only be flown over areas where we own the sky. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks

If your talking about the B-52 then you are forgetting that during the Vietnam war Linebacker campaigns the Buffs made it thru the heaviest air defenses in the world at the time, reducing the Norths strategic targets to mush, and forced the NVs to the negotiating table.

The airframes may be 45yo but the crap inside them aint! The B-52H is a highly evolved and capable system, and, fast for a manned bomber. Remember also that this is the age of standoff/high precision weaponry which has also given the Buff a new lease on life in that it just doesn't need to fight its way in anymore. But "fight its way in" is what it was designed to do and its very good at it. I would not underestimate its EW suite.

Ive seen B-52 pilots fly nap of the earth as well. No problem. And the Buff is a capable platform for a whole range of missions, dont forget its also a capable maritime strike/surveillance/ mine laying platform.

So they are neither "slow" nor "highly vulnerable". They simply "work" and are so good at what they do, and so upgradeable, that they are the most successful bomber design in history.

 

[Rich]

BTW I'd like to thank you all for a terrific discussion in this thread. I dont remember talking B1bs here before.

 

[Tasman]

... they are the most successful bomber design in history.

That's a big statement to make Rich but I have to say I agree with you. Apart from bombers there are few aircraft of any type that have been as successful as the Buff. The C-47/DC-3 is the nearest I can come up with.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It might just be me but i cant see any justification for the B1B at all in the present or future force structure of the USAF. The B2 and F117/F22 are more than capable of penitrating IADS, which the B1 is not without large SEAD support, and the BUFF is a more capable bomb truck, especially with the capability of stadoff wepons being equiped on the thing. I just dont see any justification for the platform at all. It doesn't do anything annother platform can do more effectively or cheaper. More BUFF's, more raptors, less Lancers.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Hell, thats a big payload for the B-1b. Say, would it be worthwhile reengining the B-52, replacing the old smokey turbojets with modern fuel effecient low bypass turofans. Less smoke, less maintenance, more range, quieter.

 

[Waylander]

You cannot compare the F-117A (Which is going to be retired) or the F-22 with the B-1B. They just don't have the legs.
And with the small number of B-2s there is still a role for the B-1B. As I said before the USAF doesn't seem to think it is not usefull anymore so they made them part of the tip of the spear of OIF.

And show me another plane which could do the supporting role in A-stan like the B-1B. Smaller fighters don't have the legs, payload and loiter time and B-52s don't have the speed (And also less payload).

Pure stealth is not everything as stated by the aviation experts here.
The B-1B has some reduced frontal RCS and an excellent ECM suite (Which was highly praised by the USAF during OIF). Together with the high speed and good low level characteristics it is still able to play its role in penetrating enemy airspace.

For sure you are going to use a B-2 or a F-22 (If it is in range) to make a small precision strike.
But when you are fighting a real big air war the B-1B still has the capabilities to be a real pain in the ass for the enemy.