Warbird Information Exchange

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/jun/28/b-1b-fleet-could-be-retired-early/

If the 66 remaining B-1B's retire, that would leave approximately 93 B-52H's (may be fewer now) and 21 B-2's to hold the line until the next gen bomber (if it ever does) comes online. Not so sure I like the sound of that. Plus the more critical tanker situation has yet to be resolved.....anyway I'm rambling.

Sure hate to see them consider retiring this Warbird.

As far as I know, there isn't anything even in the pipeline as far as a next generation strategic bomber goes. If they started today, it would be 8-10 years before any new bomber could be on line.

Walt

_________________
If God had intended airplane engines to have horizontally-opposed cylinders, Pratt & Whitney would have built them that way.

Could big bombers be the thing of the past? I heard about the B-1 retirement thing a few weeks ago on another forum and I am really shocked. The B-1 still looks "new" and modern to me. I hope they don't retire them anytime soon. I think it's a forgotten type I never hear much about them. Why?

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

I suspect the variable geometry wings make the operating costs high. When stealth is needed for a strike the B-2 gets the job, and when mass bombing is needed the B-52 gets the job. It is almost as if the role originally envisioned for the B-1 is no longer there (low-level strike). Perhaps in the economical environment of tightening budgets we should not be surprised?

I am not an expert. These are just a few comments from a casual observer of the defense industry.

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

You guys should hear the stories told by guys who fly/flew the BONE -- they relate an airplane that was poorly designed and is a 'lemon' in every sense of the word with respect to it's maintenance reliability.

When word of this came out this last week, exactly zero of the B-1 pilots in my current squadron were surprised or upset about it.

_________________

Thanks Randy for confirmimg years of rumours about this aircraft.

The legacy of the B-1B may very well be that when it wasn't broken it was one heck of an impressive air show aircraft. Full burner takeoffs left a rumbling inside your chest. I remember one year at the old London International Air Show whrn they scored a coup...two B-1Bs at the show and neither could fly as they were both broken

Cheers,

Jeff

_________________
The true north strong and free

That's not to say that the BONE hasn't been able to perform some important work during the wars of the last decade, but to hear the people that know it talk about it, it is not a tragedy to retire it.

One pilot related to me something that was told to him as he was in his initial training course; faced with a diagram for the bleed air/environmental control system that is 14 pages long in the Dash 1, the instructor said that it is "so complicated that even the engineers don't understand it, so there's no way the maintainers or aircrew will get it."

_________________

The sad thing is the replacement will probably be unmanned.

I too will be bummed when the B1 is retired. To this day, the best demonstration at an airshow I've ever seen is the B1. That was over 20 years ago and dozens of airshows. Ofcourse, this is my personal experience only.

Besides the B36, this is the one plane that I look forward to seeing every time I visit the Cold War Gallery at the NMUSAF. Hope it hangs around a while in service!

I think it is because the need for such a strategic platform is disappearing. We are no longer fighting massive countires battles, but rather tactical, one man army terrorist, which, in many budget eyes, we just no longer have a need for the Bone.

The B-2 has the stealth needed in the event of a nuclear war, and we have enough unmanned aircraft and missile capabilities, I mean, really, do we still need it?

It is sad to see any plane retire, but face it, todays war is not the same as it was 20-60 years ago.

Are there any insights as to why it was poorly designed? What makes it so hard to maintain?

This reminds me a bit of the B-58, a high performance A/C very hard to maintain (the fuselages do look similar, don't they).
On the reason B-1B is hard to maintain, I don't know any details, but the A/C was designed in the 60s and 70s, mothballed after
cancellation by Jimmy Carter, then brought back later. The B-58 was full of vacuum tubes with a low MTBF.
Swing wings are in many ways a "great idea that didn't work". Most A/C that used them are now out of service. The F-14
was the most successful version, but it also is out of service do in part to cost of operation.

Probably won't happen, but I'd love to see the B-1 do a farewell tour before retirement and have the air force get a bunch of them out for display at airshows through 2011.

I talked to a couple guys at Davis-Monthan a couple years ago about the B-1s that had already been retired. They told me that the wings were just plain worn out from flying all the time at low-level. I used to dig dinosaurs in the Powder River East MOA area, and we had B-1s from Ellsworth flying by at 400 feet AGL (sometimes lower, back before the accident in Montana). It was quite a sight to be up on a ridge and watch the planes rocket past you at whatever speed (looked faster than 250 kts to me), and below where you're standing.

I'll sure miss them when they're gone...

Chris