Say it aint so...

[John Dupre]

I don't know about the B-1 but I remember reading that the only thing that wasn't worn out on the F-14 was the knuckle, the actual swing wing joint. There was one proposal to scrap the Tomcats one for one using the knuckle to build an entirely new airframe. The B-1 certainly has never really lived up to its early reputation witness that it never participated in the Gulf War.

As for future military needs I never believe those pundits or experts that opine that we will never see this or that type of war again. A geographically large and economically diverse nation should have a military significantly large and well equipped to fight at least two major campaigns at once including low level guerrilla war to full blown conventional air, land, sea action. I can think of at least three threats to this country that would entail large conventional forces projected over very long sea lanes. If we aren't ready then it will be a long hard slog to gain a position for even a cease fire let alone victory. This doesn't even consider the Islamic bomb. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

[Ken]

deleted

Last edited by Ken on Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Steve Nelson]

I've only gotten to see a Bone fly once. There was one at the airshow here back in the early 90s. I was at the field the next day when the plane departed. The pilot brought her around for a swept-wing flyby in full AB, with a line of black thunderstorms as a backdrop. What a spectacular view, with those "shock diamonds" coming out of the tailpipes! As for the aircraft's usefullness in the current geomilitary (is that a word?) climate, I can't say. When I took the AMARG tour back in '04, there was a bunch of B-1s there. The tour guide said they were rotating about half of them through storage at any given time, to spread the hours out evenly among the entire fleet. They also had all the tooling and jigs for the B-2 sitting out there, in case there is ever a need to restart the production line.

SN

[Randy Haskin]

...an airplane that was poorly designed and is a 'lemon' in every sense of the word with respect to it's maintenance reliability.

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

I don't know, no. The pilots I know relate stories of abysmally low Mission Capable rates and maintenance personnel who are working at a back-breaking pace just to try and meet daily flying requirements.

[RyanShort1]

The B-1 certainly has never really lived up to its early reputation witness that it never participated in the Gulf War.

I don't think that's accurate. My understanding is that the Bones from the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons were some of the first over Baghdad dropping ordnance during the shock and awe phase. They are the inheritors of the Doolittle Raiders' squadron's legacy and Mr. Cole has been to their squadron for a few occasions and gave me a squadron patch.
The thing is, I don't doubt there may be issues with the aircraft, but I suspect it has more to do with the missions it was intended for and what it is actually been asked to do.

Ryan

[Ztex]

The B-1 certainly has never really lived up to its early reputation witness that it never participated in the Gulf War.

I don't think that's accurate. My understanding is that the Bones from the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons were some of the first over Baghdad dropping ordnance during the shock and awe phase. They are the inheritors of the Doolittle Raiders' squadron's legacy and Mr. Cole has been to their squadron for a few occasions and gave me a squadron patch.
The thing is, I don't doubt there may be issues with the aircraft, but I suspect it has more to do with the missions it was intended for and what it is actually been asked to do.

Ryan

The B-1 did not participate in the "Gulf War" (1991). The official line was that they were reserving the airplane for nuclear strike, the Soviet Union was in a bit of turmoil at the time....and the B-2 was not yet on-line.

[marine air]

The B-1A only had nuclear capability. The B-1B supposedly has some conventional missions but the rumor I heard is that iron bombs tumble when released form the bombay and this greatly reduces accuracy.
It is a 1970's design with obsolete 1960's and 70's technology. I have seen them often doing low level training out over the desert in the western U.S. Those flights are really bumpy and I know take a toll on most aircraft with stress cracks on the wing spars etc. They aren't going to last forever like the KC-135's have.
Are those engines turbofans or turbojets like the Concorde? Just wondering how many tens of thousands of dollars it costs to fly per hour, in fuel costs.

[Ken]

I think Ryan was referring to Shock and Awe 2003, not 1991.

The GE F101 turbofans share a similar heritage to the F110 used in the F-16.

[eze240]

Hmmm..... small correction: The B-1A had conventional as well as nuclear capability, of course there were only 4 built, main difference was the first three A's had a capsule style ejection system, like an F-111- they found that seats were cheaper and lighter weight.
The current administration doesn't believe they are needed-probably because they think we can "love " our enemies or something (maybe they'll just bow to them).
The B-1 is capable of reasonably accurate bombing, but was built to go up against people with extremely heavy air defenses where we didn't have control of the air,etc....
One of the guys also hit on something real important- stress from low level flight, much like flying in combat.....The B-1 was built to have a average life span of 20 years in service, with perhaps a few hundred hours in "combat" conditions. So, most are probably near the end of their life, without a SLEP program, presumably parts are starting to run out- IE electronics more than major mechanicals.
As to engines: they use GE F-101-102 series turbo fans (B model)- same engine family as F-16,F15, late F-14.....
F-14's were retired more for financial reasons- the navy likely needed the money for the F-35 program.
My biggest concern about this retirement is that , if they dispose of them- as was done with many F-14's, we may find ourselves in a bad situation should something happen in a place like Korea. fighting on more fronts with less reserves available.

[Jarink1]

The B-1 did not participate in the "Gulf War" (1991). The official line was that they were reserving the airplane for nuclear strike, the Soviet Union was in a bit of turmoil at the time....and the B-2 was not yet on-line.

That might be a bit of an understatement!
Dissolution of the USSR 1990-91

[RareBear]

The article linked to in the original post said that the cost in 2001 per flight hour was almost $16,000. I imagine that has gone up quite a bit in the 9 years since then.


Walt

[Ztex]

The B-1 did not participate in the "Gulf War" (1991). The official line was that they were reserving the airplane for nuclear strike, the Soviet Union was in a bit of turmoil at the time....and the B-2 was not yet on-line.

That might be a bit of an understatement!
Dissolution of the USSR 1990-91

You caught that bit of meiosis....

Zane the subtle...

[Randy Haskin]

I don't doubt there may be issues with the aircraft, but I suspect it has more to do with the missions it was intended for and what it is actually been asked to do.

While there is truth in the statement that the airplane has never actually been called to perform it's designed wartime mission profile, the maintenance capable rate and the difficulty in maintaining it aren't the result of that. In fact, I'd argue that the "current" combat operations the BONE is participating in cause much less stress on the airframe, avionics, and systems than a true Cold War-style mission would. About the only challenge in OEF sorties is the duration -- they apparently average 12-hour missions daily. This should not be a challenge for a combat aircraft -- remember that EVERY military airplane has been going on overdrive for the last 10+ years, and none of the others are falling apart at an astonishing rate.

It was a turkey long before 2001. I've been hearing jokes about it being only good enough for airshows since the early 90s.

[StyrenePilot1970]

My brother was weapons on the B-1B at Dyess when the fracas broke out in 2001.

The B-1B was at one point carrying nukes. Her mission changed with the SALT (?) treaties of the 1990s. The Russians still inspect (at least in 2003) Dyess to insure we haven't made them capable of carrying nukes again.

In my opinion - the problems with the B-1B are legion.

1. The mission the a/c was designed for changed, rather often. B-1B's are carrying sniper pods and doing close air support in the Middle East now. A far cry from original design specs.

2. No spare parts. All the tooling dyes were destroyed. Often there are hangar queens that are sacrificed for parts or airframes in the boneyard are raided.

3. Bomb racks have no spare parts. The bomb modules in the Bone are pretty complicated. But no off the shelf spare parts are available for computers or other bomb module parts.

She may be sexy, and its a shame she was a little mismanaged (thanks Prez Carter), but she has become expensive to fly and maintain.

I think a bigger problem has been touched on here by a few posts. The procurement procedures these days for military aircraft are seriously screwed up. In the "good old days", by the time the B-1 would have made her first flight, her replacement would have been on the drawing boards.

In someways, I think our aerospace defense procurement is a bit like the Germans in WW2 - Rely on a single airframe to do too many missions and keep a tired old airframe in service far past its sell by date.

But with drones and unmanned aircraft, does it really matter anymore?

[RyanShort1]

1. The mission the a/c was designed for changed, rather often. B-1B's are carrying sniper pods and doing close air support in the Middle East now. A far cry from original design specs.

2. No spare parts. All the tooling dyes were destroyed. Often there are hangar queens that are sacrificed for parts or airframes in the boneyard are raided.

3. Bomb racks have no spare parts. The bomb modules in the Bone are pretty complicated. But no off the shelf spare parts are available for computers or other bomb module parts.

To me, those things indicate that it's not necessarily a bad design, but a bad support system for a weapon that's doing something other than it's intended purpose. In which case, it might make sense to stop using it for those purposes and mothball them in case their mission is ever needed again. Using the wrong tool for the wrong job might mean you don't have the right tool for another job that comes up.

Ryan