B-1 Bombers: Retire them!?! No way, sell them off!
- Thread starter MadRat
- Start date
"Why would we want to sell technology like that to another country?"
Does it matter? We can blast 'em out of the skies with our Aurora now.
sexy linkage
Does it matter? We can blast 'em out of the skies with our Aurora now.
sexy linkage
<< Why would we want to sell technology like that to another country? >>
Let other countries soldiers die in all of the crashes instead of ours.
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
The B-1B is a heavy fighter plane in agility and a heavy bomber in payload. The B-1(A) was NOT originally designed to fly in with heavy jamming; the onboard jammers were added in the B-1B program after the fact.
It was designed to fly faster than any fighter down as low as 50 feet off the ground. (Typical training takes place between 600 and 1,000 feet altitude in fairly flat terrain, way higher than the plane was designed to fly.) You have to realize that radar-homing missiles have a tough time picking off targets along the ground, especially from behind. If you want to improve the chances of interception with a radar-homing missile then it needs to approach from headon. Problem is the ultra-low approach to target allows the B-1B to hide along the curvature of the earth long enough to get under most air defenses.
Infrared homing missiles have a fairly tough time picking the B-1B out of the terrain, too. It has a low-observable design to prevent infrared deflections. (Most people think its low-observable design means just anti-radar.) It also locates its engines below the main portion of the fuselage, preventing infrared lock from most positions except from a tail aspect. Again, ground clutter (while at 50-200 feet altitude) and the location of the engines make it difficult to get into an ideal launch-position against the bomber.
The "33" number of bombers chosen is probably not because of some specific monetary savings. It may have to do with the block of bombers off the production line. The early block of B-1Bs seems to have had the worst track record as far as maintenance and availability. Perhaps they are retiring them for that reason.
Either way, sell them off. Lets make some money back on the whole deal. They can be fitted to only drop conventional bombs by switching out their launch rails; makes them suitable for export. I'd think the UK, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Isreal, India, Argentina, Brazil, or Australia would be interested in them.
btw - It wasn't just an 11-pound bird that knocked down that one B-1B. Read up on the folly that covered that whole ordeal. It was a big "Murphy's Law" incident.
It was designed to fly faster than any fighter down as low as 50 feet off the ground. (Typical training takes place between 600 and 1,000 feet altitude in fairly flat terrain, way higher than the plane was designed to fly.) You have to realize that radar-homing missiles have a tough time picking off targets along the ground, especially from behind. If you want to improve the chances of interception with a radar-homing missile then it needs to approach from headon. Problem is the ultra-low approach to target allows the B-1B to hide along the curvature of the earth long enough to get under most air defenses.
Infrared homing missiles have a fairly tough time picking the B-1B out of the terrain, too. It has a low-observable design to prevent infrared deflections. (Most people think its low-observable design means just anti-radar.) It also locates its engines below the main portion of the fuselage, preventing infrared lock from most positions except from a tail aspect. Again, ground clutter (while at 50-200 feet altitude) and the location of the engines make it difficult to get into an ideal launch-position against the bomber.
The "33" number of bombers chosen is probably not because of some specific monetary savings. It may have to do with the block of bombers off the production line. The early block of B-1Bs seems to have had the worst track record as far as maintenance and availability. Perhaps they are retiring them for that reason.
Either way, sell them off. Lets make some money back on the whole deal. They can be fitted to only drop conventional bombs by switching out their launch rails; makes them suitable for export. I'd think the UK, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Isreal, India, Argentina, Brazil, or Australia would be interested in them.
btw - It wasn't just an 11-pound bird that knocked down that one B-1B. Read up on the folly that covered that whole ordeal. It was a big "Murphy's Law" incident.
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Ummm, why are we selling them off?? I remember that the B1-A's first flew in the mid to late 70's, but the B1-B was first entered into operational service in the early 80's if I'm not mistaken.
Why retire them so early?? The B-52 has been in operation for about 50 years now (the US Airforce says that the want to retrofit the planes to be able to fly for 100 years). And they are also much faster than the B-52's. It also has some stealth characteristics so it has a lower radar cross section that the B-52.
Also, do you have a link where it says that we are retiring them?
Why retire them so early?? The B-52 has been in operation for about 50 years now (the US Airforce says that the want to retrofit the planes to be able to fly for 100 years). And they are also much faster than the B-52's. It also has some stealth characteristics so it has a lower radar cross section that the B-52.
Also, do you have a link where it says that we are retiring them?
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
The reason they are retiring them is because they are extremely expensive to maintain and have a spotty record for readiness (as a result of the maintenance). They will NOT be sold, for obvious reasons, but they are also sorely needed for parts to keep the other B-1s in the inventory flying. The B-1B has the highest cannibalization rating in the Air Force -- 80% (meaning, 80% of the planes flying have parts taken from another B-1).
NFS4: The B-52 is an anomaly in the Air Force. No other aircraft has that kind of longevity, though the C-130 is approaching it (first operationally flown in 1958 -- that plane was still flying with a Guard unit until the mid-1990s). However, the B-52 is a very robust plane and does not have the same awful history as the B-1B does, which came into service in the '80s as you say.
NFS4: The B-52 is an anomaly in the Air Force. No other aircraft has that kind of longevity, though the C-130 is approaching it (first operationally flown in 1958 -- that plane was still flying with a Guard unit until the mid-1990s). However, the B-52 is a very robust plane and does not have the same awful history as the B-1B does, which came into service in the '80s as you say.
<< Either way, sell them off. Lets make some money back on the whole deal. They can be fitted to only drop conventional bombs by switching out their launch rails; makes them suitable for export. I'd think the UK, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Isreal, India, Argentina, Brazil, or Australia would be interested in them.
btw - It wasn't just an 11-pound bird that knocked down that one B-1B. Read up on the folly that covered that whole ordeal. It was a big "Murphy's Law" incident. >>
One of the reasons why the B-1B never materialized into a more productive bomber was due to the fact that it was restricted to one role: a nuke role.
Recent upgrades have allowed the bomber to finally become a capable bomber transferring role from Nuclear Tactical bomber, to a Conventional arsenal bomber.
Do you really think it was cheap for the US to upgrade the bomber to finally become a conventional bomber?
/me giggles like little schoolgirl
I would rather the US lose money on the B-1B than to see another country gain long range precision strike capability. To this day, the B-1B is one of the most sophisticated aircraft in service, and with recent MSIP upgrades it makes the B-2 look silly.
Think about this. Are there ANY other countries in the world that have a heavy strategic bomber anymore? Any in the class of the B-1B? Nope. The Tu-160 was hardly comprable to the B-1B and besides....that old hulk is out of service.
Just because the plane is old doesn't mean it doesn't contain technologies the U.S. doesn't want other countries to have.
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
If the UK or Australia wanted them would I sell them? Of course!
If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Isreal, India, Argentina, Brazil, or Isreal wanted them? Most likely, but I'd rip out the ECCMs and remove the refueling equipment. Maybe even downgrade the engines to the export models. The convential bomb racks are run by software. They can be stripped down to be less capable fairly easily. We'd still be recouping some on our investment!
The B-52s still in service have new backbones (splines) in them that should last a good 20 years. The avionics will need to be updated every year, but that is realistic. The BUFF has alot of room for mounting equipment. Its one of the few bombers designed with enough hollow cavity to stand up inside of it. However, she is one big target. The USAF really needs to switch her engines over to a four-engine layout from the eight-engine (17k lb. thrust each) layout. B-52 purists keep winning that battle. The turbofans of the 747's suck down far less gas and are much easier to maintain.
If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Isreal, India, Argentina, Brazil, or Isreal wanted them? Most likely, but I'd rip out the ECCMs and remove the refueling equipment. Maybe even downgrade the engines to the export models. The convential bomb racks are run by software. They can be stripped down to be less capable fairly easily. We'd still be recouping some on our investment!
The B-52s still in service have new backbones (splines) in them that should last a good 20 years. The avionics will need to be updated every year, but that is realistic. The BUFF has alot of room for mounting equipment. Its one of the few bombers designed with enough hollow cavity to stand up inside of it. However, she is one big target. The USAF really needs to switch her engines over to a four-engine layout from the eight-engine (17k lb. thrust each) layout. B-52 purists keep winning that battle. The turbofans of the 747's suck down far less gas and are much easier to maintain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter