B-1B To Fly Through 2040 Without Major Life Extension

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter_kandra

There's been a lot of posts on here about how there have poor mission readiness and suck from a maintenance perspective, so maybe that explains part of their longevity.

What other options exist?

Buffs and Spirits.

Beef' em up is one option.

Boeing had a proposal for a variant called the B-1R. They planned to put PW F-119 engines in them (Raptor power plants) which would give the B-1 super-cruise capability and a higher top speed. Their version would make them basically missile trucks-which would be an option- but even with only an engine upgrade the B-1 becomes even more viable, just my opinion though.

The B1 was vaunted as an improvement over the B52 because it had low altitude terrain avoidance capability, like the F111 Aardvark. The F111 was also a penetration fighter bomber, designed to penetrate soviet defenses at lo altitude to avoid being detected on radar in the theoretical (nooklercombattoedatoewittharooskies) scenario prior to the age of radar stealth. Problem with both jets as lo altitude penetrators, they are very big and very loud. Slow as the jet age in the age of missiles, arriving late to the Ball and surely spotted before they make their targets by the alerted enemy.
Both jets filled a perceived niche, why so much time and money was poured into their development.

Between the obsolete B52 (for nuclear war) and the advent of hypersonic cruise missiles, the B1 is also obsolete, but still used today in conventional bombing missions in a 'safe' combat environment, dropping bombs on some 'bad guys in trucks'.

Pretty much useless in a out an out nuclear confrontation with superpowers, though.


Edit: Ride the tail fin of a B1 in the 80's, in here at 8:25...

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

I think we can all agree that the procurement process is terribly inefficient.
To many people getting rich from government contracts,
To many people with agendas contrary to the greater good.

Monopolies don't help either. Used to be there were several contractors for different branches, right?

The Air Force got the F15 Eagle and F 16 Falcon, the Navy got the F18 Hornet, the army and marines get support from gunships like the Watrhog and Apache, this is the way of the past. The F22, F35 and god forbid Osprey, represent the bureaucratic 'sole source' miasma of the future.

The F-15, F-16, and F-35 were all procured from contests with full scale demonstrators. The F-18 was a loser from one of the USAF plane contests. The book "Boyd" covers this (excluding the F-35).

www.pbs.org...
This PBS Nova covers the F-35 contest.

Back then development of prototypes was a lot cheaper, competing companies could produce them because the requirements were more focused (nuclear war with the Soviets in Europe under NATO banner).

Air to air combat, interception of bombers and aggressive ground warfare. Everybody got their particular features, the fleet of different platforms has served well, in Iraq for instance.

Lol the Navy got what was left, the Hornet. That was interesting. There was no need of carrier born fighter bombers back then, so they had to take the loser (F18) and develop it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

And the B-1R is DOA. Retire the B-1s and B-2s for the B-21s. Go for a new arsenal plane in the 2020s. big drone with a massive carry capacity. Then dump the B-52s.

a reply to: anzha

The B-21 isn't gonna be an option until the mid-2020s at least. It would be a bad idea not to extend the life of these. What happens if you don't, expecting to have the B-21, and then it's delayed? There has to be some decent overlap.

a reply to: face23785

As much of a maintenance nightmare they are, the B-1 is actually over engineered. They're looking at roughly 2.5x the planned life cycle, without a SLEP.

a reply to: face23785

Build 13 B-21s/year and you have the B-1s replaced in 5 years. It won't take long.

a reply to: anzha

That doesn't really address what I said. It is intended to initially supplement, and finally replace the B-1s. The timing is the question. As I said, it would be disastrous to not maintain the life of the B-1 until well after the B-21 is projected to be combat-ready, in case it is delayed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

As much of a maintenance nightmare they are, the B-1 is actually over engineered. They're looking at roughly 2.5x the planned life cycle, without a SLEP.

Works for me.

a reply to: intrptr


Interesting view of it. The missile truck version seems workable, however.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: nwtrucker

And the B-1R is DOA. Retire the B-1s and B-2s for the B-21s. Go for a new arsenal plane in the 2020s. big drone with a massive carry capacity. Then dump the B-52s.

I can't argue that it isn't DOA. In the Boeing video the scenario is the B-1R providing huge missile potential and once expended enough speed to egress the area.

It would compliment the limited missiles in the 5th Gens.

Ok, forget it. You know much more than I do on the subject. But, no reason not to boost their performance with the 119s if they're going to be around for a while. Otherwise treat them the same as every other AF asset....run them into the ground....figuratively, then literally.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The problem is that an engine upgrade may mean they're NOT around that long. When they upgraded the Strike Eagle engines they had a problem with the back cracking from the extra vibration.

While the extra engine power would be nice, and the electrical power would be great, it's a balancing act when it comes to engine upgrades. The B-52 is another good example. They're having to go with a 1:1 replacement that has similar weight and power, or risk shortening the life of the aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

The problem is that an engine upgrade may mean they're NOT around that long. When they upgraded the Strike Eagle engines they had a problem with the back cracking from the extra vibration.

While the extra engine power would be nice, and the electrical power would be great, it's a balancing act when it comes to engine upgrades. The B-52 is another good example. They're having to go with a 1:1 replacement that has similar weight and power, or risk shortening the life of the aircraft.

They could try it with one or two platforms first and see how they hold up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

During my short time on it, was the only time in my career where I saw a 0% MC rate, we were working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week at home station trying to fix those pigs.

Imagine my disappointment years later to deploy with the 135 years later only to hear that familiar roar, though I did get to meet up with a few guys I worked with while deployed, they said work was about the same a bag of suck, circ 2012.

That plane just does not like cold and wet climates.