Read the forum code of contact
By: - 7th October 2006 at 03:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF opted to retire 2 dozen B1s while still maintaining a sizeable number of B52s in its inventory. The B1 are much younger, faster, carry a far heavier payload, have more modern avionics, etc. etc. What was the rationale for reducing the B1 force instead of just retiring more B52s? Are the B1s less reliable or more expensive to maintain?
the idea was to retire about a third of the fleet so they could afford to upgrade and improve the readiness of the remaining fleet. In typical fashion, they got pulled out of the fleet, congressmen whined because the voters lost jobs, the money got siphoned off to other projects, and you got left with a third less B-1s and not much else changed. That's the last I heard though I'd love to be proven wrong on this one.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 03:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the idea was to retire about a third of the fleet so they could afford to upgrade and improve the readiness of the remaining fleet. In typical fashion, they got pulled out of the fleet, congressmen whined because the voters lost jobs, the money got siphoned off to other projects, and you got left with a third less B-1s and not much else changed. That's the last I heard though I'd love to be proven wrong on this one.
Politics at work once again, it would appear. Why not retire more B52s and use the money to upgrade the entire B1 fleet? guess that would take too much common sense? LOL
By: - 7th October 2006 at 04:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Politics at work once again, it would appear. Why not retire more B52s and use the money to upgrade the entire B1 fleet? guess that would take too much common sense? LOL
In defense of the B-52 it can carry just about anything that can be dropped. The B-1 can't.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 04:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The B-1B fleet was fubar'd before it entered service because SAC never committed money for spares. Almost as soon as something broke on one there had to be serious consideration of retirement and cannibalization of parts.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 07:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In defense of the B-52 it can carry just about anything that can be dropped. The B-1 can't.
Wouldn't that just a question of certifying those weapons on the B1? Anyway, maybe Mad Rat has a point and they needed to retire the B1s for spares.. a pity if that's the case.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF opted to retire 2 dozen B1s while still maintaining a sizeable number of B52s in its inventory. The B1 are much younger, faster, carry a far heavier payload, have more modern avionics, etc. etc. What was the rationale for reducing the B1 force instead of just retiring more B52s? Are the B1s less reliable or more expensive to maintain?
B-1s were built to terrible quality standards. Even with various fixes USAF continues to make mistakes on funding sustainment. A few years back where they had 51% mission uptimes, that was 2% better than what USAF was funding sustainment for the B1 fleet. Starting with Block D ( JDAM ability) this gave it a real, highly useful killing ability. As you may know, the nuke treaty doesn't allow B-1 to carry nukes anymore. B-1 needs a bigger logistical footprint to deploy.... yet now it's only mission is conventional. Where the B-52 now has a very low logistical footprint to deploy ( non-nuke role ).
What B-1 really needs is new avionics and flight controls. Part of the original B-1 fleet downsizing proposed a few years ago stated that the savings from this would be farmed back into B-1 upgrades. This was a lie. Re: the avionics and flight controls: This, given the current climate in funding, will drag on as a requirement but unless something changes, won't get funded. These two things would give it better mission up times. It is a great CAS rapid response aircraft out of the JSTARS stack. It shows up to a GFAC request with a lot of weapons. Adding a laser pod will help.
Given the fact that it is expensive to maintain and part of that is because it isn't being funded correctly and upgraded correctly, it will always have some kind of logistical woes. However, once you get one flying, it can do a lot of damage.
Airframe life issues will probably put these out by 2020 -/+, and the B-52 will still be around. With the B-52 able to carry JASSM and Stealth nuke cruise missiles which have some range, it will still be a useful aircraft to have around for a long time. Now with the common strategic rotary launcher or what ever it is called, ( the revolver in the bomb bay that can hold 8 ALCMs,) is being set up to carry 32 SDBs internally. If the smart wireless bomb bay rack ever gets done it will be able to carry other conventional PGMs in the bomb bay too. The jamming thing may be back on the table but it will be more of a common airframe thing I think. We need a real standoff jammer ( EA-6 and Growler are escort jammers ).
A lot of people may not realize it, but USAF is on hard times for funding everything it needs. Everything that is expensive to operate gets looked at hard. Even if the system doing the decison making, is too dumb to properly sustain the B-1 by funding it correctly.
That nice bomber roadmap white paper done about 5 years ago is pretty much not going to happen as planned with all the money we have to spend on expeditionary warfare. A lot of holes now in that very practical rodemap. ( Using the rotary ALCM revolver in the bombay of the B-52 to hold SDBs was never in that plan...however by doing this it was a cheaper way of getting SDB ability in the aircrafts bomb bay soon as opposed to a fancy smart rack that could carry a lot more SDBs ).Remember that PGMs such as Paveway and JDAM are carried on the outside of the B-52. The wireless smart rack and converted ALCM revolver are to get smart bomb ability for carry inside the bomb bay. The revolver is cheap/easy to do so it gets funded.
All these items show how things are being readjusted to make that famous saying ring true: Budget is policy.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
B-1s were built to terrible quality standards. Even with various fixes USAF continues to make mistakes on funding sustainment. A few years back where they had 51% mission uptimes, that was 2% better than what USAF was funding sustainment for the B1 fleet. Starting with Block D ( JDAM ability) this gave it a real, highly useful killing ability. As you may know, the nuke treaty doesn't allow B-1 to carry nukes anymore. B-1 needs a bigger logistical footprint to deploy.... yet now it's only mission is conventional. Where the B-52 now has a very low logistical footprint to deploy ( non-nuke role ).
What B-1 really needs is new avionics and flight controls. Part of the original B-1 fleet downsizing proposed a few years ago stated that the savings from this would be farmed back into B-1 upgrades. This was a lie. Re: the avionics and flight controls: This, given the current climate in funding, will drag on as a requirement but unless something changes, won't get funded. These two things would give it better mission up times. It is a great CAS rapid response aircraft out of the JSTARS stack. It shows up to a GFAC request with a lot of weapons. Adding a laser pod will help.
Given the fact that it is expensive to maintain and part of that is because it isn't being funded correctly and upgraded correctly, it will always have some kind of logistical woes. However, once you get one flying, it can do a lot of damage.
Airframe life issues will probably put these out by 2020 -/+, and the B-52 will still be around. With the B-52 able to carry JASSM and Stealth nuke cruise missiles which have some range, it will still be a useful aircraft to have around for a long time. Now with the common strategic rotary launcher or what ever it is called, ( the revolver in the bomb bay that can hold 8 ALCMs,) is being set up to carry 32 SDBs internally. If the smart wireless bomb bay rack ever gets done it will be able to carry other conventional PGMs in the bomb bay too. The jamming thing may be back on the table but it will be more of a common airframe thing I think. We need a real standoff jammer ( EA-6 and Growler are escort jammers ).
A lot of people may not realize it, but USAF is on hard times for funding everything it needs. Everything that is expensive to operate gets looked at hard. Even if the system doing the decison making, is too dumb to properly sustain the B-1 by funding it correctly.
That nice bomber roadmap white paper done about 5 years ago is pretty much not going to happen as planned with all the money we have to spend on expeditionary warfare. A lot of holes now in that very practical rodemap. ( Using the rotary ALCM revolver in the bombay of the B-52 to hold SDBs was never in that plan...however by doing this it was a cheaper way of getting SDB ability in the aircrafts bomb bay soon as opposed to a fancy smart rack that could carry a lot more SDBs ).Remember that PGMs such as Paveway and JDAM are carried on the outside of the B-52. The wireless smart rack and converted ALCM revolver are to get smart bomb ability for carry inside the bomb bay. The revolver is cheap/easy to do so it gets funded.
All these items show how things are being readjusted to make that famous saying ring true: Budget is policy.
Thanks for all the information.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is missing here, is that Congress required the USAF to stop the retirement of the B-1s and to return some of those that had been retired to active service again...
The USAF ended up returning 10 B-1s out of the 33 planned to be retired, to the active duty fleet. However, two B-1s have been lost in landing accidents over the last several years and another damaged in a nose gear collapse and another in a gear up landing recently, so the USAF is now re-evaluating those airframes still in the desert for return to service to replace the above airframes...
What is also interesting is that the USAF proposed retiring a large segment of the B-52 fleet this year as well, and again Congress shelved that plan, stating the capability the B-52 represented could not be replaced quickly and that no B-52s would be retired until a replacment was in production...
By: - 7th October 2006 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is missing here, is that Congress required the USAF to stop the retirement of the B-1s and to return some of those that had been retired to active service again...The USAF ended up returning 10 B-1s out of the 33 planned to be retired, to the active duty fleet. However, two B-1s have been lost in landing accidents over the last several years and another damaged in a nose gear collapse and another in a gear up landing recently, so the USAF is now re-evaluating those airframes still in the desert for return to service to replace the above airframes...
What is also interesting is that the USAF proposed retiring a large segment of the B-52 fleet this year as well, and again Congress shelved that plan, stating the capability the B-52 represented could not be replaced quickly and that no B-52s would be retired until a replacment was in production...
There really ought to be some laws against politicians shafting the military for their own self-interest.
By: - 7th October 2006 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
10 B-1s out of the 33 planned to be retired, to the active duty fleet. However, two B-1s have been lost in landing accidents over the last several years and another damaged in a nose gear collapse and another in a gear up landing recently, so the USAF is now re-evaluating those airframes still in the desert for return to service to replace the above airframes...
You're wrong is a couple of areas... The nose gear aircraft was damaged in the early 90s and was returned to service soon after. How do I know that? I was assigned to the unit which operated the ac. There were NO B-1s in the desert before the "retiment" plan went was put into effect.
Of the B-1 that were retired, the oldest (ones that had more differences to the rest of the fleet) were put into museums.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 03:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is missing here, is that Congress required the USAF to stop the retirement of the B-1s and to return some of those that had been retired to active service again...The USAF ended up returning 10 B-1s out of the 33 planned to be retired, to the active duty fleet. However, two B-1s have been lost in landing accidents over the last several years and another damaged in a nose gear collapse and another in a gear up landing recently, so the USAF is now re-evaluating those airframes still in the desert for return to service to replace the above airframes...
What is also interesting is that the USAF proposed retiring a large segment of the B-52 fleet this year as well, and again Congress shelved that plan, stating the capability the B-52 represented could not be replaced quickly and that no B-52s would be retired until a replacment was in production...
Well of course it doesn't help either when in the case of the Diego wheels up landing not too long ago.... that the crew failed to put the landing gear down. Big CRM failure. So much for using a landing checklist.
The B-1 sustainment is still screwed up. I would rather have 60-70 B-1s with new avionics/flight controls that had high mission up times combined with a real supply chain management system, instead of a lot more B-1s , where sustainment planning is done at the lowest common denominator and "pull it off the can bird" is the solution to a lot of maintenance problems. The firepower of a smaller number of properly maintained aircraft with high mission up times beats an underfunded effort with lower maintenance up times and a larger number of airframes and mouths to feed.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 05:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would probably help matters if we cut back on our low-level flying. TF operations really beat the jets up from what I've seen. However, we're still clinging it to "just in case" the threat drives us low. In my opinion, any threat that would drive us low is probably a show-stopper anyways. In any event, I don't think I'd like to fly low-level anywhere given the proliferation of MANPADS, etc.
A few years ago I was told that the B-1 was the 2nd most expensive jet in the AF flying hour wise (after the B-2) but if we dropped the low level mission we would drop to #10 or something. Can't vouch for the veracity of that but I would think just the fuel savings would be huge.
I agree with ELP, the flight controls need to be fixed. It seemed like when I flew 80% of the maintenance issues I saw were either engines or flight controls.
One other factor plays into the maintenance issues of late and that is the merging of many maintenance career fields. For example, the defensive avionics techs used to only work B-1s or B-52s their whole careers and so senior NCO really knew the systems. Then they merged and can work on everything from the B-1s ALQ-161 to chaff launchers on a C-130. A lot of the experience isn't there anymore.
PBAR
http://bonewso.net Flying the Bone
By: - 8th October 2006 at 06:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sometimes the mentality around the flightline is to beat her until she drops, then they'll have to replace her...
By: - 8th October 2006 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The nose gear aircraft was damaged in the early 90s and was returned to service soon after.
Well, there was the one genius aircrew that landed one at Diego Garcia a few months or so ago without managing to put the landing gear down...
Regardless, the B-1B is now officially relatively pointless. It doesn't have good legs when it's fully loaded, it can't carry strategic weapons anymore, and it's a maintenance pain. Now that the B-2 can carry 80 (yes, 80) of the 500 pound JDAMs, the Bone is just another drain on the USAF's operating budget, just like the F-117A is now that the F-22A is operational (the Raptor can even carry...the horror...more than two PGMs!). Has it been a useful asset over Afghanistan and Iraq? Sure. But there is not a single thing it does that another platform or weapon system can't do just as well. That in itself makes the B-1B pointless. To be brutally honest, they should have all been retired in or around 1991 when they lost the nuclear mission.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are Bi's not getting / gotten JASSM and JSOW stand off missiles? This gives the A/C decent stand of capability surely?
Had the B-1B been retired in 1991, this would have been called a fantastic waste of money. Calls of "why was the B-1 retired so early" would no doubt have been sung loud on this forum....
By: - 8th October 2006 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are Bi's not getting / gotten JASSM and JSOW stand off missiles? This gives the A/C decent stand of capability surely?
If those weapons were only being fitted to the B-1B, it might make a difference...
Had the B-1B been retired in 1991, this would have been called a fantastic waste of money.
Had the Bone been retired back then, nobody could have said a word about it, as the aircraft had its nuclear mission taken away and still lacked any credible conventional capability-it was a plane in hiatus waiting for upgrades, essentially. So we spent a lot of money to give it a conventional mission. Then we cut the fleet by a third. Come on, it would have been far more fiscally responsible had the jet been canned back in 1991. Now, before 1991, the jet did have a credible, necessary mission as part of the strategic triad. But after? Waste. Of. Money.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 13:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember the B-58? It had a service life of 10 years, was an expensive machine to operate, expensive to build and purchase and had less conventional capability than factory fresh B-1's. Yet, I have read a number of articles slating such a short service life.
The B-1 retirement would be even worse as, lets not forget, the B-1B entered service in 1985, giving SIX years of service!!!! Most cars last longer than this!!!!
By: - 8th October 2006 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You buy a nuclear bomber, and then its mission goes away...that would be a justifiable retirement if you ask me, especially given the operating cost savings involved, and the money saved in upgrading the aircraft to perform conventional missions. It should be mentioned that this is, of course, all in hindsight. I would've never bought the Bone, and stuck with 150 B-2As, junking the B-52s as B-2As came online.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I worked along side them at Dyess AFB (I'm a C-130 guy) and the Crews HATE the B-1B. Out of the 66-70 that I have talked to about the plane, only 2 or 3 had anything positive to say about the plane.
That says a lot. The B-1 sucks and always has.
By: - 8th October 2006 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When Block D came out ( giving it JDAM ability and such )... the crews in the small little Guard unit here ( which now fly JSTARS :D ) worked it well even with the USAF underfunding proper sustainment dollars. ( Maybe SOC has a similar story of the Guard unit that flew it where he was )... It was a small unit but the experience in the unit was extremely diverse and high. ( many high hour airline pilots and such )... and many years of experience maintainers that already had 3-4 other airframes in their resumes. So a lot of skill to drive a small 8-9 jet unit. And yes there was always a "can" bird around and maintenance issues. But these guys could put up 4 jets a day usually and when you consider that you can stuff ( at that time ) 24 2000lb class JDAMs in each aircraft, that = a lot of dead targets. So yeah, I can point to all the fubars in the management of the airframes history. But I say a smaller number of these jets that are well maintained, well sustained with a smart upgrade path is a good value for our defense while we still have them. As far as I am concerned, a low level mission in this era is a waste of fuel and dumb. Considering that:
Once the door is kicked down with F-22 and other assets....where.... enemy aircraft are killed off and large SAMs are killed off..... after that any fast fixed wing with modern, cheap, all weather, sub 4 meter CEP PGMs... can do what ever they want and not get touched. Going low level too much is a waste of training hours better used on something else.
Just a little point of interest. When Block D came out, The B-1 was one of the few ( along with the B-2 ) that had the option of radar assisted JDAM bombing. If the target had time to be briefed in detail.... if there was a useable radar reflection near the target for radar offset bombing, or the target itself provided a good enough peice of ground clutter.... the accuracy in radar assisted JDAM bombing was shocking. We are just now fielding other fast movers that have this ability ( F-18E/F etc ). When a target gets this kind of treatment, the high quality and accurate radar return goes into the bomb/nav system and you can generate a very very accurate coordinate, that is better than the generic coordinate already setup for the target. When this "refined" coordinate is pumped into the JDAM on the rack, the INS system in the tail kit of the JDAM is going to hit right where you want it. This is a nice to have when you want to hit a certain part of the target that might be hard and requires the precise placement of lets say a BLU-109 forged pointy tip 2000 pounder, mated to a JDAM or when setting up a conventional 2000 pounder w/JDAM kit, to air burst.
Posts: 629
By: mabie - 7th October 2006 at 03:07
The USAF opted to retire 2 dozen B1s while still maintaining a sizeable number of B52s in its inventory. The B1 are much younger, faster, carry a far heavier payload, have more modern avionics, etc. etc. What was the rationale for reducing the B1 force instead of just retiring more B52s? Are the B1s less reliable or more expensive to maintain?