By: mabie
- 8th October 2006 at 15:09Permalink- 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.
I visited your website and just wanted to say "thanks". I specially liked the section on the B-1 myths w/c cleared up some misconceptions I had but also confirmed my belief that it is a terrific aircraft. Nothing beats a first-hand narrative and I only wish there were similar sites for all the planes in the inventory.
By: sferrin
- 8th October 2006 at 18:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
It's still got the advantage in speed and there are times when minutes count. Now if they make a boosted SDB that could be the nail in the coffin. On the other hand I've sometimes wondered why they don't use the option of joining the two forward bays together and using them to carry high finess ratio penetrating munitions. A B-1b could get them up to a higher speed for more kinetic energy on the target than either the B-52 or B-2. Maybe you cut the B-1B force down to 30 or 40 aircraft and actually follow through on the mods program.
By: JFrazier
- 8th October 2006 at 18:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yea, I wouldn't call the B-1 useless. It still can deliver a very big payload to a target quickly if needed. It might not have the greatest range or reliability but when it works, it works well.
I mean, it has dropped more bombs than the B-52 and B-2 in the last two conflicts. Also, I think the Sniper XR pod is still scheduled for install on the B-1s in a couple of years.
By: sferrin
- 8th October 2006 at 18:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yea, I wouldn't call the B-1 useless. It still can deliver a very big payload to a target quickly if needed. It might not have the greatest range or reliability but when it works, it works well.
I mean, it has dropped more bombs than the B-52 and B-2 in the last two conflicts. Also, I think the Sniper XR pod is still scheduled for install on the B-1s in a couple of years.
I'd swear I've seen a picture of a B-1B with a sniper pod. Maybe it was in flight testing or something.
By: turboshaft
- 8th October 2006 at 19:23Permalink- 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.
The rumor always held that it was easier to integrate new weapons onto the vacuum-tubed B-52 due to its lack of an integrated avionics system, which enabled new loads to be scabbed onto the Buff with 'stand-alone' electronic interfaces patched directly into its cockpit. By contrast, it was reportedly harder to integrate new weapons onto the Bone due to compatibility issues with its 1980s/1990s electronics (despite the use of Mil-Std-1553).
That said, the AF subsequently replaced the B-52's "Rude Goldberg'd" interfaces through the introduction of the ICSMS and, more recently, SWING.
This may all be B/S (I've never had any personal involvement with either system), and may also have been overcome through the addition of the Mil-Std-1760 interface to the B-1B. Can those with real-world experience on the aircraft add their insights?
By: SOC
- 8th October 2006 at 23:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe SOC has a similar story of the Guard unit that flew it where he was
Actually, there was a minor fight when they decided our ANG Bones would be going away. The 184th BW was consistently putting up the best availability and other numbers of any Bone unit, active OR Guard. People around here wanted to know what idiot decided to get rid of the demonstrably best B-1B unit in the entire USAF rather than a surplus unit at Dyess or Ellsworth.
It's still got the advantage in speed and there are times when minutes count.
By: sferrin
- 8th October 2006 at 23:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, there was a minor fight when they decided our ANG Bones would be going away. The 184th BW was consistently putting up the best availability and other numbers of any Bone unit, active OR Guard. People around here wanted to know what idiot decided to get rid of the demonstrably best B-1B unit in the entire USAF rather than a surplus unit at Dyess or Ellsworth.
By: SOC
- 8th October 2006 at 23:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for proving my point. For a time-sensitive, pop-up target, an F-22A is arguably more effective than a B-1B being more survivable and having a higher cruise speed. If you just want the speed, an F-15E or F-16 is fine. The thing you guys are ignoring is the nature of said time-sensitive, pop-up targets: they aren't going to be massive facilities or structures needing 20 JDAMs.
By: sferrin
- 8th October 2006 at 23:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for proving my point. For a time-sensitive, pop-up target, an F-22A is arguably more effective than a B-1B being more survivable and having a higher cruise speed. If you just want the speed, an F-15E or F-16 is fine. The thing you guys are ignoring is the nature of said time-sensitive, pop-up targets: they aren't going to be massive facilities or structures needing 20 JDAMs.
And why would they waste F-22s by having them loiter around waiting for targets of opportunity?
By: SOC
- 8th October 2006 at 23:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They wouldn't necessarily have to be loitering around with another half-Mach speed advantage. Barring that, an F-15E of F-16 is just as capable of loitering, and in the case of the F-16 punching off the tanks and making a mad dash to a target if needbe.
By: ELP
- 8th October 2006 at 23:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, there was a minor fight when they decided our ANG Bones would be going away. The 184th BW was consistently putting up the best availability and other numbers of any Bone unit, active OR Guard. People around here wanted to know what idiot decided to get rid of the demonstrably best B-1B unit in the entire USAF rather than a surplus unit at Dyess or Ellsworth.
Speed advantage over what exactly?
A-10 :D Poky A-10 isn't all that great for responding to an unplanned CAS request, like an ambush, unless it is really close. A B-1 with a laser pod zipping out of the JSTARS stack on a 911 call tends to get there a bit quicker, and can show up with plenty of PGMs to help out. However re: something like an Afghanistan scenario for fast response, so could a squadron of JSF based in country. Just all depends on the situation I guess. Response time is everything for emergency CAS requests.
By: ELP
- 9th October 2006 at 00:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-16s and, dare I say it, F-18s have proven perfectly competent at responding to Troops In Contact (TIC) requests over Iraq recently.
Yeah Iraq :p A specfor leader friend of mine in Afghanistan emailed me this....
"Right now there are three TICs (Troops In Contact) going on in theater. We have enough aircraft to provide CAS to one at a time. Your TIC is number three on the list. You'll have to be patient."
Telling me, he isn't too happy about Iraq using up assets that he needs.
By: SOC
- 9th October 2006 at 00:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
he isn't too happy about Iraq using up assets that he needs.
That doesn't wash. If he wants to complain to someone, complain to the people in charge. That'd be NATO, not the US military. They should have all sorts of assets available for use as they can't get out of Iraq quick enough.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 9th October 2006 at 00:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I second the comment about Pbar's website. It's a very nice (and interesting) website.
By: ELP
- 9th October 2006 at 00:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That doesn't wash. If he wants to complain to someone, complain to the people in charge. That'd be NATO, not the US military. They should have all sorts of assets available for use as they can't get out of Iraq quick enough.
Hmmm. Don't know. Everyone has their own view I guess. Yanking limited resources off on a fools errand in Iraq when we still had to stabilize Afghanistan seems to be one train of thought worth considering. Example: Every bug hunt in Afghanistan should have UAV support to keep them better informed. Unfortunately large portions of our UAV assets are off in another campaign on useless dirt. If we are hoping NATO can save us in Afghanistan we are whistling past the grave yard. Take a look at how each NATO member sending assets to Afghanistan, has their own taylor made restrictions on how the troops can and can not be used. Not a very good example of "one team-one fight".
By: SOC
- 9th October 2006 at 00:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Every bug hunt in Afghanistan should have UAV support to keep them better informed.
Well, they do have SOME support from UAVs, like the UAV that got the terrorists in Pakistan that couldn't possibly have been existing on an "ally"'s soil...
By: Pbar_b1bwso
- 9th October 2006 at 09:12Permalink- 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.
You must be speaking of the maintainers. I haven't met any aircrew who fly that hate the Bone (well, we have some disgruntled pilots who would rather be flying fighters). I don't care what the maintainers think about it. It's mission isn't to be popular with MXers.
The B-1 is an awesome airplane. I was in awe everytime I flew it. However, the penalty for that performance is complexity and the AF has never funded the parts for it or done a good job managing the maintenance for it. Think of it as a 200 ton flying Swiss watch...
To address some other points, what we bring to the fight that the B-2/B-52 don't is speed. I can get to a time sensitive target much faster than either of those jets. Furthermore, if someone figures out a way to counter-stealth (which I'm sure our friends the Chinese aren't busily pouring tons of money into ) then the B-2 can't outrun any fighter.
As for loiter, a bomber can always loiter longer than a fighter, even with tankers, for the simple fact that I can get out of my ejection seat (which is extremely uncomfortable to sit in) and move around to relieve some of the fatigue. One of my Strike Eagle buddies told me that after a 14 hour sortie he had to be physically lifted from the cockpit. 14 hours is barely a medium-length sortie for a bomber (my longest was a 27 hour nonstop flight)...
If the Bone was retired, we'd have a pretty big shortfall in how much iron we could lay down the first week of a war. Given the troubles we've had with basing rights, I'm for keeping all the bombers we can.
Doubtless there are some things we can do to reduce the cost of it like ditching the low-level flying, making it a 2-3 crew airplane, etc. but I think we need it.
The Chinese, NKs, Iranians, Syrians, etc. don't fear our land power or even our short-range fighter fleet. They fear our long-range reach (bombers and strat mobility)...
Posts: 629
By: mabie - 8th October 2006 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I visited your website and just wanted to say "thanks". I specially liked the section on the B-1 myths w/c cleared up some misconceptions I had but also confirmed my belief that it is a terrific aircraft. Nothing beats a first-hand narrative and I only wish there were similar sites for all the planes in the inventory.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 8th October 2006 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's still got the advantage in speed and there are times when minutes count. Now if they make a boosted SDB that could be the nail in the coffin. On the other hand I've sometimes wondered why they don't use the option of joining the two forward bays together and using them to carry high finess ratio penetrating munitions. A B-1b could get them up to a higher speed for more kinetic energy on the target than either the B-52 or B-2. Maybe you cut the B-1B force down to 30 or 40 aircraft and actually follow through on the mods program.
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 8th October 2006 at 18:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yea, I wouldn't call the B-1 useless. It still can deliver a very big payload to a target quickly if needed. It might not have the greatest range or reliability but when it works, it works well.
I mean, it has dropped more bombs than the B-52 and B-2 in the last two conflicts. Also, I think the Sniper XR pod is still scheduled for install on the B-1s in a couple of years.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 8th October 2006 at 18:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd swear I've seen a picture of a B-1B with a sniper pod. Maybe it was in flight testing or something.
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 8th October 2006 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yea, I've seen it too. I'll try to find it.
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 8th October 2006 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here it is.
Link
Posts: 263
By: turboshaft - 8th October 2006 at 19:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The rumor always held that it was easier to integrate new weapons onto the vacuum-tubed B-52 due to its lack of an integrated avionics system, which enabled new loads to be scabbed onto the Buff with 'stand-alone' electronic interfaces patched directly into its cockpit. By contrast, it was reportedly harder to integrate new weapons onto the Bone due to compatibility issues with its 1980s/1990s electronics (despite the use of Mil-Std-1553).
That said, the AF subsequently replaced the B-52's "Rude Goldberg'd" interfaces through the introduction of the ICSMS and, more recently, SWING.
This may all be B/S (I've never had any personal involvement with either system), and may also have been overcome through the addition of the Mil-Std-1760 interface to the B-1B. Can those with real-world experience on the aircraft add their insights?
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 8th October 2006 at 23:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, there was a minor fight when they decided our ANG Bones would be going away. The 184th BW was consistently putting up the best availability and other numbers of any Bone unit, active OR Guard. People around here wanted to know what idiot decided to get rid of the demonstrably best B-1B unit in the entire USAF rather than a surplus unit at Dyess or Ellsworth.
Speed advantage over what exactly?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 8th October 2006 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
B-2s, B-52s.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 8th October 2006 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for proving my point. For a time-sensitive, pop-up target, an F-22A is arguably more effective than a B-1B being more survivable and having a higher cruise speed. If you just want the speed, an F-15E or F-16 is fine. The thing you guys are ignoring is the nature of said time-sensitive, pop-up targets: they aren't going to be massive facilities or structures needing 20 JDAMs.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 8th October 2006 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And why would they waste F-22s by having them loiter around waiting for targets of opportunity?
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 8th October 2006 at 23:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They wouldn't necessarily have to be loitering around with another half-Mach speed advantage. Barring that, an F-15E of F-16 is just as capable of loitering, and in the case of the F-16 punching off the tanks and making a mad dash to a target if needbe.
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 8th October 2006 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-10 :D Poky A-10 isn't all that great for responding to an unplanned CAS request, like an ambush, unless it is really close. A B-1 with a laser pod zipping out of the JSTARS stack on a 911 call tends to get there a bit quicker, and can show up with plenty of PGMs to help out. However re: something like an Afghanistan scenario for fast response, so could a squadron of JSF based in country. Just all depends on the situation I guess. Response time is everything for emergency CAS requests.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 8th October 2006 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-16s and, dare I say it, F-18s have proven perfectly competent at responding to Troops In Contact (TIC) requests over Iraq recently.
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 9th October 2006 at 00:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah Iraq :p A specfor leader friend of mine in Afghanistan emailed me this....
"Right now there are three TICs (Troops In Contact) going on in theater. We have enough aircraft to provide CAS to one at a time. Your TIC is number three on the list. You'll have to be patient."
Telling me, he isn't too happy about Iraq using up assets that he needs.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 9th October 2006 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That doesn't wash. If he wants to complain to someone, complain to the people in charge. That'd be NATO, not the US military. They should have all sorts of assets available for use as they can't get out of Iraq quick enough.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 9th October 2006 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I second the comment about Pbar's website. It's a very nice (and interesting) website.
Nic
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 9th October 2006 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmm. Don't know. Everyone has their own view I guess. Yanking limited resources off on a fools errand in Iraq when we still had to stabilize Afghanistan seems to be one train of thought worth considering. Example: Every bug hunt in Afghanistan should have UAV support to keep them better informed. Unfortunately large portions of our UAV assets are off in another campaign on useless dirt. If we are hoping NATO can save us in Afghanistan we are whistling past the grave yard. Take a look at how each NATO member sending assets to Afghanistan, has their own taylor made restrictions on how the troops can and can not be used. Not a very good example of "one team-one fight".
Anyway, back to the B-1.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 9th October 2006 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, they do have SOME support from UAVs, like the UAV that got the terrorists in Pakistan that couldn't possibly have been existing on an "ally"'s soil...
Posts: 67
By: Pbar_b1bwso - 9th October 2006 at 09:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You must be speaking of the maintainers. I haven't met any aircrew who fly that hate the Bone (well, we have some disgruntled pilots who would rather be flying fighters). I don't care what the maintainers think about it. It's mission isn't to be popular with MXers.
The B-1 is an awesome airplane. I was in awe everytime I flew it. However, the penalty for that performance is complexity and the AF has never funded the parts for it or done a good job managing the maintenance for it. Think of it as a 200 ton flying Swiss watch...
To address some other points, what we bring to the fight that the B-2/B-52 don't is speed. I can get to a time sensitive target much faster than either of those jets. Furthermore, if someone figures out a way to counter-stealth (which I'm sure our friends the Chinese aren't busily pouring tons of money into ) then the B-2 can't outrun any fighter.
As for loiter, a bomber can always loiter longer than a fighter, even with tankers, for the simple fact that I can get out of my ejection seat (which is extremely uncomfortable to sit in) and move around to relieve some of the fatigue. One of my Strike Eagle buddies told me that after a 14 hour sortie he had to be physically lifted from the cockpit. 14 hours is barely a medium-length sortie for a bomber (my longest was a 27 hour nonstop flight)...
If the Bone was retired, we'd have a pretty big shortfall in how much iron we could lay down the first week of a war. Given the troubles we've had with basing rights, I'm for keeping all the bombers we can.
Doubtless there are some things we can do to reduce the cost of it like ditching the low-level flying, making it a 2-3 crew airplane, etc. but I think we need it.
The Chinese, NKs, Iranians, Syrians, etc. don't fear our land power or even our short-range fighter fleet. They fear our long-range reach (bombers and strat mobility)...
PBAR