North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1 Lancer

The definitive answer: “Yes. Sort of.”
 
I have seen the B-1B and there is no way that it looks like a penguin, I do not know how they managed to get that analogy from it is just plain and utter stupid.
 
I suppose it depends what was spilled on the cartpet they were smoking.
 
mkellytx said:
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
taskandpurpose.com

The Air Force wants to load up the B-1B Lancer with more bombs than ever before

Hold me closer tiny Lancer.
taskandpurpose.com taskandpurpose.com
Click to expand...

I’ll believe it when I see it fully funded.
Click to expand...
Supposedly the LAM’s are already out at ED for testing. They might not ever go operational, but while my old squadron tests the new radar, the new engines and any new software drops on the BUFF at least the Bone can drop some of the hypersonic stuff.
Click to expand...
Are B-1B airframes fatigued out? Just wondering why they don't receive the B-52 treatment.
 
sferrin said:
Are B-1B airframes fatigued out? Just wondering why they don't receive the B-52 treatment.
Click to expand...
That’s a very good question @sferrin. The first thing that comes to mind is that the test bird at ED has been flown far less than the operational birds at DY & EL, so it still has enough hours to cover the time frame in question. No doubt the birds at DY/EL are rode hard and tired.

As to the same treatment as the BUFF’s, to a certain extent they do get the same treatment with regular depot visits to OK City just like the BUFF’s. The difference is how/when the airframes were designed/built/used. The BUFF’s are way overbuilt out of mostly 2000 series AL, which has way better fatigue properties than newer, higher strength AL like the 7000 series. Also, the H’s spent most of their life on alert and didn’t use up many hours. When they were used it was in a more benign high altitude environment.

The jet designed in late 40’s when jets weren’t well understood has a lot more margin built in than the one designed when jet aircraft were much better understood. Even with the same set of overhauls the BUFF will simply last longer since it’s more durable.
 
theaviationist.com

Video Shows B-1B's Catastrophic Engine Failure, Explosion And Fire At Dyess AFB Last Year

Footage shows B-1 experiencing a catastrophic engine failure during a ground run-up at Dyess Air Force Base, Taylor County, Texas. The footage in this
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

This one hits home, one of my old jets, on the flight line I used to work, on a maintenance check that I’ve performed and seen done hundreds of times…. Glad no one was seriously injured.
 
Huh, thought I'd snagged a quote about the B-21's bomb load. Looks to be 1/2 that of the B-2 (only one bay using the standard rotary launcher), or about what a B-52 can carry internally. 24-30klbs.

Mark S. said:
Irrespective of structural or other issues with the B-1B it makes up the bulk of the conventional strike fleet. By 2030 the newest will have been in service for 40 years. How many 40 year old airliners are flying in revenue service today? No shame if it's retired once it's capability is migrated to a different platform in my opinion.

General Ray who commands the Global Strike Command has asked Asst. Sec. Will Roper for a low cost stand-off bomb truck. This may end up being the B-1B replacement:

breakingdefense.com

Ray Asks Roper To Explore 'Bomb Truck' For Cheap Standoff Capability - Breaking Defense

"There is no significant game plan here," Ray said about the idea of a 'bomb truck.' "I just think, why not? You can't win if you don't play."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
That's called the B-52. Max airframe life of about 40,000 hours, and the current fleet averages something like 27k hours.

Or we Rapid Dragon a flight of C-17s for a massive initial strike.

Mark S. said:
As for the difference in payload between the B-2 and the B-21 how may nuclear strikes can a bomber realistically make before the crew and or airframe are in-operable? Can you deliver 16 nukes to 16 aim points and survive without running out of fuel, damage from near misses or incapacitating the crew from radiation exposure? I would think range is more important than payload in nuclear strikes.
Click to expand...
Range and payload can be somewhat interchangeable, depending on how you design the plane.

But based on descriptions of 1980s Red Flag and AF Bomb Comp mission sets, the typical strike package was set up for roughly 3 targets out of the bomb bay and about that many more on each pylon. 9 total target groups per bomber. Because each target set needed both rockets and bombs. I'm assuming SRAMs were for smashing any SAM sites that the cruise missiles left, and then one or two bombs on target.


Mark S. said:
The bottom line however is the price of admission to the Super Power club. Folks grouse over the costs of maintaining the military aircraft fleets and weapons but if you want to be a super power you need to pony up. Maintaining 67 B-52H's, 66 B-1B's and 20 B-2A's is the price of admission either we're in the game or we are not.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I expect the B-2s to go before the Bones do. Bones have an absolutely ludicrous max payload, and even limited to internal bays carry 50% more than a B-2 (50k external load, 75k internal on 3x rotary launchers). And Bones do not require climate controlled hangars like the Spirits do.

A Bone loaded for a max conventional strike or a "Dale Brown Special" strike should be terrifying to contemplate.
  • Rack up two dozen AMRAAMs externally, 6x HARMs, a Sniper pod, maybe another 3x HARMs for good measure, then 75klbs of party favors internally.
  • Anti ship strike of 14 LRASMs externally, plus another 24x internally.
  • 14x cruise missiles externally, another 8 internally.
  • 44x Mk82s or equivalent externally (rack space for 48), plus 96x GBU-39s internally.
 
There are less B-2s than there are B-1Bs at present Scott Kenny so I would agree with you on that point the B-2s would go well before the B-1Bs. Though in saying that it all depends on how the USAF high ups currently think about the B-2 over the B-1B.
 
FighterJock said:
There are less B-2s than there are B-1Bs at present Scott Kenny so I would agree with you on that point the B-2s would go well before the B-1Bs. Though in saying that it all depends on how the USAF high ups currently think about the B-2 over the B-1B.
Click to expand...

The B-1 fleet is more worn out but the B-2 fleet is smaller, still very high maintenance, and has a lot more capability overlap with the B-21 than the B-1 fleet has. I think the original plan a long time ago was to replace the B-1 but now I think the goal is to minimize the usage of the fleet such that it can carry on into the mid 2030s, with the B-2 being retired in the early 2030s as soon as there are sufficient B-21s to replace the capability. B-1s are no longer training for low altitude and have a hard limit of 300 hours of flight per year. As a large capacity cruise missile platforms, there really isn't a replacement for their capability. Hypothetically B-21s with smaller stand in munitions might pick up the slack once they are available in large numbers. I could easily see a B-21 being capable of carrying ~20 SiAW type weapons and simply getting closer to the targets than B-1s would.
 
Thanks Josh_TN, So the B-1Bs are no longer training for low altitude flight? That was their survival instinct to get down low and fast to get away from whoever or whatever was chasing them to kill them. Obviously that has caused some irrepressible stress damage to the airframe over time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh, thought I'd snagged a quote about the B-21's bomb load. Looks to be 1/2 that of the B-2 (only one bay using the standard rotary launcher), or about what a B-52 can carry internally. 24-30klbs.


That's called the B-52. Max airframe life of about 40,000 hours, and the current fleet averages something like 27k hours.

Or we Rapid Dragon a flight of C-17s for a massive initial strike.


Range and payload can be somewhat interchangeable, depending on how you design the plane.

But based on descriptions of 1980s Red Flag and AF Bomb Comp mission sets, the typical strike package was set up for roughly 3 targets out of the bomb bay and about that many more on each pylon. 9 total target groups per bomber. Because each target set needed both rockets and bombs. I'm assuming SRAMs were for smashing any SAM sites that the cruise missiles left, and then one or two bombs on target.



In all honesty, I expect the B-2s to go before the Bones do. Bones have an absolutely ludicrous max payload, and even limited to internal bays carry 50% more than a B-2 (50k external load, 75k internal on 3x rotary launchers). And Bones do not require climate controlled hangars like the Spirits do.

A Bone loaded for a max conventional strike or a "Dale Brown Special" strike should be terrifying to contemplate.
  • Rack up two dozen AMRAAMs externally, 6x HARMs, a Sniper pod, maybe another 3x HARMs for good measure, then 75klbs of party favors internally.
  • Anti ship strike of 14 LRASMs externally, plus another 24x internally.
  • 14x cruise missiles externally, another 8 internally.
  • 44x Mk82s or equivalent externally (rack space for 48), plus 96x GBU-39s internally.
Click to expand...
I like the way you think :)
 
FighterJock said:
Thanks Josh_TN, So the B-1Bs are no longer training for low altitude flight? That was their survival instinct to get down low and fast to get away from whoever or whatever was chasing them to kill them. Obviously that has caused some irrepressible stress damage to the airframe over time.
Click to expand...
Yes, that stopped, I think some years ago. I think at this point the USAF considers the B-1 an AGM-158 platform only.
 
Josh_TN said:
Yes, that stopped, I think some years ago. I think at this point the USAF considers the B-1 an AGM-158 platform only.
Click to expand...
High altitude bomb truck... Sigh. Such a shame.

I wonder where the major life stresses are in the airframe. If they're not in the swing wing pivots, the Bones are probably repairable. If it is the pivots and center wing box, that's not something that can be replaced easily. Pretty sure the tooling for the wing box is gone.
 
The USAF will need a B-1B / B-52 replacement, another large platform to carry lots of munitions.

Per the conversation earlier, I can see swing-wings making a decisive return, but certainly not on anything B-1B sized.
 
DrRansom said:
The USAF will need a B-1B / B-52 replacement, another large platform to carry lots of munitions.

Per the conversation earlier, I can see swing-wings making a decisive return, but certainly not on anything B-1B sized.
Click to expand...

The B-52 will take the job for the foreseeable future. Quite honestly to some extent, cargo planes can do that job now, and I expect if the USAF does truly make a semi-stealthy tanker/cargo plane, that will also be the cruise missile platform as well.
 
Josh_TN said:
The B-52 will take the job for the foreseeable future. Quite honestly to some extent, cargo planes can do that job now, and I expect if the USAF does truly make a semi-stealthy tanker/cargo plane, that will also be the cruise missile platform as well.
Click to expand...
There's a very good case to build a semi stealthy or better C130 replacement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
High altitude bomb truck... Sigh. Such a shame.

I wonder where the major life stresses are in the airframe. If they're not in the swing wing pivots, the Bones are probably repairable. If it is the pivots and center wing box, that's not something that can be replaced easily. Pretty sure the tooling for the wing box is gone.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they could do the job if they had the will, even scanning and 3d printing could provide a method now but they are apparently on a set path and that's it. It could also be a source for increased numbers of B-21 and subsequent variants.
 
Scott Kenny said:
There's a very good case to build a semi stealthy or better C130 replacement.
Click to expand...
That’s me reading the BWB thread and seeing those massive internal areas under the wings and imagining all that could be put there.
 

Attachments

  • AEE2BC0B-FDB1-42E5-901E-32391383492D.jpeg
    AEE2BC0B-FDB1-42E5-901E-32391383492D.jpeg
    14.9 KB · Views: 13
Foo Fighter said:
Pretty sure they could do the job if they had the will, even scanning and 3d printing could provide a method now but they are apparently on a set path and that's it. It could also be a source for increased numbers of B-21 and subsequent variants.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the B-21 is basically a medium bomber with long range. One MPRL inside, 24k-30k bombload.

If you need an absurd payload, neither B-2 (60klbs), B-52 (70klbs), nor B-21 (30klbs) can deliver with a single plane. A fully stacked Bone can carry 125klbs, 75klbs internally and another 50klbs(!) externally.

I expect that the replacement for the B-1 and B-52 will end up being a beast of a plane, with a capacity closer to that of the B-1. Probably 4x MPRLs internally, and two of the bays long enough to handle AGM-86Bs or hypersonics internally.
 
With the current limits in place and restriction to high altitude tasking, will we ever see a replacement for the Bone? Not so sure myself but with the budget stretch going on, it will have to be cheap so a stand off use of a cargo type airframe may not be so wide of the mark.

I would rather see a legitimate replacement for the Buff and Bone types in place, too much sense NOT to. And in this one sentance, I have condemned the whole thing to what might have been.

As a hyperthetical, just what WAS the purpose of the B1 -B2 if not to be a replacement for the Buff? Shirley they did not start off thinking it would last for ever?
 
Foo Fighter said:
With the current limits in place and restriction to high altitude tasking, will we ever see a replacement for the Bone? Not so sure myself but with the budget stretch going on, it will have to be cheap so a stand off use of a cargo type airframe may not be so wide of the mark.

I would rather see a legitimate replacement for the Buff and Bone types in place, too much sense NOT to. And in this one sentance, I have condemned the whole thing to what might have been.
Click to expand...
The Buff's replacement is likely to be Rapid Dragon for mass launch of standoff weapons.

There's two ways to replace the Bone.
  1. a heavy payload (4x rotary launchers) medium altitude stealthy penetrator, which would also fully replace the B-2.
  2. stealthy low altitude penetration. I don't believe this would have quite the bombload of the heavy, it may only have 2-3 rotary launchers.
I've read that the B-2 design was modified for low altitude penetration, but a design truly optimized for low altitude would look very different.

Foo Fighter said:
As a hyperthetical, just what WAS the purpose of the B1 -B2 if not to be a replacement for the Buff? Shirley they did not start off thinking it would last for ever?
Click to expand...
The B-1 was to be a temporary stopgap till the B-2 arrived, with the B-2 being the overall replacement for everything.
 
FighterJock said:
There are less B-2s than there are B-1Bs at present Scott Kenny so I would agree with you on that point the B-2s would go well before the B-1Bs. Though in saying that it all depends on how the USAF high ups currently think about the B-2 over the B-1B.
Click to expand...
The higher ups spoke a long time ago, if the decision was to axe the B-2 first the Raider FTU and first operational base would be Whiteman instead of Ellsworth, then Dyess, then Whiteman. As it is the Raider FTU goes to Ellsworth.
 
Josh_TN said:
As a large capacity cruise missile platforms, there really isn't a replacement for their capability.
Click to expand...
The B-52 community would beg to differ after -1760 was put into the bay. There are 76 BUFF's compared to 44 Bones that carry 20 missiles to the Bone's 24. that's about 50% more DMPI's by fleet. The most launched by a Bone in combat was 19 in Syria a few years back BTW...
 
mkellytx said:
The B-52 community would beg to differ after -1760 was put into the bay. There are 76 BUFF's compared to 44 Bones that carry 20 missiles to the Bone's 24. that's about 50% more DMPI's by fleet. The most launched by a Bone in combat was 19 in Syria a few years back BTW...
Click to expand...
However, that's not counting the external pylons on the Bones, which can add another 14 missiles for a total of 38.

76x20=1520
44x38=1672

I really need to make a Dale Brown B-1C or whatever the suffix was from Flight of the Old Dog: V-tail, and all the external pylons loaded with AMRAAMs and other tricks.
 
My recollection is that the aircraft in Dale Brown's books was based on the BUFF.

I shall shut up now failing memory perhaps with B1 and B52 involved.
 
A technothriller classic from a former USAF navigator-bombardier, Flight of the Old Dog, published in 1987 introduced the EB-52 Megafortress – a Boeing B-52 upgraded and upgunned Stratofortress bomber with four engines, V-tail, advanced EW and even-air-to-air missiles for a lone vital bombing raid on a secret Soviet laser site. Fun fact – Flight of the Old Dog spawned a spin-off computer game ‘Megafortress’ in 1991.
Click to expand...

megafortress.jpg
 
Scott Kenny said:
However, that's not counting the external pylons on the Bones, which can add another 14 missiles for a total of 38.

76x20=1520
44x38=1672

I really need to make a Dale Brown B-1C or whatever the suffix was from Flight of the Old Dog: V-tail, and all the external pylons loaded with AMRAAMs and other tricks.
Click to expand...
External pylons that are still rendered useless, "by a process equivalent to welding," to quote START (I was an escort for the Bone at DY), that aren't wired (I conducted the final mission to send LCTP out to the fleet) just one pylon for a pod took time, not to mention Seek Eagle, safe separation, P&FQ and then they aren't programmed into the budget cycle.

Even if by some miracle the money magically appeared, and the birds could be modified in a reasonable amount of time it still doesn't address the god-awful performance of putting that much weight and drag on a tired old airframe. I've launched Bones with 24 GBU-31's and over 200 klbs of gas, they barely got off the runway, no way it happens with external stores unless the fuel is massively cut. The jet already has performance issues at altitude without external stores, look up the turn charts in the T.O.B-1B-1 they aren't pretty when the gross weight climbs.

External stores other than the pod are dead and nothing more than fanboy fantasy, with the caveat that one or two test birds in the 419th (my old squadron) may get some type of mod while the B-52's get new engines and radars.
 
mkellytx said:
The B-52 community would beg to differ after -1760 was put into the bay. There are 76 BUFF's compared to 44 Bones that carry 20 missiles to the Bone's 24. that's about 50% more DMPI's by fleet. The most launched by a Bone in combat was 19 in Syria a few years back BTW...
Click to expand...
Well I meant in terms of capacity. The B-52 is already in existence now doing roughly the same job; retiring the B-1 fleet would produce a shortfall of two dozen combat coded airframes. Also the B-52 fleet is going to have reduced availabilities during the engine/radar upgrade.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem is that the B-21 is basically a medium bomber with long range. One MPRL inside, 24k-30k bombload.

If you need an absurd payload, neither B-2 (60klbs), B-52 (70klbs), nor B-21 (30klbs) can deliver with a single plane. A fully stacked Bone can carry 125klbs, 75klbs internally and another 50klbs(!) externally.

I expect that the replacement for the B-1 and B-52 will end up being a beast of a plane, with a capacity closer to that of the B-1. Probably 4x MPRLs internally, and two of the bays long enough to handle AGM-86Bs or hypersonics internally.
Click to expand...

Realistically what target could possibly require that much ordnance? Particularly when you factor in SDBs, it seems to me the B-21 hits a sweet spot in terms of payload. The B-1/2/52 fleets were built with nuclear payloads in mind. The B-52 started with a small number of truly huge weapons (B-41/53's or external loads like Hound Dog) and graduated to smaller weapons but more of them used for rollback of defenses (SRAM). B-1 pretty much followed in those footsteps. But if we are talking about pasting a target with cheap conventional weapons, it is hard to image a scenario where more the 40 mk82s or ~100 SDB I/II wouldn't get the job done.

There won't be a B-1 replacement and I suspect when the B-52 is replaced it will be with something smaller and more numerous that can be more easily dispersed, not larger and more expensive.
 
Never say never JoshTN about a possible B-1 replacement, that is what I would like to see or perhaps a B-1 replacement with Hypersonic speeds now that would be something.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well I meant in terms of capacity. The B-52 is already in existence now doing roughly the same job; retiring the B-1 fleet would produce a shortfall of two dozen combat coded airframes. Also the B-52 fleet is going to have reduced availabilities during the engine/radar upgrade.
Click to expand...
It's 3 Bone combat coded squadrons, the 9th BS (7 BW), the 34th BS & 37th BS (28th BW). The 28th BS (7th BW) is the FTU. Point taken about the near term with all the upgrades.
 
mkellytx said:
External pylons that are still rendered useless, "by a process equivalent to welding," to quote START (I was an escort for the Bone at DY), that aren't wired (I conducted the final mission to send LCTP out to the fleet) just one pylon for a pod took time, not to mention Seek Eagle, safe separation, P&FQ and then they aren't programmed into the budget cycle.

Even if by some miracle the money magically appeared, and the birds could be modified in a reasonable amount of time it still doesn't address the god-awful performance of putting that much weight and drag on a tired old airframe. I've launched Bones with 24 GBU-31's and over 200 klbs of gas, they barely got off the runway, no way it happens with external stores unless the fuel is massively cut. The jet already has performance issues at altitude without external stores, look up the turn charts in the T.O.B-1B-1 they aren't pretty when the gross weight climbs.
Click to expand...
I know it's fantasy at this point but how would swapping the F101s out for F135s change that?
 
sferrin said:
I know it's fantasy at this point but how would swapping the F101s out for F135s change that?
Click to expand...
Alright @sferrin, while the fact sheet lists the max gross as 477,000 lbs. the heaviest we launched them at DY was 450-460,000 lbs., which was with max internal fuel, 205,000 lbs., 16-24 GBU-31's and/or a forward bay tank at 20,000 lbs. We may have launched one with two forward bay tanks and 8 GBU-31's. The takeoff roll took most of the runway and the climb angle was quite shallow, shallow enough for us to wonder if they'd clear the mesa ridges in Buffalo Gap since they took off to the south. It's also worth mentioning that once the fuel load gets above 180,000 lbs. CoG becomes a concern, so something needs to be in the forward bomb bays.

Anyhow, the fantasy presupposes that the airframe could handle 40,000+ lbs. of thrust without several thousand pounds of structural reinforcement, otherwise they are flat rated engines that only improve performance for higher density altitudes, but I digress... Assuming they could handle the thrust and that the gross weight stays the same, the empty weight would still be more than the listed 192,000 lbs., worst case scenario let's say 200,000 lbs. Full internal fuel would give a useful load of 72,000 lbs., after 24 GBU-31's that leaves maybe 18-20,000 lbs. for the external pylons and weapons, AGM-158's weigh a lot more than GBU-31's so any way you cut it 14 external AGM-158's will trade significant internal fuel, that doesn't even consider CoG.

All of that to say, even with 30-40% more thrust, assuming it's even available, all of that extra drag would make for a long takeoff roll, slow climb and low cruise altitude. Range would suffer pretty bad as well since the 135's have a far lower BPR and would burn a lot more gas.

That's my gut feel without digging out the performance annex and backing out any aero coefficients to come up with some rough numbers. Can't even remember if the -1-1 has tables for externals.
 
Last edited:
Foo Fighter said:
My recollection is that the aircraft in Dale Brown's books was based on the BUFF.

I shall shut up now failing memory perhaps with B1 and B52 involved.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Hero Plane was a Buff. But the planes originally intended for that mission were a pair of Bones. The Old Dog was merely the tech demonstrator for them. In one of the more recent books, a plane very similar to the B-1R (man, is that going to make an unfortunate name, "Boner") but with the V-tail of the Old Dog and cousins shows up.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom