Saying its rcs is lower is like saying one is as big as barn on radar and the other one is as big as a barn without its doors. I've been hearing that bs for 37+ years and its rcs reduction argument is a joke. There is nothing stealthy about it.The JimmyCarter B-1B was a compromise of the more maintainable B-1A so the B-1B was obsolete and hard to maintain from its inception.
Wrong. The B-1B traded top maximum speed for lower RCS. It was determined the net effect was to make it MORE survivable. Also the B-1A was argualby less maintainable. It had much more complicated overwing fairings, inlets, and engine nozzles.
The B-1B has many great advantages but certainly needs to be replaced and the, smaller than B-2, B-21 is not the answer for payloads
Your options are: 1. Maintained B-1Bs
2, Nothing.
There is no door #3.
Given its proposed low altitude flight a fighter looking down at it doesn't care a damn the engine fans are hidden. Just one example.
The bone was supposed to get us to the b2 and be retired. That's it. The engineers fell out of their chairs when the usaf was doing touch and goes... That's how well built the bone was.
Maintain it all you want but hope you don't need to fly it too much longer
Last edited: