North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1 Lancer

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.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Remember that the B-21 still has a nuclear role. I know nobody wants to think about it, but they're intended for penetrating the Russian (or Chinese) air defenses and dropping nukes. So as a bare minimum, we need 2x the number of B-2s produced, increased by the flightworthiness % of both B-2s and B-21s, just to cover the existing SIOP demands. Replacing B-1s with B-21s, we need 3x the number of Bones, though that's for conventional bombing only. Replacing B-52s with B-21s, we need roughly 2.5x the number of Buffs, and even then I don't think the B-21's bay can hold ALCMs.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).

Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.

And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.

Because the USAF is going to need every single LRASM shooter it can get if a fight with the PRC kicks off.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that the B-21 still has a nuclear role. I know nobody wants to think about it, but they're intended for penetrating the Russian (or Chinese) air defenses and dropping nukes. So as a bare minimum, we need 2x the number of B-2s produced, increased by the flightworthiness % of both B-2s and B-21s, just to cover the existing SIOP demands. Replacing B-1s with B-21s, we need 3x the number of Bones, though that's for conventional bombing only. Replacing B-52s with B-21s, we need roughly 2.5x the number of Buffs, and even then I don't think the B-21's bay can hold ALCMs.
Click to expand...

There are only about a dozen combat coded B-2s with around a 50% availability rate, and my understanding is that mission capable availability metrics don't even include external coating maintenance. Basically the B-2 fleet is a special operations force of which only a handful of airframes are every fully capable. I doubt it has a very significant contribution to the SIOP. It seems likely a fairly small force of B-21s could replace them, even given the smaller payload - I consider it very likely the B-21 has secondary bomb bays for self defense weapons and mission flexibility, perhaps something like the F-35 bays but sized slightly larger. It would make sense that you would want some AAM/ARM capability that didn't require opening the main bay or compromising the primary payload.

As for ALCMs, we actually do know for a fact that LRSO will be carried by both B-52s and B-21s. That is a program requirement. So it seems likely that the B-21 can carry a 20' / 3000lb class munition internally, likely on the same common strategic rotary launcher as the B-2/52.

Scott Kenny said:
So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).
Click to expand...

I think what mkellytx was alluding to is that the external pylons cause so much drag on top of the additional weight that it would be impractical to reactivate the external pylons in an operational way. There would be huge range reductions even assuming the aircraft was capable of taking off in a reduced fuel configuration and being topped off by a tanker at altitude. Personally I don't see much advantage in external carriage; the internal warload is already huge. These aircraft do not have a lot of hours left on them so the utility of such a modification seems marginal outside of testing purposes.

Scott Kenny said:
Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.
Click to expand...

New START is the only treaty in force currently and it has no restrictions as to which planes can carry nuclear weapons, only a hard limit on the total number of nuclear launchers and warheads. So modifying the B-1 for different conventional configurations is not limited in any way, as far as I know.


Scott Kenny said:
And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.

Because the USAF is going to need every single LRASM shooter it can get if a fight with the PRC kicks off.
Click to expand...

Right now four B-1s could fire off the entire LRASM inventory of the USAF anyway. Adding LRASM capacity doesn't seem particularly worth while given that scheduled USAF buys of LRASM for the next four years wouldn't fill the internal bays of the entire combat coded fleet once. At some point after that, HACM likely becomes the primary AShM, though I have no idea if the B-1 is to be integrated with such. The threshold aircraft is the F-15 and I suspect the B-52 fleet will receive the capability during or after their modernization.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).
Click to expand...
1691369077356.png
If only DFAR's was that easy. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to re-skin an aircraft? With the limited life left for the fleet it's a pretty good assumption that a fair number visited OK city for the last time. FWIW I've been there 3 times (first as an AMOC student, next as a B-1 maintenance officer, finally as an aircrew to drop off Balls 36), I've walked all four PDM lines there (B-1, B-52, E-3, & KC-135). The 119 reengine saga was a sick joke (which I've recounted before), not to mention those are out of production engines, different size than the 101, different mass flow, different attachments...

Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.
Click to expand...

Ah, new START doesn't apply because old START rendered them conventional-only. I got to follow the Russians around DY and get nice gifts, duly inspected by OSI which now reside on my I love me shelf in the home office with all of my other plaques, statues, models, steins and trophies.

And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.
Click to expand...

There are pictures of clean Bones in AB on two of the engines to stay on the boom and get gas, how will something that heavy/draggy stay on the boom above 10,000 ft?
 
Josh_TN said:
I think what mkellytx was alluding to is that the external pylons cause so much drag on top of the additional weight that it would be impractical to reactivate the external pylons in an operational way. There would be huge range reductions even assuming the aircraft was capable of taking off in a reduced fuel configuration and being topped off by a tanker at altitude. Personally I don't see much advantage in external carriage; the internal warload is already huge. These aircraft do not have a lot of hours left on them so the utility of such a modification seems marginal outside of testing purposes.
Click to expand...

Thanks @Josh_TN, could have saved 20 mins if I'd seen this earlier, that pretty well summarizes my earlier posts.

Right now four B-1s could fire off the entire LRASM inventory of the USAF anyway. Adding LRASM capacity doesn't seem particularly worth while given that scheduled USAF buys of LRASM for the next four years wouldn't fill the internal bays of the entire combat coded fleet once. At some point after that, HACM likely becomes the primary AShM, though I have no idea if the B-1 is to be integrated with such. The threshold aircraft is the F-15 and I suspect the B-52 fleet will receive the capability during or after their modernization.
Click to expand...
Nailed it there! Another often overlooked point is that the range of LRASM is much more than the shooter's ability to target them without off board help. If the shooter doesn't need all those expensive fancy avionics why have an expensive bomber as the shooter?
 
mkellytx said:
If only DFAR's was that easy. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to re-skin an aircraft?
Click to expand...
Yes. It sucks. (And I wasn't dealing with stealth surface flatness requirements)

It can be done if you're throwing lots of money at the problem. (Dipshit ran a ground tug into the lower fuselage somehow, caused dent that required stringer replacement, frame repair, and more profanity than I ever heard in the Navy.)
 
Forest Green said:
Wasn't the bulkhead supposed to be removeable anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it looked like they did that with one B-1 and put a mock up AGM-183 in there. But I have no idea how practical it is to actually carry ARRW or HACM internally for testing in terms of wiring, separation, etc., nor whether there's any physical limitations or drawbacks to moving the bulkhead between the front two bays. It may still be easier to just mount things externally, especially if you are only using one hard point for testing. Less moving parts.

EDIT: about half way down this article there is a pic of a B-1 with an AGM-183-ish mock up internally; I assume this involved the bulkhead being moved or removed:

www.thedrive.com

B-1 Bone Bombers Taking Over Hypersonic Testing From B-52s

With the B-52 getting deep upgrades that will take years to accomplish, the B-1 fleet is stepping into the role with the help of a new pylon.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
How hard would it be to move the bulkhead and carry an oversized piece of hypersonic ordnance internally instead? More of a pain than rewiring the external hard points?
Click to expand...
Pain is a relative term. As laid out in your post way less. Now, when it comes to treaties, compliance, foreign governments and such the relative comment comes into play ;). That of course presupposes the thing with fit inside the bay on a rotary.
 
https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl
View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

abcnews.go.com

Air Force crew ejects safely as B-1 bomber crashes during landing in South Dakota

Four crew members from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota ejected safely from their aircraft Thursday night.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
www.dakotanewsnow.com

Ellsworth Air Force Base shares update on B-1B crash

Ellsworth Air Force Base has shared an update about Thursday’s B-1B Lancer that crashed while attempting to land on the installation.
www.dakotanewsnow.com www.dakotanewsnow.com
 
Last edited:
aonestudio said:
https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl
View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

abcnews.go.com

Air Force crew ejects safely as B-1 bomber crashes during landing in South Dakota

Four crew members from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota ejected safely from their aircraft Thursday night.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
www.dakotanewsnow.com

Ellsworth Air Force Base shares update on B-1B crash

Ellsworth Air Force Base has shared an update about Thursday’s B-1B Lancer that crashed while attempting to land on the installation.
www.dakotanewsnow.com www.dakotanewsnow.com
Click to expand...
Glad everyone got out okay!

Will have to see what the cause of the crash was...
 

Attachments

  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (3).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (3).jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 70
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (2).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (2).jpg
    123.3 KB · Views: 70
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (1).jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc (1).jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 58
  • 1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc.jpg
    1_d9bcb8345788d3c04e2ca7abfe832bbc.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 55
I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Probably waiting for the crash investigators to arrive (because they can't fly into that base with the airspace closed!)
Click to expand...

They would want to do a detailed assessment of the aircraft and its salvageability before they touched it. In the case of the last B-2 accident, that meant closing the main runway for weeks IIRC. In this case, the aircraft is off the runway and seems much more likely to be an open and close write off, but they won't want to bring in bulldozers until they confirm that and strip anything salvageable off the wreck.
 
In the case of the B-2, toxic damaged composites. Also massive effort to figure our how to move the $2 billion National Asset. You don't want to be the crane operator who dropped your end and broke the B-2 in half.
 
That reminds me of the crash of the B-2 and subsequent fire at Whiteman several years ago now aim9xray.
 
TomcatViP said:
Live ammunition on board? Waiting for everything that might blow up to cool down?
Click to expand...
On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.
 
Scott Kenny said:
On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the BDU-33's account for the most injuries of any USAF munitions from drops. Most of what gets dropped for training are concrete shapes, so no cook off risk. We did table top the incident in Qatar where the bombs did cook off when I was in the 419th, scarry AF.
 
FighterJock said:
I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.
Click to expand...
The gear are either sheared off or up and the spine looks burned through, no way that bird can be safely lifted. I used to run Maintenance Flight at Dyess ages ago and the AR troops worked for me (they're the ones who get the bags out to lift jets, yes, I got to see it done for practice, the time they actually had to lift a jet whose nose gear collapsed they used the Navy's crane).
 
These are pictures from a Rockwell Appreciation folder dated 1973. It has some nice shots of a B-1 engineering model being built. Might have been given to the modeler, don't know. The base of that finished model is 12" x 6"ish. It's a big model.
Interesting look at shape details and how they built these cool models. I have a few more if interested.
 

Attachments

  • ab1a (2).JPG
    ab1a (2).JPG
    3 MB · Views: 328
  • ab1a (3).JPG
    ab1a (3).JPG
    3.2 MB · Views: 328
  • ab1a (5).JPG
    ab1a (5).JPG
    2.7 MB · Views: 325
  • ab1a (7).JPG
    ab1a (7).JPG
    2.8 MB · Views: 326
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom