Wanting To Retire B-1B Bombers Is One Thing, Actually Making It Happen Is Another

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,748
Wanting To Retire B-1B Bombers Is One Thing, Actually Making It Happen Is Another
The Air Force will reportedly ask to retire a portion of its B-1Bs force, but the motivations behind the move and its feasibility are far from clear.
4 Feb 2020

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ne-thing-actually-making-it-happen-is-another

On the chopping block are a significant chunk of the older F-15s and F-16s, 17 of roughly 60 nonnuclear B-1 bombers, along with 21 of the service’s unarmed RQ-4 Global Hawk drones. The proposed cuts over what is called the “five-year defense plan” will be included in the White House’s annual budget submission for fiscal year 2021, which is set to be released on Feb. 10.

We have not been able to corroborate this information, but assuming it is accurate, the B-1B fleet would shrink down to just 43 airframes in the not so distant future. The idea had been that the B-1B force would be retired on at least a one to one basis once the B-21 Raider enters service beginning in the latter half of the decade and it has supplanted the B-2A Spirit. Overall, the B-1B is slated to exit the service by 2036, although that timeline is very likely to shift to the right if the B-21's development hits some roadblocks. All said, by the end of the 2030s, the entire USAF bomber force would be made up of B-21s and upgraded and re-engined B-52s under the USAF's most recent bomber roadmap.


-----------

I'd guess that this is a depot-serviced plane landing after a test flight being done before the plane is repainted:

https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F02%2F21414124d.jpg%3Fquality%3D85


Boneyard B-1s:

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1580863083287-5253c.jpg


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1580862384634-13151.jpg


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1580863163463-image6.jpg
 
I'm assuming that there's a good reason why the Air Force wants to cut the number of B-1s while keeping upgraded B-52s, but I don't know what that is. The B-52 is much older, not stealthy, and cannot use terrain following radar like the B-1.:dontknow:
 
When I was in graduate school I helped with a reliability study that looked at the readiness of USAF aircraft. The B-1, which was much newer than it is today, was one of the lowest reliable aircraft. That may still be the case.

Another thing that hurts the B-1 is that the B-52 can carry a lot more. Neither plane would survive contested enemy airspace, so their roles are essentially firing missiles at range such as against China or Russia. Since the B-52 can carry more so it seems like a better choice. The B-1 has a lot smaller radar signature than a B-52, but it is not stealthy like a B-2.
 
It's a really darned expensive plane to sustain, getting old and not as suitable to the threat as it used to be. The B-21 Raider will be a game changer and will make the beautiful B-1B a museum piece.

People forget that sustainment of a weapon system is like the hidden, massive part of an iceberg below the water line. Above the water line is the cost to initially procure. And, the older a platform becomes, the harder it is to maintain part supplies for antiquated and no longer commercially produced components/materials. Ironically, the newer and more complicated the platform, the more challenging it is to sustain long term.

All that said, I'll never forget a dark night on Kandahar Airfield, summer 2010, with 37 insurgents 'inside the wire' conducting a base attack (for real). The first asset to respond to our call for assistance roared over the base at 500' with all four, beautiful (blue) afterburners lit, and seemed like it was at Mach 0.9999999999. It let the bad dudes know that hate was about to be rained on them. That and the Apaches made short work of the bad dudes. I will always love the B-1B for that.
 
It's a really darned expensive plane to sustain, getting old and not as suitable to the threat as it used to be. The B-21 Raider will be a game changer and will make the beautiful B-1B a museum piece.

People forget that sustainment of a weapon system is like the hidden, massive part of an iceberg below the water line. Above the water line is the cost to initially procure. And, the older a platform becomes, the harder it is to maintain part supplies for antiquated and no longer commercially produced components/materials. Ironically, the newer and more complicated the platform, the more challenging it is to sustain long term.

All that said, I'll never forget a dark night on Kandahar Airfield, summer 2010, with 37 insurgents 'inside the wire' conducting a base attack (for real). The first asset to respond to our call for assistance roared over the base at 500' with all four, beautiful (blue) afterburners lit, and seemed like it was at Mach 0.9999999999. It let the bad dudes know that hate was about to be rained on them. That and the Apaches made short work of the bad dudes. I will always love the B-1B for that.

True dat. It will be missed but not as much as the A-10 when it finally retires.
 
True dat. It will be missed but not as much as the A-10 when it finally retires.
Not gonna miss the B1 much. But agree with the A10. Yeah, it had a calendar instead of an airspeed indicator, but sometimes low and slow and ultramaneuverable was exactly what you needed in the close air support role.

 
Yeah, it had a calendar instead of an airspeed indicator,

We had a K-car at work, I told my boss I almost got killed crossing the highway with it because it was so SLOW. He said, yeah, you need to plan ahead. I told him you needed a calendar for that thing.
 
True dat. It will be missed but not as much as the A-10 when it finally retires.
The Military Industrial Complex often plays games with budget requests. They always want more money, so they will prioritize new weapons and omit weapons that they know already have congressional support, knowing that congress will often increase the budget to fund those programs as well.
 
Wow, Crazy!!!
Though I'm sadder to see the "older F-15s and F-16s going to the chopping block", those are two of my favorite planes.
Wish I could procure one each of those, would make for beautiful yard art.LOL
I couldn't afford to fly em let alone maintain em!
Sad to see em all go!!
SS
 
Back
Top