Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Where was the B-1 ????? Message-ID: <1991Mar13.001039.4430@cbnews.att.com> Date: 13 Mar 91 00:10:39 GMT References: <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 121 Approved: military@att.att.com From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) From davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU > Do any of you have any ideas why the B-1 bomber wasn't use ?? The B-1 is part of our nuclear triad--subs, ICBM, and bombers. If we would have used the B-1 in the Gulf, one leg of our nuclear defense would have out of service. American defense theory would not permit this. There are a number of other related points. First, the USA has a fleet of basically obsolete B-52 heavy bombers. The USA could afford to lose B-52's, a B-1 loss would be much more expensive because it is a current front-line plane. We would not lose future offensive capacity by losing a B-52, but we would by losing a B-1. Aircraft engines are very expensive and require frequent overhauls. Why put time on the new B-1 engines and airframes if we can use up the B-52s? The B-1 has a stealth advantage over the B-52. Over Iraq, the B-52 could operate with impunity, so the special features of the B-1 were not required. If the B-1 was not needed, why risk it? The B-1 is only certified to carry atomic weapons. Since we have B-52 to drop conventional bombs, there has been no need to spend the money to build the equipment needed to support conventional B-1 bombing missions. I believe that there are only one or two rotary bomb racks for iron bombs available for the B-1. If the B-52's are ever retired, then the B-1 will have to take over the conventional bombing role. Perhaps, by then, we will have a small fleet of B-2's to handle the nuclear bombing role. The B-52 is a known quantity to our potential enemies. There are some extremely modern systems in the B-52, but it would not be a disaster if one would crash over Iraq and fall into enemy lines. But a B-1 falling into enemy hands could be a disaster if the enemy were to discover any weak spot that could be exploited if the USA were ever required to attack the Soviet Union. Finally, the B-1s were experiencing a minor problem with engine fires this fall. There were two engine fires, one of which caused an engine to be completely destroyed. Although the B-1 remained on alert status with SAC, all non-essential B-1 flights were suspended. SAC did not want to risk a B-1 or its crew over a minor problem that could be fixed, but they were willing to risk the planes if they needed to scramble. > The reporter contended that the reason why they > were not used, is because of the Air Force brass didn't/does not > have much confidence in them and to lose another one due to > mechanical failure would put a dim light on the high-tech air > superiority we're suppose to have. The media loves to rip the B-1. Most of what you hear in the media about the B-1 is simply not true. For example, I heard that the B-1s were not used in the Gulf becuase they leak fuel. There was a fuel leak problem with the early production B-1's, but this problem was fixed several years ago. All airplanes have teething problems. Another system that has received bad press are the offensive and defensive jamming systems. One of the systems does not meet the spec that was issued by the Air Force. The press makes out that the B-1 is junk because of this problem. But the truth is that the spec was very speculative and required technological breakthroughs. Although the contractor was able to make most of the needed break throughs, the system still fell short of a few goals because it was not possible to meet the requirements in the early 80's. A new system is in design and will be retrofitted to the B-1 fleet in a few years. This is not that unusual--look at how many times the B-52 fleet has been updated. > Also, I agree with Mary and Henry that a new heavy bomber should > be developed solely on the lines of conventional warfare and > only tactical nuke level...... But of course, there are no plans > in the works....Another DoD lack of planning ? Or Congress ? If you would try to build a B-52 type plane for the 90's, you would still probably end up with a plane that costed $250-million or more. This is the price range that the B-1 falls into. The major feature of the B-52 that has allowed it to remain in service for 30 years is its adaptability. The B-52 was over designed for its original mission. That fact allowed the B-52 to be adapted from a high level bomber to a cruise missile platform to a low level penetrator. The B-1 is a similarly great plane. I have no doubt that the B-1 can be adapted to other roles, such as conventional bombing and large-scale precision bombing (imagine a computer that could handle 50 independently targeted laser guided smart bombs in one drop), and I have no doubt that the B-1 will be in service for many years to come. As long as the B-52 is available and the B-1 is required for strategic alert, there really is not a need for a new conventional bomber. This need might change if the B-52 is retired, or if we suddenly need more bombers because of a series of Iraq-type wars. The reason that the USA uses B-52's for conventional bombing is that the B-52 was available as a "left-over" when high level penetration of Soviet airspace became impossible after the advent of Soviet surface-to-air missiles. One can almost assume that the B-1 will meet a similar same fate someday. Adapting an obsolete B-1 into a conventional bomber would be like getting the airframe for free. But if we suddenly need new conventional bombers, and the B-1 is still on front line SAC strategic alert duty, would it be wise to build new B-1's strictly for conventional bombing? If you had the lead time, you might be able to do better than a B-1, maybe even for less money. And if you think that you are going to need that bomber 5 years from now, you better start working on it right now. I argue that the USA will not need that bomber, and the B-1 will slide into the conventional bombing role after the B-52 is finally retired sometime in 2007. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================