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: <1991Mar13.001146.4618@cbnews.att.com> Date: 13 Mar 91 00:11:46 GMT References: <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar8.022040.7569@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 78 Approved: military@att.att.com From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) > > Do any of you have any ideas why the B-1 bomber wasn't use ?? > The B-1 was brought up on the CBS News last night; it was said that > this bomber was still having some problems and needed $1 billion dollars > more for correction. Normally, if it was a horse, it would have been > put out of its misery. While this is typical of the media, it is totally unfair to the B-1. I discussed some of the B-1 teething problems in another posting. What I want to present here is a short list of problems in other airplane development programs: F-18 - problem with vertical stabalizers developing cracks and failing not discovered until numberous planes deployed--all planes were grounded until a small vertical tail was added on top of each wing. F-14 - two prototypes lost, including the first prototype on its second flight. Both were traced to minor hydrolic problems. X-1, X-2 - Loss of 4 vehicles, some crew, and one carrier aircraft due to a chemical in a gasket that was explosive when in contact with LOX. P-38 - First prototype lost while trying to set a speed record. The Lightning also suffered from a problem called "compressability", which never was fixed. The P-38 was required for the war and could not sit out waiting for a relatively minor problem to be sorted out. F-105 - Teething problems resulted in several years of delays before entering production. Congress and the Air Force lost confidence in the F-105. After the F-105 was ready for production, the Air Force required it to enter a fly-off against the F-107, which the F-105 won. F-111 - structural problem in the wing box supporting the swing wings not discovered until 2 production planes were lost in Viet Nam. F-102 - top speed was much less than expected. Research into the problem resulted in the "area rule". Modifications to the existing planes were not possible. Modifications to the design resulted in the F-106, which were very sucessful (the last F-106's in service were just retired in favor of F-16's--just months short of a 30 year service life). The point of this list, taken from memory, is that all aircraft projects have problems. If it were easy, everybody would be an expert and every company would be building airplanes. But the reality is that airplanes are very complex, and the Air Force & Navy requirements push the state of the art. A vehicle with over a million parts can be 99.99% perfect and still have 100 major problems. (The Space Shuttle is another example of this problem.) > While a B-1 can carry a larger conventional bomb load than a B-52 can, > the electronic equipment involved in targeting and bombing still isn't > satisfactory. The B-1 electronics was pushing the state of the art, and the B-1 program did not have the luxury of flying prototypes before the aircraft entered production (fast-track production). (No, the B-1A's do not count as prototypes becuase they were quite different from the B-1B's.) The B-1B is currently certified to carry exactly 0 conventional bombs. This mission has not been fully developed and is only now entering limited testing with one plane. With a large fleet of B-52's, there is no need to risk B-1's flying iron bombs. It also does not make since to take out 1/3 of our strategic triad to fly iron bombs when we have a bunch of B-52's that can do the job just as well. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================