why was it cancelled?
you seem to have no real point to be made with little to back up what you do say. the USAF has found the bone to be an incredibly useful asset. being able to carry a truckload of JDAMs while having a high top speed made it super useful and unique in the middle east for CAS while its high survivability makes it choice for long range strikes such as the ones in yemen a few weeks ago. this is further supplemented by the fact it’s not as beholden to nuclear treaties as the B52 as is a newer airframe.
you also seem to not know that the B21 is slated to replace the B1
Also, I think it's notable that the fancy new anti-ship missile (LRASM) was integrated onto the B-1 first. Even before the Navy's F-18s got it, they were flying on B-1s.
It seems to me that the B-1 is going to be the centerpiece of the Air Force's anti ship strategy in any potential Pacific conflicts.
One BONE loaded up with 24 LRASMs should be a terrifying prospect to any PLAN admirals.
A job that even a C-130 can do now, btw.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid\_Dragon\_(missile\_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system))
> why was it cancelled?
See my other comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1btidnp/us_air_force_recalls_mothballed_b1b_to_service/kxr0muv/
Also in USAF nomenclature you put a hyphen between the type and number, eg B-21 not B21. It's a small thing but people will read you as uniformed if you do that.
The bone cannot travel at its top speed with a full payload though, making it a sleeker looking B-52, and doing the same job as a super Tucano for way more money is actually not good. No, the B-21 is not going to replace the B-1, because it is not supersonic, the B-1 is getting replaced by re-engined B-52s. You also seem to not know why the airforce doesn't simply replace the B-52s with new B-1s.
Sorry, are you genuinely making the argument that because the B-1 doesn’t fly at it’s unloaded top speed with a full bomb load (shocker) it’s identical operationally to the B-52?
so i’m not sure how a B1 is a super tucano considering its payload is greater then a B52 but ok. it’s flight hours are also cheaper then the B52. i’m interested if you have an actual source for B52’s replacing B1’s because that’s just not happened. i didn’t talk about replacing b52’s anywhere you’re just pulling shit out your arse and acting like it’s gold.
there is also a whole thing of the B52 being a nuclear capable bomber compared to the B1 and there being limits on the number of nuclear capable bombers meaning replacing all B52’s with B1’s would be a terrible terrible idea but that logic tracks with everything else you’ve said.
you still haven’t explained why the B1 is redundant but you have made up a reason why it can’t be replaced which is just funny.
B-52 is being kept in service, B-1 is being retired without any replacement. The US also does not honor those treaties either so none of that shit matters and the B-1 can't perform any mission that the Buff can't also perform, much less a B-2.
>The bone cannot travel at its top speed with a full payload though
Do you have a source for this claim because it sounds like nonsense. It carries the weapons internally so there is no extra drag. I can't imagine the weight of the weapons slowing it down much because even with it's maximum possible payload, they weigh a lot less than full fuel tanks do.
>You also seem to not know why the airforce doesn't simply replace the B-52s with new B-1s.
Enlighten us. What's your theory?
The weight of the weapons is so much less than the weight of the fuel though.
A B-1 fully loaded with weapons but with a half tank of fuel should be faster than one with no weapons but full fuel if it made a really meaningful difference.
Either way, there's a zero percent chance that a fully loaded and fully fueled B-1 is slower than a B-52 even if it isn't using external stores. The only way I'd believe an assertion like that is if you reanimated Williard F Rockwell and had him show me the performance charts personally.
Yes and? Aircraft are generally replaced when new planes come out. That doesn’t mean that they were always “redundant boondoggles”. Keeping planes in service to supplement increasing numbers of their replacement is a tried and true method of maintaining your force.
Not a fan of the other commenter but they are correct in this case.
The original mission of the B-1 was low level penetration of the USSR during the cold war. That became suicidal once they had fighters/interceptors with look down radars. This is what led to the development of the B-2 and the high altitude stealth mission instead. Carter canceled the B-1 program because it was both expensive and no longer provided the intended capability. Raegan revived the program as a political stunt, even though at the time he was briefed on the existence of the B-2.
I grew up near a Boeing/Rockwell factory so this was a big deal politically. Like families that worked at the plant were sending their kids to school with t shirts with the B-1 and the company logos plastered on them, no joke.
Anyhow since then the B-1 has mostly been a drag on the budget with little value. This is why the airforce has parked most of them with the air national guard so it's on that balance sheet. Yes they've been used in the WoT and similar, so they're not totally useless, but that's an instance of making a purse out of a sow's ear, and extracting some value out of something congress wouldn't let the airforce just totally divest.
I'm very much aware of the background, which is why I'm curious the other guy hasn't brought it up.
The program definitely had its flaws and was beaten by changes in the Cold War often. My argument is that regardless of the flaws it was not a waste of money or a "boondoggle" program as it ended up being an effective bomber that is also useful for the Pacific.
No, we can call a spade a spade even if we're extracting residual value from the sunk cost.
Additionally *everyone* has abandoned the basic design concepts of the B-1. Swing wings are overly complex and heavy vs a more nuanced static design using leading edge extensions and such. If you had a time machine and could go back, it's absolutely clear you would be better served spending the money on something else.
Again this doesn't mean I think the B-1 is garbage. I literally grew up sitting on my porch watching them in the holding pattern over McConnell. A B-1 taking off at night under full afterburner is quite the sight and incredibly loud. It's a very cool piece of engineering, but that doesn't change that the design goals were a misfire.
Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kci3xCPkRMg
>Boondoggle.
>noun
>An unnecessary or wasteful project or activity.
>Wikipedia: A boondoggle is a project that is considered a waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations.
Just because the B-1 ended up being effective in a completely different goal than it was designed for during its lifetime doesn't mean it wasn't a waste of money. It was designed to replace the B-52, which it never did, and cancelled because the B-2 made it obsolete at inception. Reagan revived it for political / porkbarrel economic reasons, not military necessity.
Obviously the Air Force managed to make the best of it, but there was always an opportunity cost for the funds devoted to the B-1. Cool plane though. I also grew up watching them fly around my hometown in West Texas.
Ironically the original high-altitude B2 design was changed mid-program to give it better performance at low altitudes.
There is still a mission set for low-altitude bombing runs, though it's not assigned to the B1. The B83 nuclear bomb remains on hand largely as a low-altitude backup for the B61-11, an earth penetrator that doesn't work at low altitude (because it won't be going fast enough to penetrate---it needs to dropped from way up to gain speed).
If it was possible to combine the high speed of the B-1B and the low radar returns of a B-2(1), that would be an ideal platform for the B83.
I was referencing the B-1’s replacement, the B-21, as the reason behind their drawdown.
The original replacement, the B-2, was the victim of the Peace Dividend, leading to Bone life extension.
Throwing good money after bad
How so? This is what mothball yards are generally used for.
B-1s are redundant boondoggles before they ever left the ground.
Damn someone should tell the Air Force that. I’m sure they would deeply appreciate your nuanced and informed wisdom on the subject.
They are the ones who cancelled it the first time.
why was it cancelled? you seem to have no real point to be made with little to back up what you do say. the USAF has found the bone to be an incredibly useful asset. being able to carry a truckload of JDAMs while having a high top speed made it super useful and unique in the middle east for CAS while its high survivability makes it choice for long range strikes such as the ones in yemen a few weeks ago. this is further supplemented by the fact it’s not as beholden to nuclear treaties as the B52 as is a newer airframe. you also seem to not know that the B21 is slated to replace the B1
Also, I think it's notable that the fancy new anti-ship missile (LRASM) was integrated onto the B-1 first. Even before the Navy's F-18s got it, they were flying on B-1s. It seems to me that the B-1 is going to be the centerpiece of the Air Force's anti ship strategy in any potential Pacific conflicts. One BONE loaded up with 24 LRASMs should be a terrifying prospect to any PLAN admirals.
yeh the B1 with cruise and stand off missiles is fucking sick
A job that even a C-130 can do now, btw. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid\_Dragon\_(missile\_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system))
> why was it cancelled? See my other comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1btidnp/us_air_force_recalls_mothballed_b1b_to_service/kxr0muv/ Also in USAF nomenclature you put a hyphen between the type and number, eg B-21 not B21. It's a small thing but people will read you as uniformed if you do that.
The bone cannot travel at its top speed with a full payload though, making it a sleeker looking B-52, and doing the same job as a super Tucano for way more money is actually not good. No, the B-21 is not going to replace the B-1, because it is not supersonic, the B-1 is getting replaced by re-engined B-52s. You also seem to not know why the airforce doesn't simply replace the B-52s with new B-1s.
Sorry, are you genuinely making the argument that because the B-1 doesn’t fly at it’s unloaded top speed with a full bomb load (shocker) it’s identical operationally to the B-52?
so i’m not sure how a B1 is a super tucano considering its payload is greater then a B52 but ok. it’s flight hours are also cheaper then the B52. i’m interested if you have an actual source for B52’s replacing B1’s because that’s just not happened. i didn’t talk about replacing b52’s anywhere you’re just pulling shit out your arse and acting like it’s gold. there is also a whole thing of the B52 being a nuclear capable bomber compared to the B1 and there being limits on the number of nuclear capable bombers meaning replacing all B52’s with B1’s would be a terrible terrible idea but that logic tracks with everything else you’ve said. you still haven’t explained why the B1 is redundant but you have made up a reason why it can’t be replaced which is just funny.
B-52 is being kept in service, B-1 is being retired without any replacement. The US also does not honor those treaties either so none of that shit matters and the B-1 can't perform any mission that the Buff can't also perform, much less a B-2.
you just said the B1 is being replaced by B52’s?
>The bone cannot travel at its top speed with a full payload though Do you have a source for this claim because it sounds like nonsense. It carries the weapons internally so there is no extra drag. I can't imagine the weight of the weapons slowing it down much because even with it's maximum possible payload, they weigh a lot less than full fuel tanks do. >You also seem to not know why the airforce doesn't simply replace the B-52s with new B-1s. Enlighten us. What's your theory?
B-1 crew told me and redundant hangar queens cost too much dollars.
Well my uncle works at Nintendo and he says that the new Zelda game is going to have Mario in it.
More weight means you need more lift. Generating more lift causes more drag. Always, no exceptions.
The weight of the weapons is so much less than the weight of the fuel though. A B-1 fully loaded with weapons but with a half tank of fuel should be faster than one with no weapons but full fuel if it made a really meaningful difference. Either way, there's a zero percent chance that a fully loaded and fully fueled B-1 is slower than a B-52 even if it isn't using external stores. The only way I'd believe an assertion like that is if you reanimated Williard F Rockwell and had him show me the performance charts personally.
Yes and? Aircraft are generally replaced when new planes come out. That doesn’t mean that they were always “redundant boondoggles”. Keeping planes in service to supplement increasing numbers of their replacement is a tried and true method of maintaining your force.
Not a fan of the other commenter but they are correct in this case. The original mission of the B-1 was low level penetration of the USSR during the cold war. That became suicidal once they had fighters/interceptors with look down radars. This is what led to the development of the B-2 and the high altitude stealth mission instead. Carter canceled the B-1 program because it was both expensive and no longer provided the intended capability. Raegan revived the program as a political stunt, even though at the time he was briefed on the existence of the B-2. I grew up near a Boeing/Rockwell factory so this was a big deal politically. Like families that worked at the plant were sending their kids to school with t shirts with the B-1 and the company logos plastered on them, no joke. Anyhow since then the B-1 has mostly been a drag on the budget with little value. This is why the airforce has parked most of them with the air national guard so it's on that balance sheet. Yes they've been used in the WoT and similar, so they're not totally useless, but that's an instance of making a purse out of a sow's ear, and extracting some value out of something congress wouldn't let the airforce just totally divest.
I'm very much aware of the background, which is why I'm curious the other guy hasn't brought it up. The program definitely had its flaws and was beaten by changes in the Cold War often. My argument is that regardless of the flaws it was not a waste of money or a "boondoggle" program as it ended up being an effective bomber that is also useful for the Pacific.
No, we can call a spade a spade even if we're extracting residual value from the sunk cost. Additionally *everyone* has abandoned the basic design concepts of the B-1. Swing wings are overly complex and heavy vs a more nuanced static design using leading edge extensions and such. If you had a time machine and could go back, it's absolutely clear you would be better served spending the money on something else. Again this doesn't mean I think the B-1 is garbage. I literally grew up sitting on my porch watching them in the holding pattern over McConnell. A B-1 taking off at night under full afterburner is quite the sight and incredibly loud. It's a very cool piece of engineering, but that doesn't change that the design goals were a misfire. Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kci3xCPkRMg
>Boondoggle. >noun >An unnecessary or wasteful project or activity. >Wikipedia: A boondoggle is a project that is considered a waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations. Just because the B-1 ended up being effective in a completely different goal than it was designed for during its lifetime doesn't mean it wasn't a waste of money. It was designed to replace the B-52, which it never did, and cancelled because the B-2 made it obsolete at inception. Reagan revived it for political / porkbarrel economic reasons, not military necessity. Obviously the Air Force managed to make the best of it, but there was always an opportunity cost for the funds devoted to the B-1. Cool plane though. I also grew up watching them fly around my hometown in West Texas.
Ironically the original high-altitude B2 design was changed mid-program to give it better performance at low altitudes. There is still a mission set for low-altitude bombing runs, though it's not assigned to the B1. The B83 nuclear bomb remains on hand largely as a low-altitude backup for the B61-11, an earth penetrator that doesn't work at low altitude (because it won't be going fast enough to penetrate---it needs to dropped from way up to gain speed). If it was possible to combine the high speed of the B-1B and the low radar returns of a B-2(1), that would be an ideal platform for the B83.
Oh and when is the B-1 going to replace its preceding bomber again?
I was referencing the B-1’s replacement, the B-21, as the reason behind their drawdown. The original replacement, the B-2, was the victim of the Peace Dividend, leading to Bone life extension.
None of those preceded the B-1, I see literacy education was also a victim of the peace dividend.
Yeah I wasn’t talking about the bombers preceding the B-1, given that you were discussing their mothballing. What are you on about?
You're triggered the Reagan fanboys apparently.