A battle for the future of the B-1 fleet

[Feuer Frei!]

The Air Force wants to begin paring back its fleet of B-1B Lancers ever so slowly, first retiring six aircraft and then eventually phasing out the Lancers as its fleet of new hyper-bombers theoretically comes online. Congressional lawmakers with B-1s based in their districts vowed to fight this plan, arguing that the B-1 is the greatest aircraft ever flown, that it’s as cheap as daylight, that taking these six out of service would leave America defenseless against world villainy — you know the drill. Now, it appears, some bomber backers are acknowledging that if they can’t save this batch of B-1s, they want to keep the greenbacks “saved” by their retirement, and guarantee the future of the rest of the fleet.

Nick Penzenstadler of the Raid City Journal — whose hometown Ellsworth AFB, S.D. stands to lose two of the six B-1s — writes that lawmakers appear willing to accept a tactical loss here in order to secure a strategic victory:

A House version of the [defense] bill seeks to protect cuts to the combat aircraft at Ellsworth. Now, the Senate wants to ensure savings go back into the program and protect the fleet from further retirements in the next 10 years.


“A portion of the savings from this reduction would fund needed modifications and upgrades to the B-1, while the remainder would be re-invested in other U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense capabilities needed to balance war fighting capabilities across the force,” said Col. Mark Weatherington, commander at Ellsworth.
A Senate Armed Services Committee document obtained by the Journal calls for at least 60 percent of the savings to be reinvested in the U.S. military’s entire bomber fleet, of which 35 percent must specifically go back into the B-1.
Exactly how much money would be saved by the cuts is unclear, but the committee included a request to the Air Force for specifics in its budget document. Retiring two bombers at Ellsworth would equate to a loss of funding for 160 civilian and military workers at the base.
Another line in the Senate document calls for “a modernization plan for sustaining the remaining B-1 bomber aircraft through at least calendar year 2022.” That assurance seems to imply the fleet would be safe from further cuts for at least the next 10 years.

Here’s another detail:

The House version of the bill, approved May 26, stipulates that no B-1s can be retired until 2018 or until a new long-range bomber is ready, whichever comes first.

Given that no one knows much about the new bomber, the constituencies here are just obeying the old rule: A big, swing-wing bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


SOURCE

[Anthony W.]

You're a regular Walter Cronkite of the forums. Yes, lol, that is a compliment

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Yes, lol, that is a compliment

After googling, i accept
After all, someone has to keep Vendor in check and motivated.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, I love checking out your news posts for the day, good stuff.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yes, I love checking out your news posts for the day, good stuff.

Thanks Neal, i appreciate that

[papa_smurf]

Now you know how we felt when the Government here decided to scrap the Harriers/Nimrod

I do like the B-1, not as much as the Vulcan when it flies but not far off.
However....
It is a hard call for the budget.
On the one hand given their usage wouldn't the 52s be more than adequate to make up for the 6 aircrafts job and do it for a fraction of the costs.
On the other hand with their repacement and their replacemements replacement still only being aircraft in theory should they all be retained or even further invested in as a 2020s version 1970s bomber

Par for the course for the politicians though who don't like pork projects in principle, but love them when the trough is in their own sty.

[Oberon]

Wasn't there a plan to turn the B-1s into a AAM carrier which would hang back from the air battle and then launch its missiles based on target data from forward aircraft such as the F-22? Kinda like a MRLS of the sky.
Alas they must have gone the way of the railgun.

One word does rather worry me in that opening article, and really should worry anyone in the decision to scrap the B-1.

then eventually phasing out the Lancers as its fleet of new hyper-bombers theoretically comes online.

Theoretically...this is assuming that someone doesn't cut that program somewhere down the line.

I know it's the guns and butter scenario, but you've got to think ahead. It would be much better to mothball the old girls out in the boneyard so that they can be reactivated when needed rather than scrap them outright.

[Krauter]

So wait.. your telling me that the USAF is still running B-52s, bombers as described here that were designed in the 70s in favour of running the B1s, a dual role (high altitude strat bomber and low altitude penetration bomber) which is theoretically ( a term loved by politicians ) better then the B-52 in all aspects?

*sigh...* Thank God I live in Canada where we don't have such expensive toys for our equally stupid politicians to play around with.

[Stealhead]

All I can say is that when they fly the last B-2 to the Arizona Boneyard they will get picked up by a B-52 and when they fly the last B-1 to the Boneyard again the crew will get flown home on a B-52.

I never worked directly with B-1Bs in my time but I knew guys that did and from what I gather they where a rather troublesome aircraft to maintain and in most armed forces a troublesome unit is always near the chopping block when there are other units that can do the same job.

I think one factor is the swing wing this was the rage back in the mid 60's when the B-1,F-111,and F-14 to name a few where designed or their design process was started back then military budgets where much larger and aeronautics had not yet come up with more cost effective alternates to a swing wing.Since that time things have changed a bit.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

. . . a troublesome unit is always near the chopping block when there are other units that can do the same job.

I'm glad that's not always the case or the Harrier would never have got into the '80s, nevermind become the much-less-troublesome aircraft in the GR7 and 9 forms.

Chopping six from a fleet of 66 (or 100? Need TLAM to quantify) in the first instance is a great deal better than we got in the UK with the whole Harrier Force gone in one go, along with all Nimrods, past, present, and very near future! And for an AF the size of yours, even all (up to) 100 aircraft you'll still have hundreds more, just not as attractive or noisy.

[Krauter]

I understand getting rid of troublesome units and such, but at what point will upkeep, upgrades and maintenance on the antiquated B-52s outweigh the cost of improving the B-1s, superior speed, stealth and weapons package (correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the B-1 carry a larger variety of weapons then the B-52?) design?

Anyways, I'm all for the saying of don't fix it if it's wrong (B-52), but really, is the U.S going to run this bomber for more then 40 years?

Anyways,

Just my thoughts,

Cheers

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Chopping six from a fleet of 66 (or 100? Need TLAM to quantify)

Yep 66.

Originally Posted by Krauter

*sigh...* Thank God I live in Canada where we don't have such expensive toys for our equally stupid politicians to play around with.

Carry on...

[Herr-Berbunch]

You know, I knew you'd know!

I don't suppose you know the total number of a/c the USAF has? Off the top of your head, or close to hand - I don't want you to spend 30 minutes counting them just for moi.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

I don't suppose you know the total number of a/c the USAF has? Off the top of your head, or close to hand - I don't want you to spend 30 minutes counting them just for moi.

Wikipedia says: 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are fighters. I would say that is about right.