B-1 / B-52 Bombers for the United Kingdom?

[Scott Kenny]

What exactly about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq caused so much wear and tear to the B-1 fleet? Under my impression most of the time the B-1s would be cruising at leisurely speeds at altitude. No low-level penetration missions at Mach 0.9 like it was built for. Were they just being flown so frequently?

36hr missions every day.

Yeah, okay, that math doesn't quite work out. Every other day?

But flying from the US to Afghanistan and back, plus 10hrs over Afghanistan, all while at minimum wing sweep instead of flying at max sweep. Minimum sweep puts maximum load on the hinge pin.

I'm not sure if I agree with the decision to make the B-21 a rather smaller aircraft than the B-2, but if the RAF or RAAF were to buy any that factor would probably be a very good thing for them. At this time though I feel like the odds of either buying B-21s are very slim.

If you only need to drop 8x big weapons, you don't need a big bomber. Plus, it can carry a huge number of 500lb or SDBs internally.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

The last sign of any UK interest in a long range bomber capability was thoughts of hanging StormShadow on Nimrod MRA.4, i.e. what can we get for minimal cost, and that's pushing 20 years ago.

I think the chances of a UK B-21 buy range between zero and none. With the chances for B-1 even worse.

Definitely agree. If the UK wants a long-range missile carrier, they'd probably just up-arm the Poseidons, which is something which may happen in the future, budgets permitting.

 

[Josh_TN]

It would be relatively cheap to drag old BUFF air frames out of storage. But relatively is doing a lot of lifting there. Still a very expensive project, I'd imagine.

There are less than a dozen B-52s in storage, and given the plan to extend aircraft life past 2040, the USAF will want them all.

The B-1 fleet is shot.

 

[Kiltonge]

36hr missions every day.

Yeah, okay, that math doesn't quite work out. Every other day?

But flying from the US to Afghanistan and back, plus 10hrs over Afghanistan, all while at minimum wing sweep instead of flying at max sweep. Minimum sweep puts maximum load on the hinge pin.

The B-1Bs did a lot of loitering but also a lot of supersonic sprinting to CAS calls. Must surely have increased the fatigue index rapidly.

 

[Josh_TN]

The B-1Bs did a lot of loitering but also a lot of supersonic sprinting to CAS calls. Must surely have increased the fatigue index rapidly.

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the B-1B is barely supersonic at altitude and that most of its racks/ordnance are not cleared for that speed.

 

[TomS]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the B-1B is barely supersonic at altitude and that most of its racks/ordnance are not cleared for that speed.

All of the B-1B's ordnance is internal though release is, I think, only cleared to high subsonic speeds. The Sniper pod was tested up to around 1.15M (it's sort of buried in this report but it's there).

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3073&context=utk_gradthes

 

[Josh_TN]

All of the B-1B's ordnance is internal though release is, I think, only cleared to high subsonic speeds. The Sniper pod was tested up to around 1.15M (it's sort of buried in this report but it's there).

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3073&context=utk_gradthes

Fair enough, but I have hard time believing afterburners were used for CAS missions. It would only marginally add to the top speed of the aircraft due to inlet design.

 

[CJGibson]

...and the tankers?

Chris

 

[mkellytx]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that the B-1B is barely supersonic at altitude and that most of its racks/ordnance are not cleared for that speed.

The limit is the bomb bay doors which are limited to .94 M. I conducted a mission that dropped a JDAM at that speed at 1500 ft AGL, pretty impressive to watch.

 

[mkellytx]

All of the B-1B's ordnance is internal though release is, I think, only cleared to high subsonic speeds. The Sniper pod was tested up to around 1.15M (it's sort of buried in this report but it's there).

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3073&context=utk_gradthes

Ah yes, Bubba's thesis. I worked that program with him while we were both in the 419th. That was a test accel but we did cover most of the flight envelope to make sure there were no flutter problems or safe separation issues. FWIW the sq/cc actually over G'd the plane on one of the wind up turns, he was going for 3.0 and hit 3.1, fortunately that didn't require an inspection and only resulted in some good-natured banter in the next roll call.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Fair enough, but I have hard time believing afterburners were used for CAS missions. It would only marginally add to the top speed of the aircraft due to inlet design.

There were quite a few stories about Bones being the first plane able to respond to calls for CAS, because everyone else was not capable of Mach 1.2 at altitude.

A matter of "Well, there's a Bone that can be here in 10 minutes, or some A10s that'll be here in 20." And the Bone was on the other side of the country when they answered the radio.

 

[Josh_TN]

There were quite a few stories about Bones being the first plane able to respond to calls for CAS, because everyone else was not capable of Mach 1.2 at altitude.

A matter of "Well, there's a Bone that can be here in 10 minutes, or some A10s that'll be here in 20." And the Bone was on the other side of the country when they answered the radio.

I would love a link to such a story. Also it’s not like a B-1 would need an afterburner to beat an A-10. It is practically twice as fast at altitude and military power.