No B-1: Alternative SAC's

[Archibald]

That depends how you feel about them getting back to friendly territory afterwards.

BTW, the B-47s left Europe in the early 1960s, and the (TAC-owned) F-111s didn't arrive until the early 1970s. The FB-111 force was always based in the United States.

McNamara did a vast cleanup of SAC colossal inventory around 1965-66.
- Atlas-F and Titan-I kerolox ICBMs (retired to Norton AFB and Mira Loma AFS, California)
- a thousand B-47s retired to AMARC
- all B-52s minus the -G and -H, had to go: mid-term (by 1970, but Vietnam decided otherwise)
- all B-58s, mid-term (1970)
He also capped the number of Minuteman to 1000 (SAC wanted MUCH more than that)

 

[Scott Kenny]

The terrible range considering it used 1950s engine technology and flew high speeds, the range was not terrible. Internal fuel was 6,000 gallons, with about 4,000 more in the pod below. Any change in the engine location literally changed everything. So a new whole aircra ft in many ways. But it needed change. It may have been easier to just convert B-1A into a delta or flying wing (i.e. Avro Vulcan). Could have saddled it to FB-111A engine choices to simplify logistics. And I think at that point, add a belly and eliminate the pod design. I think you needed to give it a bay, half more or double the bay compared to FB-111A. For low level high speed missions a quad-engine design in this vein would have been a hand-in-glove fit.

Oh, ewwwww, no. TF30s are crap, and grossly underpowered for something the size of a B-58 (175klbs), FB-111 (100klbs), or even an F-14 (70klbs).

The wicked B-58 was the version proposed with J58s...

 

[MadRat]

TF-30's were not crap in the day. They did quite fine for the F-111 family. Sure the F110 would have been a spectacular expansion of capability if applied to FB-111A, but honestly it was not exactly available in this timeframe. The B-1A's GE F-101-100's would have been nice to design around but then there wouldn't be a way for FB-111 to share engines.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TF-30's were not crap in the day. They did quite fine for the F-111 family. Sure the F110 would have been a spectacular expansion of capability if applied to FB-111A, but honestly it was not exactly available in this timeframe. The B-1A's GE F-101-100's would have been nice to design around but then there wouldn't be a way for FB-111 to share engines.

No, they were always crap. 1950s design, highly susceptible to compressor stalls with any rapid change in pitch.

Guess what happens when you're doing terrain following?

 

[Jemiba]

Toning down the wording would sometimes be a good idea, I think. There's no need to
transfer talks from the crackerbarrel literally in the written communication here. .. though
it's often tempting.

 

[MadRat]

Another crackpot idea I had was to convert better shape B-47s to twin TF33/JT3D rather than buy B-66.

 

[isayyo2]

Another crackpot idea I had was to convert better shape B-47s to twin TF33/JT3D rather than buy B-66.

Especially in a “Tropic Moon III” scheme with all of the new sensors the B-57G received jutting from the nose and chin. Utilize the outboard engine pylons for something bulky like GBU-8s or AGM-78s.

Was there enough airframe life for the B-47s serve through the 70s if properly modernized?

 

[Apophenia]

... Was there enough airframe life for the B-47s serve through the 70s if properly modernized?

Fatigue problems - upper longerons, wing roots, etc. - along with nasty stall characteristics ganged up to push all but special mission aircraft out of service by 1965.

 

[MadRat]

Fatigue problems - upper longerons, wing roots, etc. - along with nasty stall characteristics ganged up to push all but special mission aircraft out of service by 1965.

Wingroot problems probably had more to do with the 7200 pounds of engines under each wing and the way they were flown like fighters. One TF-33 per wing would have greatly reduced the load, given it a common engine with the B-52, increased the range about 50% or more, and simplified the pilot workload.

Rebuilding wings is much cheaper than new builds of whole new aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

I would still go with the all B52 force from 1968 to whenever B2 or similar can join SAC.
Tactical Air Command has F111s coming on stream. Hindsight would suggest sorting out the A-E evolution of the type.
FB111 in any guise is a waste of money for the small force built as SRAM route clearers. TAC F111s could get SRAM instead.
As in the real world once you start with FB111H modd you might as well develop an AMSA and do the job properly.
Speaking of TAC F111s would a derivative of TSR2 (B57 style) or Mirage IV offer any better capabilities.
Re-engined B52s with improved armament, systems etc are the way to go.

 

[MadRat]

One of the most difficult aspects of this exercise is timeframe. I was initially thinking this scenario is around 1963. Others seem to make notions its in the 70s to early 80s. I do not know.

FB-111A is maybe a 1100 mile radius, but most survivable using about 150-200 mile supersonic low altitude dash to target.
B-47 upgrade is probably 2500 mile radius with double the load, and more suited in low threat environments.
B-58 upgrade is probably 3500 mile radius with similar load as B-47. In a lo-lo configuration it may be shorter than the B-47 but much more survivable.
B-52 is by far the most load over the longest range and required considerable force to trailblazer a path for it.

 

[Archibald]

How about B-47s in Vietnam ? (sorry, couldn't resist).

1-In a role similar to the B-29s in Korea: plentiful and cheap and partially obsolete "cannon fodder" (to the B-50s & B-36s for Korea / to the B-52s for Vietnam).

2-Somewhere on Google books is a book about Davis Monthan AMARC. By July 1, 1966 they had 1003 B-47s in storage.

3-B-47Es were really plentiful, even with all the attrition: 1341 build !

Boeing B-47E Stratojet

4-ASD has 252 losses for B-47s.

Aviation Safety Network > > ASN Aviation Safety Database results

Aviation Safety Network: Aviation Safety Network: Databases containing descriptions of over 11000 airliner write-offs, hijackings and military aircraft accidents.

aviation-safety.net

 

[Apophenia]

Wingroot problems probably had more to do with the 7200 pounds of engines under each wing and the way they were flown like fighters. One TF-33 per wing would have greatly reduced the load, given it a common engine with the B-52, increased the range about 50% or more, and simplified the pilot workload.

Rebuilding wings is much cheaper than new builds of whole new aircraft.

Yes. And loft-bombing techniques didn't help either. As you say, rebuilding wings is cheaper than new-builds ... unless you also need to replace fuselage longerons at the same time ...

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would still go with the all B52 force from 1968 to whenever B2 or similar can join SAC.
Tactical Air Command has F111s coming on stream. Hindsight would suggest sorting out the A-E evolution of the type.
FB111 in any guise is a waste of money for the small force built as SRAM route clearers. TAC F111s could get SRAM instead.
As in the real world once you start with FB111H modd you might as well develop an AMSA and do the job properly.
Speaking of TAC F111s would a derivative of TSR2 (B57 style) or Mirage IV offer any better capabilities.
Re-engined B52s with improved armament, systems etc are the way to go.

That's where you get into trouble with the other chunks of nuclear weapons. Personnel cleared to handle them, planes equipped to shoot them, bases with armories to hold them... etc ad nauseam.

Notice how FB-111s belonged to Strategic Air Command, while the regular F-111s belonged to Tactical Air Command. Different chains of command, different funding priorities.

Even assuming that the regular F-111s were cleared and equipped for nuclear bombs, SRAMs are a different thing entirely. Different planning, different launch parameters, different mission training...

 

[uk 75]

Scott Thanks. I tend to see things through the prism of RAF Bomber/Strike Command.
FB111s were not included in SACEUR's Rapid Reinforcement Plan and I never saw any at Upper Heyford on visits.
I assume like the B52s that visited regularly during the Cold War they went to Mildenhall .

 

[Scott Kenny]

Scott Thanks. I tend to see things through the prism of RAF Bomber/Strike Command.
FB111s were not included in SACEUR's Rapid Reinforcement Plan and I never saw any at Upper Heyford on visits.
I assume like the B52s that visited regularly during the Cold War they went to Mildenhall .

I'm not sure how the FB-111s were expected to operate, if they were expected to "fly escort" alongside the B-52s and tank as necessary or if they were going to be staged closer to the USSR.

For sudden war, I am suspecting flying alongside the B-52s and tankers.

 

[RetiredAFGuy]

That depends how you feel about them getting back to friendly territory afterwards.

BTW, the B-47s left Europe in the early 1960s, and the (TAC-owned) F-111s didn't arrive until the early 1970s. The FB-111 force was always based in the United States.

FB-111 crews training for one-way missions that ended in an ejection over a body of water somewhere in the Soviet Union was the norm in the 1970s. And European-based F-111 crews as well as some F-4 crews trained for the same type of missions.

If WWIII had started the first US plane to bomb Moscow was going to be an F-4 flying out of Germany, flying low and fast in an environment where Soviet air defenses had been destroyed by incoming Minuteman warheads.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF Vulcans after 1970 and until their retirement in 1982 had a similar profile with UK bombs.

 

[MadRat]

No need to shoot them down after a strike. They were not planning a home leg on their journey.

Yet both chains of commands on each side of the Cold War envisioned 5-7 year nuclear exchanges.

 

[Archibald]

FB-111 crews training for one-way missions that ended in an ejection over a body of water somewhere in the Soviet Union was the norm in the 1970s. And European-based F-111 crews as well as some F-4 crews trained for the same type of missions.

If WWIII had started the first US plane to bomb Moscow was going to be an F-4 flying out of Germany, flying low and fast in an environment where Soviet air defenses had been destroyed by incoming Minuteman warheads.

Dang. So the pilot would zig and zag between nuclear blasts and mushroom clouds ?

 

[isayyo2]

Interesting tidbits on the 70s B-52D life extension

Returning to this thread…

Was there anything “special” about the B-52H airframe that has led to such longevity in service, or could the previous models also serve just as long with proper care?
I know Vietnam burned through airframe hours on the C-F models while the H’s sat pretty on alert status. But have the past 25 years of “War on Terror” not also fatigued the H models?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Returning to this thread…

Was there anything “special” about the B-52H airframe that has led to such longevity in service, or could the previous models also serve just as long with proper care?
I know Vietnam burned through airframe hours on the C-F models while the H’s sat pretty on alert status. But have the past 25 years of “War on Terror” not also fatigued the H models?

At least the H models were built for 80,000 hours of airframe life originally. That's not a typo, I do mean eighty thousand hours. I suspect that a lot of that was supposed to be airborne alert, so likely 4000hrs/year of flying and a 20 year expected service life. Then in the 1960s and 70s came the low level flying push, which greatly ate up fatigue life. The development of ALCMs gave the B-52s a long-range standoff role, so they didn't have to burn fatigue life at low altitude and could more or less cruise around like an airliner most of the time.

Today, the -H models have ~37k hours total life before the upper wing skins need to be replaced, and that is not cost-effective to do. The average airframe life when the USAF checked a couple years ago was around 21k hours, leaving roughly 16k hours left on the airframes. And the planes have been getting ~350hrs/year on average.

Remember that the -G models got broken up under the terms of a nuclear arms treaty, or the US probably would have retired the B1s already!

 

[uk 75]

President Carter did kill the B1 in favour of developing the B2 with B52s getting ALCM to keep them relevant until B2 arrives.
Reagan brought the B1 back as the B1B. If this had not been done could SAC have got B2 earlier and in greater numbers?

 

[Scott Kenny]

President Carter did kill the B1 in favour of developing the B2 with B52s getting ALCM to keep them relevant until B2 arrives.
Reagan brought the B1 back as the B1B. If this had not been done could SAC have got B2 earlier and in greater numbers?

I don't believe so. The B1B was brought in as an interim bomber to make up numbers till the B2s arrived.

Remember that the B2s first flew in 1989, and they weren't introduced until 1997. Reagan understood that the B-2s were more or less 20 years away when he brought back the B-1s. While B-1Bs were introduced in 1986.

Also, the B-2 had a lot of developmental issues that had to be worked out.

 

[kmrumble]

President Carter did kill the B1 in favour of developing the B2 with B52s getting ALCM to keep them relevant until B2 arrives.
Reagan brought the B1 back as the B1B. If this had not been done could SAC have got B2 earlier and in greater numbers?

It might not be likely, but it's certainly conceivable that SAC would have gotten a greater number of B-2's earlier. The original Carter administration program plan was to award a full scale development contract in April 1981 calling for an IOC date of December 1987 and a total planned buy of 165 aircraft. Under these circumstances, it's also possible that Secretary Mark would have chosen a different contractor than Secretary Orr, which would have been a whole different ball game.