North American Rockwell / Boeing B-1 Lancer

[Foo Fighter]

My recollection is that the aircraft in Dale Brown's books was based on the BUFF.

I shall shut up now failing memory perhaps with B1 and B52 involved.

 

[BlackBat242]

A technothriller classic from a former USAF navigator-bombardier, Flight of the Old Dog, published in 1987 introduced the EB-52 Megafortress – a Boeing B-52 upgraded and upgunned Stratofortress bomber with four engines, V-tail, advanced EW and even-air-to-air missiles for a lone vital bombing raid on a secret Soviet laser site. Fun fact – Flight of the Old Dog spawned a spin-off computer game ‘Megafortress’ in 1991.

 

[mkellytx]

However, that's not counting the external pylons on the Bones, which can add another 14 missiles for a total of 38.

76x20=1520
44x38=1672

I really need to make a Dale Brown B-1C or whatever the suffix was from Flight of the Old Dog: V-tail, and all the external pylons loaded with AMRAAMs and other tricks.

External pylons that are still rendered useless, "by a process equivalent to welding," to quote START (I was an escort for the Bone at DY), that aren't wired (I conducted the final mission to send LCTP out to the fleet) just one pylon for a pod took time, not to mention Seek Eagle, safe separation, P&FQ and then they aren't programmed into the budget cycle.

Even if by some miracle the money magically appeared, and the birds could be modified in a reasonable amount of time it still doesn't address the god-awful performance of putting that much weight and drag on a tired old airframe. I've launched Bones with 24 GBU-31's and over 200 klbs of gas, they barely got off the runway, no way it happens with external stores unless the fuel is massively cut. The jet already has performance issues at altitude without external stores, look up the turn charts in the T.O.B-1B-1 they aren't pretty when the gross weight climbs.

External stores other than the pod are dead and nothing more than fanboy fantasy, with the caveat that one or two test birds in the 419th (my old squadron) may get some type of mod while the B-52's get new engines and radars.

 

[Josh_TN]

The B-52 community would beg to differ after -1760 was put into the bay. There are 76 BUFF's compared to 44 Bones that carry 20 missiles to the Bone's 24. that's about 50% more DMPI's by fleet. The most launched by a Bone in combat was 19 in Syria a few years back BTW...

Well I meant in terms of capacity. The B-52 is already in existence now doing roughly the same job; retiring the B-1 fleet would produce a shortfall of two dozen combat coded airframes. Also the B-52 fleet is going to have reduced availabilities during the engine/radar upgrade.

 

[Josh_TN]

The problem is that the B-21 is basically a medium bomber with long range. One MPRL inside, 24k-30k bombload.

If you need an absurd payload, neither B-2 (60klbs), B-52 (70klbs), nor B-21 (30klbs) can deliver with a single plane. A fully stacked Bone can carry 125klbs, 75klbs internally and another 50klbs(!) externally.

I expect that the replacement for the B-1 and B-52 will end up being a beast of a plane, with a capacity closer to that of the B-1. Probably 4x MPRLs internally, and two of the bays long enough to handle AGM-86Bs or hypersonics internally.

Realistically what target could possibly require that much ordnance? Particularly when you factor in SDBs, it seems to me the B-21 hits a sweet spot in terms of payload. The B-1/2/52 fleets were built with nuclear payloads in mind. The B-52 started with a small number of truly huge weapons (B-41/53's or external loads like Hound Dog) and graduated to smaller weapons but more of them used for rollback of defenses (SRAM). B-1 pretty much followed in those footsteps. But if we are talking about pasting a target with cheap conventional weapons, it is hard to image a scenario where more the 40 mk82s or ~100 SDB I/II wouldn't get the job done.

There won't be a B-1 replacement and I suspect when the B-52 is replaced it will be with something smaller and more numerous that can be more easily dispersed, not larger and more expensive.

 

[FighterJock]

Never say never JoshTN about a possible B-1 replacement, that is what I would like to see or perhaps a B-1 replacement with Hypersonic speeds now that would be something.

 

[mkellytx]

Well I meant in terms of capacity. The B-52 is already in existence now doing roughly the same job; retiring the B-1 fleet would produce a shortfall of two dozen combat coded airframes. Also the B-52 fleet is going to have reduced availabilities during the engine/radar upgrade.

It's 3 Bone combat coded squadrons, the 9th BS (7 BW), the 34th BS & 37th BS (28th BW). The 28th BS (7th BW) is the FTU. Point taken about the near term with all the upgrades.

 

[sferrin]

External pylons that are still rendered useless, "by a process equivalent to welding," to quote START (I was an escort for the Bone at DY), that aren't wired (I conducted the final mission to send LCTP out to the fleet) just one pylon for a pod took time, not to mention Seek Eagle, safe separation, P&FQ and then they aren't programmed into the budget cycle.

Even if by some miracle the money magically appeared, and the birds could be modified in a reasonable amount of time it still doesn't address the god-awful performance of putting that much weight and drag on a tired old airframe. I've launched Bones with 24 GBU-31's and over 200 klbs of gas, they barely got off the runway, no way it happens with external stores unless the fuel is massively cut. The jet already has performance issues at altitude without external stores, look up the turn charts in the T.O.B-1B-1 they aren't pretty when the gross weight climbs.

I know it's fantasy at this point but how would swapping the F101s out for F135s change that?

 

[mkellytx]

I know it's fantasy at this point but how would swapping the F101s out for F135s change that?

Alright @sferrin, while the fact sheet lists the max gross as 477,000 lbs. the heaviest we launched them at DY was 450-460,000 lbs., which was with max internal fuel, 205,000 lbs., 16-24 GBU-31's and/or a forward bay tank at 20,000 lbs. We may have launched one with two forward bay tanks and 8 GBU-31's. The takeoff roll took most of the runway and the climb angle was quite shallow, shallow enough for us to wonder if they'd clear the mesa ridges in Buffalo Gap since they took off to the south. It's also worth mentioning that once the fuel load gets above 180,000 lbs. CoG becomes a concern, so something needs to be in the forward bomb bays.

Anyhow, the fantasy presupposes that the airframe could handle 40,000+ lbs. of thrust without several thousand pounds of structural reinforcement, otherwise they are flat rated engines that only improve performance for higher density altitudes, but I digress... Assuming they could handle the thrust and that the gross weight stays the same, the empty weight would still be more than the listed 192,000 lbs., worst case scenario let's say 200,000 lbs. Full internal fuel would give a useful load of 72,000 lbs., after 24 GBU-31's that leaves maybe 18-20,000 lbs. for the external pylons and weapons, AGM-158's weigh a lot more than GBU-31's so any way you cut it 14 external AGM-158's will trade significant internal fuel, that doesn't even consider CoG.

All of that to say, even with 30-40% more thrust, assuming it's even available, all of that extra drag would make for a long takeoff roll, slow climb and low cruise altitude. Range would suffer pretty bad as well since the 135's have a far lower BPR and would burn a lot more gas.

That's my gut feel without digging out the performance annex and backing out any aero coefficients to come up with some rough numbers. Can't even remember if the -1-1 has tables for externals.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My recollection is that the aircraft in Dale Brown's books was based on the BUFF.

I shall shut up now failing memory perhaps with B1 and B52 involved.

Yes, the Hero Plane was a Buff. But the planes originally intended for that mission were a pair of Bones. The Old Dog was merely the tech demonstrator for them. In one of the more recent books, a plane very similar to the B-1R (man, is that going to make an unfortunate name, "Boner") but with the V-tail of the Old Dog and cousins shows up.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Realistically what target could possibly require that much ordnance? Particularly when you factor in SDBs, it seems to me the B-21 hits a sweet spot in terms of payload. The B-1/2/52 fleets were built with nuclear payloads in mind. The B-52 started with a small number of truly huge weapons (B-41/53's or external loads like Hound Dog) and graduated to smaller weapons but more of them used for rollback of defenses (SRAM). B-1 pretty much followed in those footsteps. But if we are talking about pasting a target with cheap conventional weapons, it is hard to image a scenario where more the 40 mk82s or ~100 SDB I/II wouldn't get the job done.

There won't be a B-1 replacement and I suspect when the B-52 is replaced it will be with something smaller and more numerous that can be more easily dispersed, not larger and more expensive.

Remember that the B-21 still has a nuclear role. I know nobody wants to think about it, but they're intended for penetrating the Russian (or Chinese) air defenses and dropping nukes. So as a bare minimum, we need 2x the number of B-2s produced, increased by the flightworthiness % of both B-2s and B-21s, just to cover the existing SIOP demands. Replacing B-1s with B-21s, we need 3x the number of Bones, though that's for conventional bombing only. Replacing B-52s with B-21s, we need roughly 2.5x the number of Buffs, and even then I don't think the B-21's bay can hold ALCMs.

External pylons that are still rendered useless, "by a process equivalent to welding," to quote START (I was an escort for the Bone at DY), that aren't wired (I conducted the final mission to send LCTP out to the fleet) just one pylon for a pod took time, not to mention Seek Eagle, safe separation, P&FQ and then they aren't programmed into the budget cycle.

Even if by some miracle the money magically appeared, and the birds could be modified in a reasonable amount of time it still doesn't address the god-awful performance of putting that much weight and drag on a tired old airframe. I've launched Bones with 24 GBU-31's and over 200 klbs of gas, they barely got off the runway, no way it happens with external stores unless the fuel is massively cut. The jet already has performance issues at altitude without external stores, look up the turn charts in the T.O.B-1B-1 they aren't pretty when the gross weight climbs.

External stores other than the pod are dead and nothing more than fanboy fantasy, with the caveat that one or two test birds in the 419th (my old squadron) may get some type of mod while the B-52's get new engines and radars.

So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).

Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.

And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.

Because the USAF is going to need every single LRASM shooter it can get if a fight with the PRC kicks off.

 

[Josh_TN]

Remember that the B-21 still has a nuclear role. I know nobody wants to think about it, but they're intended for penetrating the Russian (or Chinese) air defenses and dropping nukes. So as a bare minimum, we need 2x the number of B-2s produced, increased by the flightworthiness % of both B-2s and B-21s, just to cover the existing SIOP demands. Replacing B-1s with B-21s, we need 3x the number of Bones, though that's for conventional bombing only. Replacing B-52s with B-21s, we need roughly 2.5x the number of Buffs, and even then I don't think the B-21's bay can hold ALCMs.

There are only about a dozen combat coded B-2s with around a 50% availability rate, and my understanding is that mission capable availability metrics don't even include external coating maintenance. Basically the B-2 fleet is a special operations force of which only a handful of airframes are every fully capable. I doubt it has a very significant contribution to the SIOP. It seems likely a fairly small force of B-21s could replace them, even given the smaller payload - I consider it very likely the B-21 has secondary bomb bays for self defense weapons and mission flexibility, perhaps something like the F-35 bays but sized slightly larger. It would make sense that you would want some AAM/ARM capability that didn't require opening the main bay or compromising the primary payload.

As for ALCMs, we actually do know for a fact that LRSO will be carried by both B-52s and B-21s. That is a program requirement. So it seems likely that the B-21 can carry a 20' / 3000lb class munition internally, likely on the same common strategic rotary launcher as the B-2/52.

So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).

I think what mkellytx was alluding to is that the external pylons cause so much drag on top of the additional weight that it would be impractical to reactivate the external pylons in an operational way. There would be huge range reductions even assuming the aircraft was capable of taking off in a reduced fuel configuration and being topped off by a tanker at altitude. Personally I don't see much advantage in external carriage; the internal warload is already huge. These aircraft do not have a lot of hours left on them so the utility of such a modification seems marginal outside of testing purposes.

Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.

New START is the only treaty in force currently and it has no restrictions as to which planes can carry nuclear weapons, only a hard limit on the total number of nuclear launchers and warheads. So modifying the B-1 for different conventional configurations is not limited in any way, as far as I know.

And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.

Because the USAF is going to need every single LRASM shooter it can get if a fight with the PRC kicks off.

Right now four B-1s could fire off the entire LRASM inventory of the USAF anyway. Adding LRASM capacity doesn't seem particularly worth while given that scheduled USAF buys of LRASM for the next four years wouldn't fill the internal bays of the entire combat coded fleet once. At some point after that, HACM likely becomes the primary AShM, though I have no idea if the B-1 is to be integrated with such. The threshold aircraft is the F-15 and I suspect the B-52 fleet will receive the capability during or after their modernization.

 

[mkellytx]

So make more external pylons? Replace the belly skin or whatever they did to make the Bones unable to use the externals, replace the wiring with the current smart bomb data bus. While they're in depot doing all that, stuff a quartet of F119s in there instead of F101s, have an extra 5000lbs thrust per engine (F-135s are probably too much oomph).

If only DFAR's was that easy. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to re-skin an aircraft? With the limited life left for the fleet it's a pretty good assumption that a fair number visited OK city for the last time. FWIW I've been there 3 times (first as an AMOC student, next as a B-1 maintenance officer, finally as an aircrew to drop off Balls 36), I've walked all four PDM lines there (B-1, B-52, E-3, & KC-135). The 119 reengine saga was a sick joke (which I've recounted before), not to mention those are out of production engines, different size than the 101, different mass flow, different attachments...

Because the Bones are certified as conventional-only, START no longer applies to them.

Ah, new START doesn't apply because old START rendered them conventional-only. I got to follow the Russians around DY and get nice gifts, duly inspected by OSI which now reside on my I love me shelf in the home office with all of my other plaques, statues, models, steins and trophies.

And yes, launch light on fuel then tank if you're playing with all the externals.

There are pictures of clean Bones in AB on two of the engines to stay on the boom and get gas, how will something that heavy/draggy stay on the boom above 10,000 ft?

 

[mkellytx]

I think what mkellytx was alluding to is that the external pylons cause so much drag on top of the additional weight that it would be impractical to reactivate the external pylons in an operational way. There would be huge range reductions even assuming the aircraft was capable of taking off in a reduced fuel configuration and being topped off by a tanker at altitude. Personally I don't see much advantage in external carriage; the internal warload is already huge. These aircraft do not have a lot of hours left on them so the utility of such a modification seems marginal outside of testing purposes.

Thanks @Josh_TN, could have saved 20 mins if I'd seen this earlier, that pretty well summarizes my earlier posts.

Right now four B-1s could fire off the entire LRASM inventory of the USAF anyway. Adding LRASM capacity doesn't seem particularly worth while given that scheduled USAF buys of LRASM for the next four years wouldn't fill the internal bays of the entire combat coded fleet once. At some point after that, HACM likely becomes the primary AShM, though I have no idea if the B-1 is to be integrated with such. The threshold aircraft is the F-15 and I suspect the B-52 fleet will receive the capability during or after their modernization.

Nailed it there! Another often overlooked point is that the range of LRASM is much more than the shooter's ability to target them without off board help. If the shooter doesn't need all those expensive fancy avionics why have an expensive bomber as the shooter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If only DFAR's was that easy. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to re-skin an aircraft?

Yes. It sucks. (And I wasn't dealing with stealth surface flatness requirements)

It can be done if you're throwing lots of money at the problem. (Dipshit ran a ground tug into the lower fuselage somehow, caused dent that required stringer replacement, frame repair, and more profanity than I ever heard in the Navy.)

 

[aonestudio]

USAF Plan: Keep B-1 Credible Through New Pylons, Stress Testing, and More

The Air Force plan to keep the B-1 Lancer credible includes predictive models, digital twins, and new pylons and weapons, officials said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[mkellytx]

USAF Evaluating New Way For B-1s To Carry Hypersonic Weapons | Aviation Week Network

The service is evaluating the Boeing-developed Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon.

aviationweek.com

More JP-8 for the fire

 

[mkellytx]

USAF Evaluating New Way For B-1s To Carry Hypersonic Weapons | Aviation Week Network

The service is evaluating the Boeing-developed Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon.

aviationweek.com

More JP-8 for the fire

 

[Josh_TN]

USAF Evaluating New Way For B-1s To Carry Hypersonic Weapons | Aviation Week Network

The service is evaluating the Boeing-developed Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon.

aviationweek.com

More JP-8 for the fire

How hard would it be to move the bulkhead and carry an oversized piece of hypersonic ordnance internally instead? More of a pain than rewiring the external hard points?

 

[Forest Green]

Wasn't the bulkhead supposed to be removeable anyway?

 

[Josh_TN]

Wasn't the bulkhead supposed to be removeable anyway?

Yes, and it looked like they did that with one B-1 and put a mock up AGM-183 in there. But I have no idea how practical it is to actually carry ARRW or HACM internally for testing in terms of wiring, separation, etc., nor whether there's any physical limitations or drawbacks to moving the bulkhead between the front two bays. It may still be easier to just mount things externally, especially if you are only using one hard point for testing. Less moving parts.

EDIT: about half way down this article there is a pic of a B-1 with an AGM-183-ish mock up internally; I assume this involved the bulkhead being moved or removed:

B-1 Bone Bombers Taking Over Hypersonic Testing From B-52s

With the B-52 getting deep upgrades that will take years to accomplish, the B-1 fleet is stepping into the role with the help of a new pylon.

www.thedrive.com

 

[mkellytx]

How hard would it be to move the bulkhead and carry an oversized piece of hypersonic ordnance internally instead? More of a pain than rewiring the external hard points?

Pain is a relative term. As laid out in your post way less. Now, when it comes to treaties, compliance, foreign governments and such the relative comment comes into play . That of course presupposes the thing with fit inside the bay on a rotary.

 

[mkellytx]

Wasn't the bulkhead supposed to be removeable anyway?

Movable, not removable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Of beforementioned _pylons_

Fascinating, I was expecting single position pylons, not "Pylon serno 123 can go in any location"

 

[bobbymike]

Modernized ‘BEAST’ B-1 Bomber Makes First Flight

A B-1B Lancer received tech upgrades through a new program designed to modernize the aging bomber fleet much faster than usual.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[flateric]

...

 

[aonestudio]

https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

Air Force crew ejects safely as B-1 bomber crashes during landing in South Dakota

Four crew members from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota ejected safely from their aircraft Thursday night.

abcnews.go.com

Ellsworth Air Force Base shares update on B-1B crash

Ellsworth Air Force Base has shared an update about Thursday’s B-1B Lancer that crashed while attempting to land on the installation.

www.dakotanewsnow.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

View: https://www.facebook.com/EllsworthAirForceBase/posts/pfbid05G6ejYtaKX4w7xGd9tjLa9r8i8NoKwfQwQNEqYHRBVbfHpGuPnx9kGcpcFfgMJSXl

Air Force crew ejects safely as B-1 bomber crashes during landing in South Dakota

Four crew members from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota ejected safely from their aircraft Thursday night.

abcnews.go.com

Ellsworth Air Force Base shares update on B-1B crash

Ellsworth Air Force Base has shared an update about Thursday’s B-1B Lancer that crashed while attempting to land on the installation.

www.dakotanewsnow.com

Glad everyone got out okay!

Will have to see what the cause of the crash was...

 

[FighterJock]

Good news that the crew managed to eject safely before the B-1 crashed.

 

[flateric]

RARE Vtg Boeing B-1 Bomber Aircraft & AGM-86 Missile Compatibility Study Manual | #1810348490

Here is a RARE vintage Boeing B-1 Bomber Aircraft & AGM-86 Missile Compatibility Study Manual. Roughly 200 pages with diagrams, photos and illustrations.Payment within 4 days please.

www.worthpoint.com

 

[GTX]

Crashed B-1B Bomber Carcass Visible At South Dakota Base

A heavily damaged B-1B that crashed at Ellsworth Air Force Base last night is seen sitting on a patch of grass next to the runway.

www.thedrive.com

 

[FighterJock]

I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.

Probably waiting for the crash investigators to arrive (because they can't fly into that base with the airspace closed!)

 

[Josh_TN]

Probably waiting for the crash investigators to arrive (because they can't fly into that base with the airspace closed!)

They would want to do a detailed assessment of the aircraft and its salvageability before they touched it. In the case of the last B-2 accident, that meant closing the main runway for weeks IIRC. In this case, the aircraft is off the runway and seems much more likely to be an open and close write off, but they won't want to bring in bulldozers until they confirm that and strip anything salvageable off the wreck.

 

[TomcatViP]

Live ammunition on board? Waiting for everything that might blow up to cool down?

 

[aim9xray]

In the case of the B-2, toxic damaged composites. Also massive effort to figure our how to move the $2 billion National Asset. You don't want to be the crane operator who dropped your end and broke the B-2 in half.

 

[FighterJock]

That reminds me of the crash of the B-2 and subsequent fire at Whiteman several years ago now aim9xray.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Live ammunition on board? Waiting for everything that might blow up to cool down?

On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.

 

[mkellytx]

On the B-1? At most likely some smurfbombs (the mini sized practice bombs), which would have cooked off in the fire.

Friend back in A&P school was a USAF loader, he hated the smurfbombs. Said they'd go off on the slightest provocation.

Yeah, the BDU-33's account for the most injuries of any USAF munitions from drops. Most of what gets dropped for training are concrete shapes, so no cook off risk. We did table top the incident in Qatar where the bombs did cook off when I was in the 419th, scarry AF.

 

[mkellytx]

I am surprised that they did not move the crashed B-1 off the grass and into storage to be eventually scrapped.

The gear are either sheared off or up and the spine looks burned through, no way that bird can be safely lifted. I used to run Maintenance Flight at Dyess ages ago and the AR troops worked for me (they're the ones who get the bags out to lift jets, yes, I got to see it done for practice, the time they actually had to lift a jet whose nose gear collapsed they used the Navy's crane).