Air Force To Retire B-1 Bomber

[GeorgiaGlocker]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/07/05/air-force-to-retire-classic-b-1-bombers-as-stealthy-new-b-21s-arrive.html

[Slotback]

Yet the B52 rumbles on.....

[tous]

No! 

The Bone is the best thing the danged Air France has.

A bomber that can fly and fight like a fighter.

A fighter than can carry the explody stuff of a bomber.

 

Are they going to the air National Guard?

Edited July 5, 2018 by tous

[Borg warner]

27 minutes ago, Slotback said:

Yet the B52 rumbles on.....

I'm not an expert but I think the B52H can carry a greater payload and is nuclear capable and I don't know if the B1 is but the B21 will be nuclear capable. The B1 was superseded and surpassed in capability by the B2 and the B21 is thought to be further improved. But is it?

As far as the B52, I like the fact that something that was around when I was a young man and even before then, is still in use today. The B52 is the 1911 of bombers.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Borg warner

[DWARREN123]

Upgrade until the B-21 comes full on stage.

[tous]

15 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

I'm not an expert but I think the B52H can carry a greater payload and is nuclear capable and I don't know if the B1 is but the B21 will be nuclear capable. The B1 was superseded and surpassed in capability by the B2 and the B21 is thought to be further improved. But is it?

As far as the B52, I like the fact that something that was around when I was a young man and even before then, is still in use today. The B52 is the 1911 of bombers.

Max payload for the B-52H = around 70,000 pounds.

Max payload for the B-1B = around 75,000 pounds.

One carries the explody stuff at 500 knots, the other at 750 knots 100 feet off the deck.

The B-1B is special weapons capable.

[tous]

Just now, tous said:

Max payload for the B-52H = around 70,000 pounds.

Max payload for the B-1B = around 75,000 pounds.

One carries the explody stuff at 500 knots, the other at 750 knots 100 feet off the deck.

Well, mebbe not MACH 1 on the deck, but still pretty zippy compared to a BUFF.

The B-1B is special weapons capable.

 

[tous]

I quoted myself. 

[crockett]

They should still keep them around and alive. I don't trust the Evans, let alone China.  

[Dric902]

It filled a very specific niche

they should keep it until that niche is filled with something else

[MrKandiyohi]

That looks like good news for South Dakota.  They should get the B-21 at Ellsworth.  If they lost the B-1s without a replacement, I don't think they'd keep the base operational.

[blueiron]

The B-1B has been decertified for nuclear weapons for years. 

"The United States eliminated the nuclear mission for the B-1 in 1994. Even though the Air Force expended no further funding to maintain nuclear capabilities, the B-1 was still considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armament until 2007. The conversion to conventional only began in November 2007 under the original START treaty and was completed in March 2011 under the New START treaty. To make that conversion possible, two steps were taken:"

• "During the first step a metal cylindrical sleeve was welded into the aft attachment point of each set of B-1 pylon attachments. This prevented installing B-1 Air Launched Cruise Missile pylons."
• "During the second step two nuclear armament-unique cable connectors in each of the B-1 weapons bays were removed. This prevented the pre-arm signal from reaching the weapons."

Citation: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

 

[Dric902]

32 minutes ago, blueiron said:

The B-1B has been decertified for nuclear weapons for years. 

"The United States eliminated the nuclear mission for the B-1 in 1994. Even though the Air Force expended no further funding to maintain nuclear capabilities, the B-1 was still considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armament until 2007. The conversion to conventional only began in November 2007 under the original START treaty and was completed in March 2011 under the New START treaty. To make that conversion possible, two steps were taken:"

• "During the first step a metal cylindrical sleeve was welded into the aft attachment point of each set of B-1 pylon attachments. This prevented installing B-1 Air Launched Cruise Missile pylons."
• "During the second step two nuclear armament-unique cable connectors in each of the B-1 weapons bays were removed. This prevented the pre-arm signal from reaching the weapons."

Citation: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

 

A Neutered Bone

[tous]

Thanks for the information, Iron of Blue.

I had forgotten about the various START Treaties.

You know, the ones where Russia gets to keep everything and we have to destroy whatever they're a-skeered of. 

I suggest that the Bone can be made special weapons capable if the politicians grow a spine.

Oh, silly me. 

[fortyofforty]

I remember the first time the B-1 was killed, by President Jimmy Carter.  Reagan got in and the project rolled on.  Glad to see it was used in the most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[F14Scott]

A tab welded in and a wire removed? Gosh, I guess we'd never figure out a way to undo that.

Lone live the Bone. Swing wings are cool!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SC Tiger]

16 hours ago, tous said:

No! 

The Bone is the best thing the danged Air France has.

A bomber that can fly and fight like a fighter.

A fighter than can carry the explody stuff of a bomber.

 

Are they going to the air National Guard?

That's what I don't get.  The B1 is - I assume - more advanced than the B52 and yet the B52 keeps soldering on.  Yet we never hear about the B1.

But I didn't realize Air France flew them.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by SC Tiger

[SC Tiger]

14 hours ago, blueiron said:

The B-1B has been decertified for nuclear weapons for years. 

"The United States eliminated the nuclear mission for the B-1 in 1994. Even though the Air Force expended no further funding to maintain nuclear capabilities, the B-1 was still considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armament until 2007. The conversion to conventional only began in November 2007 under the original START treaty and was completed in March 2011 under the New START treaty. To make that conversion possible, two steps were taken:"

• "During the first step a metal cylindrical sleeve was welded into the aft attachment point of each set of B-1 pylon attachments. This prevented installing B-1 Air Launched Cruise Missile pylons."
• "During the second step two nuclear armament-unique cable connectors in each of the B-1 weapons bays were removed. This prevented the pre-arm signal from reaching the weapons."

Citation: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

 

And I'm SURE those wires were thrown away.  

There's no WAY they are clearly labeled and stored at the Bone's AFB with instructions on where they go or anything.

NoooOOOOOooooooo.

[XSIV4S]

14 hours ago, blueiron said:

The B-1B has been decertified for nuclear weapons for years. 

"The United States eliminated the nuclear mission for the B-1 in 1994. Even though the Air Force expended no further funding to maintain nuclear capabilities, the B-1 was still considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armament until 2007. The conversion to conventional only began in November 2007 under the original START treaty and was completed in March 2011 under the New START treaty. To make that conversion possible, two steps were taken:"

• "During the first step a metal cylindrical sleeve was welded into the aft attachment point of each set of B-1 pylon attachments. This prevented installing B-1 Air Launched Cruise Missile pylons."
• "During the second step two nuclear armament-unique cable connectors in each of the B-1 weapons bays were removed. This prevented the pre-arm signal from reaching the weapons."

Citation: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/

 

I recently decertified my evil black rifle (it's in the safe with the bolt removed).

[RenoF250]

If we had to decert the B1 for nukes how can we make a new plane that can carry nukes?  Let's keep escalating crap for no reason.  This just gives Putin an excuse to do something else.

[blueiron]

2 hours ago, XSIV4S said:

I recently decertified my evil black rifle (it's in the safe with the bolt removed).

The analogy is not accurate unless you welded a rod into your upper receiver. 

[blueiron]

45 minutes ago, RenoF250 said:

If we had to decert the B1 for nukes how can we make a new plane that can carry nukes?  Let's keep escalating crap for no reason.  This just gives Putin an excuse to do something else.

Both Russia and the US are quantity limited for strategic bombers capable of nuclear weapon delivery. We can have up to the maximum number allowed under treaty, but the US has to choose what number of current platforms to delete from inventory. For whatever reason, the USAF generals decided on the B-1B. I suspect their reasoning if grossly flawed, but they are the authority in that decision. 

[XSIV4S]

7 minutes ago, blueiron said:

The analogy is not accurate unless you welded a rod into your upper receiver. 

Size matters. Your analog is not correct unless I solder a fraction of a sewing needle into the upper receiver (The plane is 99.99% there). The point is, they could probably getting those things field ready in a crunch in about the same amount of time it would take for me to reassemble my rifle.

[Moeman]

Meh, the future is stealth drones controlled by a Queen bee... B1 was never “that” special.

[tous]

RPVs seem to be a wonderful idea until one acknowledges their main weakness.

To control them, you must communicate with them.

If I'm the other guy, I'm spending a lot of time, energy and money developing ways to Jam the control signals.

Now, all of the gee whiz drones fall out of the sky.

 

Two major approaches to bomber doctrine:  fly high and the air defense can't see you or get to you until it can (B-52;)  fly really low and the air defense can't see you or get you until it can  (B-1.)

The B-1 was intended to replace the B-58 and B-52, both deemed obsolete in the mid-1980s, as a place holder until the gee whiz stealth aircraft were ready.

Well, it did replace the B-58.