Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dsawan

B-1 retirement?

Recommended Posts


I would think the USAF would not retire the Bone for at least 15 more years. The recently canceled B-X program was going to replace it, but Obama had other thoughts. Who knows what could be in the dark waiting to replace it. There has to be a reason the Bone would even be considered for retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably a paraglider. Seems that anything is thrown away these days to meet cuts. But when you are fighting a war. These two don't mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USAF has been saying this off and on I believe for at least 10 years. In 2001/2002 Rumsfeld stated that this was a possibility, and in the end 33 were retired which allowed the remaining 60 and later 67 aircraft to emerge as one of the most capable, reliable, and effective weapons ever. It was 17 years after enetering service that the bone really came into its own, and this was after reducing the fleet by 1/3! As far as this news goes I have no idea what it means, but the B-1B is the most valuable bomber in service today and I hope no one in the USAF or congress is considering retiring this great aircraft. In the past 8 years the B-1B has been the main CAS weapon in Afghanistan saving hundreds if not thousands of lives, and no other platform in existance can perform it's role in Southwest Asia like it has. In recent years all I have heard is how successful the B-1B has been in Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact I think I even read in Osprey's B-1 units in combat that the RAF has been so impressed with the performance of the B-1B that it plans to reaquire heavy long range bombers in the near future! So I hope this story is not true, in fact it makes no sense to me!

Edited by warthog64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the article says, this is a ploy. We have 20 B-2s and a REALLY old fleet of B-52s that can't do it all. The B-1 is the CAS workhorse of Afghanistan, loitering for hours with the ability to drop a few bombs here and there.

In short, unlike the B-2 and B-52, it's getting a LOT of use right now. This is purely because the replacement was cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-1 has one thing over the B-2 and B-52.

 

Speed.

 

All 3 aircraft can carry a large bombload and can stay on station a long time. The BUFF has the advantage of carrying outsized weapons, including things like Have Nap, Harpoon, CALCM, etc. The B-2 has the advantage of stealth. However, neither is particularly useful or necessary in the 'stan at the moment.

 

Speed however, is. Being able to stay on station a long time, and engage multiple targets in different locations in a short amount of time is a mission almost tailor made for the Bone's strengths. However, political considerations have made the idea of dropping a large 1000 or 2000 lb JDAM very dicey in the realm of sub-conventional warfare. What you see are less and less of that happening, which is why this has been brought up. Considering a F-15E, F-16, F-18 can carry at least 8 SDBs per aircraft, weapons that can kill individual buildings without blowing up city blocks, it doesn't surprise me that this gets floated out there.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not going to retire this bird any time soon. It's just something they threw up in the air to think about... probably to see who it would stir. I'm willing to bet this aircraft will remain in service for the next 15 - 20 years... or untill something much more faster, stealthier, and can carry the same amount of payload is brought into service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AF is saying "fine, if you won't give me this amount of money, I'll just go and retire this, this and this". They know full well how important the B-1 is to the guys on the ground. The JTACs love it.

 

Another part of the cuts would see all of the remaining F-15C/Ds retired (AD and ANG), plus all F-16s prior to Block 50.

 

And for what? To pay for 187 jet we can't/won't send into a fight and another that we can't afford, but the Government wont realize that fact.

 

Oh to be a Congressman or Senator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a bit more solid and wide reaching than all of that.

 

The services are having 100B cut from their FYDP and the AF and Navy both have about 30B of that each.

 

This will translate into end-strength cuts, force structure and programs. Programs will be vertical cuts - meaning complete programs so that support tail can be cut (as opposed to horizontal cuts where part of several programs are cut leaving the support for each of them - but underfunded leading to the hollow force we've seen before.)

 

the services are offering their programs up for cuts - but these are not bluffs. The magnitude of these force structure cuts will result in programs being cut.

 

The AF is not offering up the B-1, F-16s, multi-function data-link programs, etc., as a bluff. Theses are on the table.

 

The Navy will likely loose carriers, carrier airwings and probably amphibious force ships from the FYDP.

 

The Bone is most likely headed for its place in history. Its upgraded combat capabilities and relevance to the war effort is not relevant to the discussions. Only the $$$ count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but that makes perfect sense (re: vertical cuts).

 

Logistical tails are huge nowadays, especially for high technology items.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I found out Rosetta Stone offers free online access to all their courses for military members...just go to the library to sign up!

 

(Not joking, that's really true...)

 

Now you just have to decide if you want to learn Mandarin or Cantonese...

 

Of course, my wife is ethnic Chinese, so I've got a head start already.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to see it go,but probably will happen with budget cuts.

The politicians have already shown that they don't care what's good for the troops.

Hey,If the Chinese take us over,then we can move our manufacturing facilities back here.(Lots more jobs) :yes:

Walmart can start advertising "Made in America" again. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that also kills the B-1R that was supposed to take the strain off from the loss of a full F-22 fleet..... nice..... we are so screwed. They will probably destroy them too like the F-14's just to make sure we can't pull them out of mothballs in a crisis.

Edited by Icarus999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times has the rumormill spun on retiring military war machines, lets not forget the "Bone" was already cancelled, but brought back from the dead, w/evil laughter; "MuahHAHAHAHA!" Possible reduction in front line aircraft to keep airframe time low on a reserve semi-moth balled contingent. I would beleive that over full retirement it still has a place in our inventory. But I'm just a lowly civie now w/no political leveradge. Good luck Motha Bone, may the political hatchet stay in the shed in back of the Capitol Building where it belongs. Geese that sounds like a toast, I better go get a beer.

 

Icarus999 I don't think they will destroy them like the Tom Turkeys. The 14 reached it's peak back in the late 80's early 90's. I belive the main reason for destroying them was the Iran factor, Iran Iran so far away well anyways. The 14 was a bear to work on 10-14 hours of maint. for 1 hour of wheels up time when the Legacy Hornets are 6-8, and the supers are 4-6. This is bearing in mind the pilots don't over stress the planes to much. The Maint. crews get pissed if you bring their plane back all bent to s**t.

Edited by MAKO69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics plays a huge role in the destruction of airframes. Politicians (and generals/admirals) get really pissy when their pet project comes up short when an older airframe starts doing better and casts doubt on the relevance of their project (eg SR-71 vs satellites, F-14 vs 'Super' Hornet). If you grind up the old stuff, then 'Oh gee, guess we'll just HAVE to use the new thing!'....argh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why they don´t take on the B-52s instead? Maintenance and airframe depletion must not be easy to take care of on them. Any politics on it? Retiring the B-1 instead seems mad from my lean knowledge of the issue, if anybody can illustrate me on that, thank you. Unless they also want to retire the B-52.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why they don´t take on the B-52s instead? Maintenance and airframe depletion must not be easy to take care of on them. Any politics on it? Retiring the B-1 instead seems mad from my lean knowledge of the issue, if anybody can illustrate me on that, thank you. Unless they also want to retire the B-52.

The B-52 can make the sky black with several hundred pound iron rain drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big deal, so can a Bone.

 

A Bone in fact can carry more internally than a BUFF.

 

The REAL reason is actually simpler...BUFFs can still carry nuclear capable cruise missiles internally and externally. That ability was STARTed out of the Bone.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retirement of this Jet strikes me off shooting yourself in the Foot... I can agree that getting rid off all of them and the supply chain would save money... But as some places in this world will not agree to basing rights if for example lets think... Iran goes pearshaped (Yes I know it can tank from Diego Garcia its an example). And Saudi Kuwait etc dont want to give basing rights to run the after war e.g. like whats happening in the Sandpit that is Afghanistan... they would be taking away possibly the best Long-Range CAS Aircraft that the US has and as good as the Buff is it still takes it 3 weeks to fly to the end of the Runway unless they re-engine it sorry dreaming.

 

hmmm I wonder the smaller bomb-bay on the B-1B could carry a lot of 30mm for a pair of GAU-8´s sorry dreaming again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-1 has one thing over the B-2 and B-52.

 

Speed.

 

All 3 aircraft can carry a large bombload and can stay on station a long time. The BUFF has the advantage of carrying outsized weapons, including things like Have Nap, Harpoon, CALCM, etc. The B-2 has the advantage of stealth. However, neither is particularly useful or necessary in the 'stan at the moment.

 

Speed however, is. Being able to stay on station a long time, and engage multiple targets in different locations in a short amount of time is a mission almost tailor made for the Bone's strengths. However, political considerations have made the idea of dropping a large 1000 or 2000 lb JDAM very dicey in the realm of sub-conventional warfare. What you see are less and less of that happening, which is why this has been brought up. Considering a F-15E, F-16, F-18 can carry at least 8 SDBs per aircraft, weapons that can kill individual buildings without blowing up city blocks, it doesn't surprise me that this gets floated out there.

 

FC

 

 

Yeah Yeah the Bone does it bettah, with looks and style, FC your right. If I had choice to take into battle, it would be the Bravo one Bone fo show.

 

 

Oh and before about the Tommy T's getting chopped yeah it sucks, but it would be about 5 million per plane to bring it up to F/A-18C standards, not E/F ( about another 1.5 per airframe w/out the stealthy body work) a lot of money on an older airframe that has most of its usefull life behind it. God rest His soul Tommy Cat this one for you. Damn another toast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The B-1 has one thing over the B-2 and B-52.

 

Speed./quote]

 

good.gif

 

well i hope they dont retire it,bad decision,bad bad bad bad bad...........(bad)^ntimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they don't retire it. The thing is so good the Russians were afraid of it in the 80's hence probably why it was included in the START.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..