Home » Air » The twilight of the Bone

The twilight of the Bone

By Philip Ewing Friday, April 15th, 2011 10:23 am
Posted in Air

Secretary Gates likes to say DoD has a “perfect record” in predicting the conflicts in which it becomes engaged — a perfect record of failure. Consider the Air Force’s B-1B Lancer, a supersonic, swing-wing bomber built to attack a country that no longer exists with nuclear weapons it’s no longer permitted to carry. Gates also likes to say that DoD needs to buy equipment it can use for many different types of missions, not just boutique weapons for highly specialized jobs. Happily for him, the Bone is a case in point — the Air Force has given it a second life as a weapon against insurgents in Afghanistan, as David Wood ably reported here.

But starting with next year’s budget, the Air Force plans to slowly begin slimming down its fleet of B-1s, cutting six across the board for a total of 60 airplanes in service. The Air Force expects this decision to save it about $357 million over the next five years, Rep. Rep. Randy Neugebauer told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. Neugebauer — whose district includes Dyess AFB, home of the 7th Bomb Wing — says the blue-suiters are being penny-wise and pound foolish. The case he made to the committee exemplifies the political pickle that all lawmakers, and especially spending-averse Republicans, are in as they both try to cut back on expenditures and simultaneously protect their districts back home.

“Mr. Chairman, I know that in this new, and frankly refreshing, climate of tightening our belts around here, no program is off limits,” Neugebauer said. “There are no sacred cows and programs across the board, defense and non-defense, have to justify their funding levels. I believe keeping the B-1 fully funded and maintaining the current fleet size makes the case for itself.”

He went on: “As of June 2010, the B-1 has flown more than 4,500 missions over the past 5 years. During this time, the 76 B-52s and 20 B-2s sat on the bench. Additionally, the B-1 is the least expensive bomber in the fleet. As you can see in the exhibit attached to my testimony, the B-52 is 23 percent more expensive to fly per Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH). The B-2 is 179 percent more expensive. The attached exhibit also documents the astounding cost differentials when it comes to the cost of Period Depot Maintenance. In the business community we look for “good value” for our investment. In the military, they call is “bang for the buck.”

Neugebauer didn’t say so explicitly, but there was a clear message between the lines: To keep the B-1s flying, it might be worth cutting back the rest of the bomber fleet. What do you think — should the Air Force mothball some of its B-52s, or even B-2s, to free up cash for the Bone?

Join the Conversation

	mike j April 15th, 2011 at 10:42 am Mr. Ewing– Can we get a look at Rep. Neugebauer’s briefing documents? Have you looked them over? I’d like to see those get fact-checked. Welcome to the Buzz, btw.
	philewing April 15th, 2011 at 11:01 am Hi Mike — if you click on the link you’ll see the full text of the statement he gave the committee. I presume he and his staff wanted to make the best possible case for their hometown B-1s, so his testimony was probably gamed to put on a good face for the jets as compared to the rest of the bomber fleet. I wanted to write about it because it’s an interesting tactic to take, pitting one service platform against others inside the same service. Imagine somebody from Fort Lewis saying, geez, those Abrams tanks are so big and expensive, but the Stryker is so light and economical! (Maybe, but you’re not really comparing apples and oranges…) — Phil
	BreakTheCycle April 15th, 2011 at 11:03 am Slowly retiring an aging fleet of aircraft is smart, and helps the health of the overall fleet. We retire the worst cann birds, strip them for their useful parts, which then bolster the supply chain that sustains the overall fleet. These aircraft were made in the 80s, new parts often cannot be manufactured at all. Congress members opinions on force structure should be disregarded unless they are a veteran. The B-1B, while an embarrassment to develop and probably should have been killed in the 80’s, has served us well from both a deterrent and warfighting capability standpoint. We should start the fleet on a glidepath towards graceful retirement, and develop an NGB that captures lessons learned from past bombers and most importantly, does not repeat past mistakes and does not commit new mistakes!
	BOOMER April 15th, 2011 at 11:08 am Well if they are gonna be closing more over seas air bases then they better keep them all and bring the 117’s outta mothballs while they are at it, get rid of all thier legacy fighters and buy more transports and tankers while the Navy and Marines take over foward deployed fighter responsibilities. Or are they just planning on leaving us crippled and unable to respond to threats with large forces from here on out.
	momomimamo April 15th, 2011 at 11:12 am taxpayers
	mike j April 15th, 2011 at 11:42 am I agree that he’s probably gaming his testimony, but I’d really like to check his sources. Because, specifically, I’ve dug around on the CPFH for these platforms before, and the B-1B was never the cheapest. Actually the reverse, but the publicly available sources are few– and far-between. If he’s just outright lying, I want to see him get called out for it. Here’s one of the papers I found: FORECASTING FLYING HOUR COSTS OF THE B-1, B-2 AND B-52 BOMBER AIRCRAFT, THESIS, Stefanie L. Van Dyk, First Lieutenant, USAF
	STemplar April 15th, 2011 at 12:07 pm I’m all for saving money in the current bomber fleet if that money is rolled into speeding development of the NGB, but not if they plan to @#$% it away on the F35 or F22.
	Michael April 15th, 2011 at 12:33 pm I just hope when they begin trimming the budget new defense developments aren’t limited. We cannot let our guard down. We have to continue to build up, above all, forever and for always. End these ******* wars! Don’t limit new developments!
	bys02 April 15th, 2011 at 12:34 pm It’s not lying, it’s a “not meant as a factual statement”. Besides the B2 the B1B is often being cited as the most expensive per hour to fly out of the current bomber fleet. Would love to get some real factual data on that.
	Oblat April 15th, 2011 at 1:04 pm The NGB is a dream designed to keep people happy, like the Bush mission to mars. No need to allocate a budget for it.
	Oblat April 15th, 2011 at 1:05 pm Yep lose these wars now so that we have stuff to lose the wars of the future.
	freefallingbomb April 15th, 2011 at 1:48 pm I have to admit: I have a very irrational habit. Unlike most of you ( = unlike the author of this article and all commentators so far), I tend to determine the usefulness of a weapon by looking mostly at its… performances. Some very basic specs, to annoy everybody with: 1) B-52 “Stratofortress”: Speed: 1.047 km/h Ferry range: 16.232 km Payload: 31.500 kg Special advantages: None 2) B-2 “Spirit“ Speed: 1.010 km/h Ferry range: 11.100 km Payload: 23.000 kg Special advantages: Stealthy 3) B-1 “Lancer“ Speed: 2.695 km/h (B-1 A), 1.340 km/h (B-1 B), Ferry range: 11.998 km Payload: 56.700 kg Special advantages: Low-observable AND low-level-flight-capable The answer which of these three bombers is the best looks pretty self-evident to me now.
	William C. April 15th, 2011 at 1:49 pm Don’t retire the B-1B until the NGB is actually entering service. Our strategic bomber fleet has enough on its plate without their aircraft being retired early.
	Gregory Savage April 15th, 2011 at 1:59 pm Yea France has a nice bomber too.
	Weaponhead April 15th, 2011 at 2:04 pm km/h, kg???? Yes you can use those units but why! You would think that if we can keep 50s/60s/70s B-52s in the air we could keep the B-1 going a while longer. The B-52 has been a great platform but it requires the right environment in order to operate. The B-1 is able to go into higher threat areas than the B-52 and it can still generate lots of sorties. The B-2 is great but it cannot fly at the sortie rate of the B-1 and requires special basing which means it is always a long ways away. This lmits just how many bombs it can put on target and what the time lag is between tasking and the time over target. This means that the B-1 can get more bombs on target in a shorter amount of time which is a big deal. The Bomb bay mod’s recently anounced make it even more effective. We’re a long way from knowing whether or not the NGB will have these qulities or not. In the mean time, I would hate to lose what the B-1 brings to the fight.
	superraptor April 15th, 2011 at 2:52 pm We need more strategic bombers and less Tacair and forward airbases. Don’t cut the B-1B, how foolish. Where is the Republican HASC when you need them? New stealthier B-1s could be the next Generation Bomber launching its missiles 1000 miles from the target without trying to penetrate hostile air space 5000 miles inland which seems to be a fantasy dating back to the movie “Failsafe”. Who needs 2443 F-35s at 150 million each when 200 B-1s would provide so much more firepower and could be stationed in the continental US. The financial savings also would be huge. But real strategic and economical solutions will not be allowed under upcoming reviews as programs such as the F-35 are too big to fail and are off limits for debate.
	BreakTheCycle April 15th, 2011 at 2:58 pm The B-1 is out of production. We could not just make an additional 140 of them at the snap of your fingers. There is no need to call a “new stealthier” bomber a B-1. It would be a completely different aircraft.
	BreakTheCycle April 15th, 2011 at 3:01 pm retiring 6 B-1s would not cause anyone to lose “what the B-1 brings to the fight.”. the retired birds would be the biggest eye sores of the fleet. they are probably more of a liability to the fleet’s availability rate as “combat coded” aircraft. cannibalizing them and getting them off the books is a darn smart move.
	BreakTheCycle April 15th, 2011 at 3:03 pm don’t worry the fleet’s not retiring for awhile. we are dropping the worst birds in the fleet, which results in better sustainment of the fleet overall. this is a good strategic move. also builds the case for more urgency for the NGB.
	Lance April 15th, 2011 at 3:56 pm I say keep the B-52s since they do a good job firing ALCM missiles and support ground troops with iron bombs. B-1s should stay in. Cut the B-2s we only need a few for nuclear deterrent. The B-1, and B-52 are more versatile in conventional wars.
	Matt April 15th, 2011 at 4:55 pm The B-2 can drop conventional bombs as well, and its the only one that can to so in heavy air defenses. Besides they only have 20 of they so losing one is alot more damaging than 1 B-52 (for example). Or how about politicians cut from something that isnt defense; like welfare or limit the Bush tax cuts to business people only (do people like Charlie Sheen really need cocain more than soldiers/airmen/etc need the best weapons?). Of course thats just my opinion…
	Matt April 15th, 2011 at 4:57 pm can do so *20 of them I wish I could edit my other post
	superraptor April 15th, 2011 at 5:01 pm Production could be restarted with some modifications to increase stealth (production was restarted once already). The deep penetration mission would be left to stealthy cruise missiles not the platform itself. This would all be achievalble using existing technology and less costly than a completely new NGB. Combine it with reduced F-35 purchases, closure of forward air bases in SK and Japan and you have a strategic and fiscal win-win situation. Unfortunately frank discussion of strategic alternatives is not wanted by the White House or the USAF even if it reduces our defense budget.
	Doogie April 15th, 2011 at 5:17 pm Cut the B-52 and revive enough B-1s from storage to compensate.
	@7thwave April 15th, 2011 at 5:43 pm I would say retire the B52. That plane has served us well, but it is time to retire it. And, retire the B2. Too costly,and cannot carry as much payload as the B-1.
	Guest April 15th, 2011 at 6:13 pm The super raptor plan is good. Shoot stealthy “arrows” at them, vice attempting to make the ancient, non-stealthy B-1 into even a first gen stealthy platform. Let the enemy shoot at our hard to see arrows, vice shooting at the obsolete B-1 launch platform. By the way, this bad advice for the other team, is the opposite of what Adm Meyer , Father of AEGIS always preached for our side to do. He always wanted the USN side to shoot their Archer, not their arrows ! But the B-1 is such an antiquated, non-stealthy archer that we better never let it get within range of any SAM’s at all.
	@E_L_P April 15th, 2011 at 7:07 pm Keep a small number of B-52s. Also, save money by taking the B-52 off of the nuclear mission. The goat-rope in Minot to get that capability re-org’d cost a lot of money and wastes limited manpower. The reason to keep a small number of B-52s is that they can carry some pretty odd-ball external stores. Things like long range hyper-sonics if we ever figure that out. I would reformat them to carry U.S.N. BLOCK 4 Tomahawks. This would be a good return on investment and would supplement a joint strike effort. The biggest problem with the B-1 is that it is not cheap per flying hour in its own special way of complexity. We dragged out for years an idea that would make it cheaper to maintain. That is new flight controls and avionics. Also, USAF has been seriously de-skilled in senior aircraft maintenance planning over the years (remember that when people not associated with anything military want to “save money”). We can no logger accurately predict budget money needed for maintenance metrics and when USAF does, it gets short-changed. For example, not too long back the B-1 got 52 percent MC rates. People were in shock. Isn’t it overly expensive to maintain? Yes and no. USAF only funded the aircraft for 51 percent of what was needed in maintenance budgets/MC rate goals at the depot and unit. The other 1 percent was made up by the skill and determination of the maintainer. USAF maintenance planners in the top office continually underfunded maintenance resourcing by up to 49 percent. Think about that. When properly funded for maintenance and sustainment the B-1 does what it is supposed to with the airframes needed. When not.….well the obvious.… Shockingly, this pattern is showing up in F-16s for some time now. Even with aircraft age issues, if you have trouble doing maintenance planning and sustainment for a freakin F-16, you have serious management problems. That, and the goal of USAF shedding too much maintenance personnel. You can’t just grow an aircraft maintainer overnight that has all that tribal knowledge. So the short take-away from this is that today, USAF maintenance planning skills at the higher level are seriously lacking. But hey, the super genius Gates says a Reaper can do the job of an F-16. Duh.
	pfcem April 15th, 2011 at 8:20 pm Secretary Gates likes to say a lot of things which demonstrate how out of touch with reality he is. Unhappily for him, the Bone is a case in point — the Bone is one of those weapons systems which helped keep the world safe from said country which no longer exists, is one of those weapons systems who’s existence help lead to said country no longer existing AND is one of those weapons systems he harks on as being built to attack said country that no longer exists but has in fact shown itself to be more than capable of use for many different types of missions since that said country no longer existing.
	Byron Skinner April 15th, 2011 at 9:53 pm Good Morning Folks, A look at the type of missions flown in Afghanistan the past five or so years shows the problem. Nearly all have been ISR missions with the very rare combat strike. The major technical improvement the L/M “Sniper Ball” that the Bone was hailed for, works better on the F-16. The roles that the Bone can do in the current war environment are quite simply done cheaper and more efficiently by other platforms. The era of the strategic conventional bomb run at 40,000 ft is over. Any notion that the Bone had any future role died in Libya. The major budget item the Air Force has to face up to is closing bases, the just have to many. The number of airplanes the AF is going to have is shrinking. Even though overseas bases are closing down there still is an excess real estate inventory with in the USAF. Mc Dill AFB is a good example. There is no need for the AF to keep Mc Dill open, its only tenant is an Air National Guard tanker squadron that itself may face deactivation, there are more then a sufficient number of Air Force bases along the Atlantic coast for the future Air Force. The civilian jobs issue is not a defense issue. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	william April 16th, 2011 at 12:31 am Incorrect macdill is home to the active duty 6th mobilty squadron, as well as centcom and socom.
	@E_L_P April 16th, 2011 at 4:46 am Again Byron you may want to invest some time to learn how and why things are done. When a ground forward air controller (JTAC) with the troops asks for emergency close air support and a B-1 shows up, there are several advantages. 1. It responded fast to the 911 call. For example an A-10 is better for preplanned stuff and less 911 work. It isn’t that fast at responding. 2. The B-1 shows up with enough gas and precision guided munitions to stick around until the JTAC is happy. Stating that bombing from 40k feet is over misses a few important points. It is done with JDAM for instance so that the dropper can contempt of engage most legacy ground to air threats. I can touch you, but you can’t touch me. Stating that something isn’t suited for Libya misses another point too. Since we have no effective strategy there, there are a lot of weapons that might not be useful at different times. However it is better to have the tool in the tool bag than to need it someday and not have it. Your implication that Afghanistan doesn’t require many bomb drops per event misses the fact that there have been some big battles there. Some where the B-1 showed up and the JTAC was able to stop the threat cold. It is things like that where bombing saves lots of lives. The lives of the troops.
	Marcus Lind April 16th, 2011 at 6:39 am What is necessary IMHO is not to cut the bomber fleet at all. What is necessary is to cut all these leftish programs and initiatives of the current administration that costs so much and drags America into the socialism.
	CK757 April 16th, 2011 at 6:42 am In the 70’s, I was part of the B-1A’s engineering development team for certain electronic systems. In the 90’s, somehow this resulted in a position in program management for B-52 electronics systems. As B-1 development wound down in the later 70’s some of my cohorts were transferred to B-2 development, and I moved on to a fighter deployment and support role in Europe. What I can and will say is that the B-52 is basically a “trash hauler” for bombs and ordnance. It has been quite successful and useful, to say the least. However, there comes a time when it’s really no longer a good idea to try to keep relatively ancient aircraft in service. The B-52, for a myriad of reasons, falls into this category. A part of the problem is that the equipment on the B-52 has numerous areas that need to be modernized”,“modified”,“upgraded”, or replaced. Then there are airframe and engine concerns. Actually, the B-1 can be said to be on the verge of the same problem, due in some part to the changes in electronics between the 70’s and now. Sooner or later, airframe and engine concerns will also become important. Dividing resources between the B-2, B-52, and B-1 is not very cost effective or “efficient”. Administrative cost savings obtained by reducing the number of support chains can be very significant. While Russia is no longer a major concern, a couple of other nations are. Who is to say that we might or might not face a similar need (penetration of a very well defended area) in the reasonable future. Planning and “Assets in Place” to support such a situation requires years of advance preparation and investment.
	Guest April 16th, 2011 at 9:59 am Not positive, but as I recall back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, whenever B-1’s made simulated low level attack runs against an AEGIS cruiser, the B-1’s high speed make them exceptionally easy to auto detect and auto track. Not certain if the B-1’s were in any way, whatsoever, considered stealthy or as you wrote above, “Low-observable”, but they sure were simple to detect and track the moment the came over the horizon, screaming inbound on the deck. High doppler is a deadly thing to use against modern warships sensor suites. Piece o’ Cake to kill all inbound B-1’s, as I recall.
	terry April 16th, 2011 at 10:00 am Let’s save some real money and bring in congress the true traitors to this great country. Stop the pork spending stop the pet prejects stop the good old boy/girl pay back programs/ lets start with term limits. Give the Presidents all of them now and for the future “line item veto” power which congress has a heart attack about everytime it’s mentioned.
	superraptor April 16th, 2011 at 12:04 pm Well, you may be right and we could be in a Cold War with a stronger competitor in the future. If a strategic review comes to the same conclusion, then let’s say so and plan ahead. But then however politically unpalatable the defense budget has to be increased, not decreased and taxes have to go up and social benefits have to go down in order to pay for it. After all if you are dead from a devastating surprise nuclear attack, your medicare benefits don’t matter. Unfortunately the defense hawks in the Republican Party have vanished. The Tea Party has no grasp of National Security anyway.
	Taxpayer April 16th, 2011 at 12:06 pm Like their Russian Bear bomber counterparts, the idea was simply to get close and lauch their anti-ship cruise missiles against the carriers. They’re good enough to draw the air cap away from the anti-ship cruise missiles coming from the diesel subs attacking from the other side.
	b1dude April 16th, 2011 at 12:52 pm Mr. Skinner.… Your comparison of the Bone to other platforms etc. is a little weak. Item 1. You can have the neatest, latest Sniper strapped on every F-16 in the fleet but the viper’s ability to maintain station pales rapidly compared to the Bone…the Sniper modified Bone. The ability of the Bone to dwell over a target with it’s current Sniper capabilities makes it a darling of the JTAC and convoy protection world. Item 2. Did you really just use “Libya” as an “validator” of the B-1’s value to the taxpayer? WOW. The Bone did/does have a role in Libya…please do your homework at: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/04/air-for…. Item 3. Libya part 2. Seems reckless to imply any Libya involvement (or lack thereof) should sound the death knell of a weapon system. When you can figure out what “Libya” is w/respect to anything about our national security…perhaps you could enlighten the rest of the country… Noone in DoD is quite sure.…(Please see Secretary Gates’ comments two Sundays ago). Again your analysis is incomplete w/o considering the B-1’s current taskings and past accomplishments in Iraq/Afgan. The B-1 has been the precision weapon workhorse of the entire CENTCOM theater. At one time it had flown less than 1% of the combat sorties but dropped more than 60% of the precision weapons in Iraq. Overstating the obvious: precision weapons are not area weapon…they are precise…meaning a dedicated target per weapon. The B-1 has delivered an amazing amount of death and destruction to our enemies with an equally amazing lack of collateral damage. The most cogent discussion here so far has focused on graceful retirement/transition w/o leaving a gaping hole in a vetted combat capability.….like we’ve screwed up in the past.…SR71, EF111, F117 are coming to mind. Dod acquisition has not had a very good record at all of bridging capabilities while adding new weapon systems. In all honesty your comments look like you googled up an article from the early 90’s about the B-1 and stopped looking. Take a deeper look.…this aircraft and the people that fly/fix it have done some amazing work. The country needs them to continue until a suitable replacement can take the baton. With all due respect, B1dude
	Trophy April 16th, 2011 at 1:48 pm Well Adm Meyer isn’t so far off-base, I don’t think, with wanting to shoot the archer and not just the arrows: aircraft can carry multiple missiles, making it easier to overwhelm ship defenses with a larger swarm of missiles rather than a relatively smaller swarm of more expensive aircraft.
	arthur April 16th, 2011 at 2:20 pm Our aircraft have just plain been wearing out with no replacements realistically near. the Obama admin has been embarrassed by US superiority and obviously is working to degrade our military. China and Russia are upgrading their military, new aircraft,ships tanks radar missiles while we reduce ours. Indeed, we have become the mercenary troops of the arab league even though there is no direct threat to the US. WEhat happened to the billions of arms and training we gave saudi arabia uae etc???
	Byron Skinner April 16th, 2011 at 3:18 pm Good Morning Folks, The Bone has for it entire career been know as a “Hanger Queen”. It serves as an example of one of the biggest wastes of public funds since the second world war. The Bone has been relieved of the strategic global strike mission and has been dumped off into the conventional mission of which it was never intended. It was never successful in finding a niche that was not already being done by other, and less expensive platform. It use since 9/11 has at best been marginal and all of the missions it has flown could have been done by other and less expensive platforms. When the AF was still putting up the Daily Air Power Summery Bone missions were few, and those that did go up were IRS missions. The B-1B is last century mentality, quite simply wars are not fought that way any longer. One of the few right things that president Carter did was cancel the B-1A. As far as the Bone community goes the majority will find other places to serve, those that don’t, well there are no guarantees in life, even in the military. The Air Force is not a fixed organization and will move on. A billet assignment longer then two years is a gift. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	CK757 April 16th, 2011 at 4:48 pm Currently, you have a much greater chance of having a poorly maintained bridge collapse under you than the possibility of getting “nuked”. In some ways, I’d agree with you. in others, no. It seems to me that we are just stretched to thin, in too many places. Besides and beyond, too much money is being spent on less that first priority things. Our “infrastructure” is falling apart. SSA recipients have less spending power each year, due to the way the cost of living index is calculated. The government has borrowed a large amount from the SSA fund, and to keep the fund “solvent”, needs to stop borrowing and start “paying back”. This really gets the politicians, since any possible funds for “pork barrel” projects goes away. The Medicare system was based on a mandatory “contribution”, and thus the government has a strong responsibility to “deliver” benefits. The Military procurement system, like most government run operations, is grossly inefficient, and consumes an unbelievable amount of man-hours and time. It can easily take two or more years just to “push paper” through the system, just to get to the point of having things built. It may take up to five years to get delivery in desired quantities. “Penny wise and pound foolish” practices driven by law and regulation abound. At the same time, potential military vendors are going away, simply because they do not have the luxury to maintain the ability to “make things” in between government orders. (Not to mention EPA related issues, etc.)
	pfcem April 16th, 2011 at 5:11 pm You LOWER taxes to increase revenue. It has worked every time.
	Bronco46 April 16th, 2011 at 7:27 pm They should mothball some of the many converted civilian aircraft, like the C-37, and the much larger converted DC-9’s, 727’s, and 737’s. If the troops and the mission are what count the commanders should start sitting in webbing for there trips. They might just reduce their travel a little. We will continue to need platforms that can drop high precision munitions from high altitude for some time to come. Once unmanned aircraft have been mastered we can begin phasing out planes like the bone. But, until then it would be foolish to not maintain our current fleet while it can still do the job.
	superraptor April 16th, 2011 at 10:07 pm there is still some room for tax increases to bring in some real money, increasing the medicare tax to 5% comes to mind, increasing the estate tax, broadening the tax base and increasing the top rate to 40%. You still would be at a tax level which would leave room for economic growth and increasing the defense budget. We just would have a little bit less money to spend on things we don’t need form countries we don’t like with money we don’t have. Freedom is not free. Time to pay up.
	STemplar April 17th, 2011 at 12:04 am Except there is no mission or dream in the universe to keep you happy. You are a nexus of negativity in the universe Oblat, a veritable human black hole of pessimism and contrariness. You would probably make everyone cry if you walked into Disney Land on a sunny spring day. We should weaponize you and drop you on the enemy, they’d all kill themselves in a mass fit of despair and hopelessness.
	Oblat April 17th, 2011 at 1:54 am Give the kid an icecream before we all start crying.
	William C. April 17th, 2011 at 2:32 am Oblat simply hates America and general, there isn’t much to understand about him, just a troll.
	J "AJ" Donnley April 17th, 2011 at 2:36 am Well, as we all know, there is no use for the B-2 or NGB in any CONOPS or TACTIS that a B-52 or B-1 cannot complete from XXX plus miles out utilizing Joint Stand Off Strike Weapons, such as the JASSM-ER, ALCM’s and TLAM, General Cruise Missiles of all types including Submarine and Ship borne. In what Warfighting Scenario would be have to send a High Value asset such as a NGB or B-2 to destroy that would be worth an a high value platform or jeopardize an aircrew? This does not add up. In any scenario, SATCOM Intel, along with Predator, Global Hawk, BAMS etc… Would locate exact TST data in regards to precise location of HVT’s for Stand-Off Weapons Strike. The Required Ground Air Conditioned B-2 and the High Cost NGB just does not pass the logic test. Anyone that studies WFA in any Overseas Combat Operations scenario knows a Manned Aircraft Penetrating a TST is not an option or a requirement.
	J "AJ" Donnley April 17th, 2011 at 2:36 am Oontinued…Any General or Admiral that would send in a Manned Aircraft first for a HVT TST is a fool and idiot. We have the technology to weed out these HVT anytime-anyplace without directly flying over the target. We can Stand-Off and obliterate with the B-52H and B-1 any IADS or any other Military Target HVT at will. So what is the exact requirement for the new platforms???? The answer is the QFD evaluation that was made two years ago when the Government was not broke, based on Integrators input of course and funding coming out of our ears that needed to be deployed. “Use or Lose” Funding. Our Senior Leadership in all the Braches of Service except the Army and Marine Corps are completely out of their MINDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	William C. April 17th, 2011 at 2:38 am What on earth are you talking about?
	William C. April 17th, 2011 at 2:48 am Countless munitions have been dropped actual combat operations and people still criticize the B-1B based on the same nonsense the media has been spewing since the 1980s. The only active bomber that is less expensive than the B-1B is the B-52H. Yet the B-1B is more survivable and can get to the target area faster. It fills an important niche between our B-52Hs and handful of B-2As. The B-1B has a place until NGB comes along.
	STemplar April 17th, 2011 at 11:45 pm I just don’t understand why he continually posts, but says pretty much nothing. That mentality escapes me, but of course l don’t require medications to function mentally so I’m probably over analyzing.
	ribby April 17th, 2011 at 11:55 pm How are we going to deal with Iranian nuclear facilities that are 50 feet under ground in a 20 foot thick reinforced hardened concrete bunker ? I think that is why we are developeing bunker busters for stealthy platforms like the B-2 , plus i think that all these missiles you are talking about are very very expensive. I would love to see X-45s ( or A-45 , the production version of the unmanned stealthy platform) flying off of carrier decks over Libya (or anywhere else ) dropping JDAMs or SDBs on 300 or so targets insead of 300 or so tomahawk cruise missiles.
	STemplar April 17th, 2011 at 11:59 pm I agree with less tacair, but in regards to the bomber it has to be penetrating, and that doesn’t mean necessarily over flying the target. A 1000 mile missile against the next iteration of SAMs is actually a 400 or 500 missile at best when you factor in the range of the next generation of SAMs. That and we don’t have the money to address every single potential target with 1 $million a pop guided weapons. At some point you want to close and to able to use JDAMs as soon as possible because it is just cheaper. I agree we need to think in terms of range, as our ‘allies’ become less and less reliable. I think we need to think in terms of deterring peer competitors (China). I don’ think the Chinese lose any sleep over F-15s, F-16s, or F18s, and I think they also worry little about F-22s and F-35s. I think systems like SSGNs and the NGB and prompt strike research from existing VLS cells do concern them a great deal.
	Oblat April 18th, 2011 at 12:58 am Sorry to shatter your childish dreams with the facts templar. We all know what Bill is here — to shill for the contractors. But perhaps you would find friendlier faces on the Disney channel ?
	Oblat April 18th, 2011 at 1:08 am With our inevitable defeat in Afghanistan and handing Iraq over to the Iranians, there is a push to get back to fighting the wars that we can win — the imaginary ones. That is why the largely useless in practice B-1 — known for a decade as the aircraft that jammed itself is now viewed with such nostalgic fondness. Americans hate losers and if the only wars we can win are imaginary cold wars of posturing and pantomime there is a rising tide of opinion in the military that we should make imaginary wars are core competence. For the contractors in a lot of ways it opened a new era it showed that with enough congress in your pocket you could take 20 years after IOC to deliver a half baked product and nobody would call you on it.
	Io205 April 18th, 2011 at 5:39 am Seems to me the B1’s should stay and the B52 can go
	Josh April 18th, 2011 at 11:10 am I’ll give you credit for one thing… you like to double down on ignorant don’t you? I have to think that at some point you would get tired of having to be contantly corrected. Literally nothing you’ve said in your 2 posts on this story shows that you have a clue as to what you’re talking about. Bomb runs from 40,000ft? Really? Must have missed all those last time I was over there… all the B-1 missions I observed were low level runs that ONLY an aircraft with that kind of speed and loiter capability could have puleld off, usually resulting in saving ground troops that would have otherwise been overrun.
	Vulpine April 18th, 2011 at 11:18 am While I agree that the B-1 is aging, the B-52 as a platform is now well over 50 years old and have pilots proud to say they’re flying the same plane their fathers or grandfathers flew. It’s really time to retire the oldest plane in the fleet and keep the B-1 as the backbone of the strategic bomber force for as long as it lasts. Unlike 7thwave, I think the B-2 still holds a viable purpose as we move forward, though to be honest I’m expecting to see something along the lines of ultra-high-altitude strategic platforms before too much longer; platforms able to release gravity payloads with precise targeting hundreds of miles from their targets. I could also see these payloads shrink in physical size to perhaps as small as a football to target a single vehicle in traffic or a single room in a house. The technology is certainly possible, though acquiring such a precision target may be a thing of the future, yet. No, the Bone should remain at full strength as long as the airframe is capable; cheaper to rebuild existing airframes than to design and build an all-new one when we don’t need to. However, no matter how reliable it’s been, there comes a time when an aging platform needs to be retired and the B-52 certainly qualifies. If you want to maintain the Buff, then design and build an all-new version using modern materials.
	Richard April 18th, 2011 at 11:30 am WOW! Mark the day on the calendar! Someone finally realized that the B-1 is a waste…as is the B-2! Just keep the B-52’s rolling along doing the job the other’s never could fill!!!
	Vulpine April 18th, 2011 at 11:31 am Six planes is hardly “leaving us crippled”. I do agree that reducing numbers of conventional resources could be weakening our capabilities to some extent, but strangely enough I could see an enormous savings in design and development costs by simply redesigning still-viable airframes to use newer construction technologies. The F-15 and F-16 are still strongly capable platforms against the majority of forces we’re likely to face, though the airframes themselves are beyond their original design lifespans. It really wouldn’t be that hard to redesign the birds to use carbon fiber skins and structures and maintain most of the engines, electronics and other components just as the F-16 itself re-used components from previous platforms. There are ways to save money, but while the AF has a habit of wanting the Latest and Greatest all the time, the A-10 proved that lower-tech can be extremely effective. For that matter, I still believe that competitive fly-offs between manufacturers and designs is more effective than trying to designate all the design elements up front.
	Bman April 18th, 2011 at 12:59 pm Less TACAIR? I’d say more but less hi-tec. Give me something that can loiter over the AO and perform close air support like the A-10 or even one of a variety of prop planes out there. Prop planes are faster, can carry a bigger payload and are cheaper to maintain than Attack Helo’s.
	@E_L_P April 18th, 2011 at 5:51 pm Interesting theories, but they don’t jive with the operational history of the aircraft since 2000 when it started getting the Block-D upgrade. This gave the aircraft JDAM capability. And, with radar or radar offset bombing, it proved to be able to get sub-3 meter CEPs (remember JDAM is an INS weapon with GPS assistance). It got good MC rates in theater for ops when they gathered all the spares available at places like Diego. Byron, I think you need to visit a B-1 squadron and actually talk to the operators and maintainers. It would help your understanding of the topic.
	6591 USMC April 18th, 2011 at 10:05 pm “…built to attack a country that no longer exists with nuclear weapons it’s no longer permitted to carry.” This may seem like nit picking but there is a misleading direction in this article. First: Country? I suspect the writer meant the Soviet Union, which was never a country. However, Russia, its progenitor and the originator and core of the USSR is coming back strong from its downfall. Russia has and is rebuilding its military and secret services, expanding it’s influence once more. Putin, the former President and head of the KGB prior to that is now the Premier and openly dedicated to restoring Russia to world prominence. Russian is once again selling weapons and technology to the enemies of the West and is a prolific exporter of small arms and munitions. AK-47s, ammo and RPGs don’t grown on trees although it would seem so based on their availability and only a couple of nations have the capability to produce them in quality and quantity necessary for arming the armies and terrorists that we face by the many thousands. No longer allowed to carry? Is the author suggesting that Ronald Reagans part one of his masterpiece trilogy that dropped the USSR which was built to deliver Nuclear Weapons is no longer ALLOWED to carry them? Is there some legislation our congress passed and signed by Presidents Bush or Obama that I don’t know about? Or is it simply a policy change made as part of a strategic weapons agreement? If I remember correctly the last one hasn’t been ratified yet. Maybe I’m behind. Regardless, the B2B for which Reagan was castigated and maligned for has performed beautifully, exceeding expectations despite repeated attempts to kill it. Anyone who wants to know how important it is and has been should read what the former Soviets had to say about it and examine the extreme measure they went to to try and defeat it, all to no avail.
	Mike April 19th, 2011 at 10:44 pm While yes the B-1 is expensive to sortie (but then what attack aircraft isn’t?), it still a somewhat cost effective platform. Look at it from this perspective, 2 B-1 bombers dropped almost 100 guided munitions to hit the same number of targets in Libya… http://defensetech.org/2011/03/31/bone-joins-the-… How many sorties would fighters have to do to hit those same targets, and what would be the cost to do that job with many fighter aircraft verses the two B-1’s? No disrespect to the Navy or anything, but I imagine it would take an entire carrier battle group, using aircraft and Tomahawks to destroy that many targets in a similar time frame… Cost analysis anyone? Don’t get me wrong, a carrier battle group has its advantages, it is a lot more flexible and can handle many, many other tasks that a couple of bombers cannot (like rescuing any of the bomber crews, if god forbid they were ever shot down…).
	Riceball April 21st, 2011 at 10:44 am B-1s are low observable, meaning semi-stealthy. When the B-1B was designed it was specifically redesigned from the B-1A to be stealthy, nowhere near stealthy as any of our true stealth aircraft but much stealthier than a B-52 or even the B-1A.
	8917 USMC October 21st, 2011 at 2:57 pm SEMPER FI !

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

The twilight of the Bone

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments