Early Retirement for B-1 and B-2

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 12 Sep 2018, 22:20

sferrin wrote:That's a pretty old picture. Today it's more like this:

DM.jpg

Yep, my point is they drew from those for year and years, and i assume those are the B-1s they put out to pasture specifically to free up parts years back. but I stand to be corrected.

FlightDreamz · by **FlightDreamz** » 13 Sep 2018, 01:45

Is anyone else not concerned over the B-1 Spirit's bigger bomb bay's (as compared to the B-21 Raider) that is being retired.
Someone already mentioned the M.O.A.B. will the B-21 be able to carry that? A B-21 Raider/B-52J Stratofortress (as currently planned) solves a lot of problems (not the least of which is cost) but leaves some vulnerabilities too. At least from where I'm sitting. And yeah, the B-1 Lancer can do bombing AND C.A.S. but it's maintenance heavy. Retiring it could free up some funds (and maintenance personnel). Remember when the U.S.A.F. used the argument that retiring the A-10 Warthog would free up maintenance crews for the forthcoming F-35A Lightning II????

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 13 Sep 2018, 02:57

mixelflick wrote:True, but figures change..

Remember the F-22 "figure"? 750. The world supposedly changed (Russia no longer a threat) and Gates' rosy picture of no 5th gen birds out of China for a long time went to pieces real fast. I have to hand it to the Chinese BTW, 5 stars for flying the J-20 during Gates' visit

I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't retire the B-1 or B-2. The B-1 is doing great CAS work, and as mentioned elsewhere it's a fearsome air to sea weapon. And let's not forget, China is building carriers and other large surface warships. The B-2 OK... it's a hangar queen. But the psychological impact of it would seem to warrant keeping it around.

I get the whole cost per flight hour thing, but looking at the chart... the B-52 isn't exactly cheap! Can it haul a ton to great altitude? Sure. But it's slow, has a RCS the size of a barn door and old as dirt. The incremental costs of keeping it flying have to be astronomical. Besides, the B-1 can haul just as much (or thereabouts) and get there a lot faster and be a lot more survivable.

Why again did we build 100, then retire 20 like, permanently?

750 wasn't the not less than requirement for the F-22, though. They're not going to retire the B-1B and B-2 fleets, and then do a repeat of the B-2 program. A better (and more recent model) is the F-35. The 1763 aircraft requirement hasn't changed.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 13 Sep 2018, 04:11

marsavian wrote:B-52/B-2 are nuclear birds too which enhances their usefulness to the military.

Maybe as a deterrent force, but not for practical usability options. The focus always needs to be on conventional poke, IMO, as that's what real-world war-fighting will be.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 15 Sep 2018, 00:27

JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 15 Sep 2018, 02:39

popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

That'll also potentially give carriers a pretty significant strike radius, especially when combined with the MQ-25.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 15 Sep 2018, 02:58

wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

That'll also potentially give carriers a pretty significant strike radius, especially when combined with the MQ-25.

Not just CVNs... No reason why they can't strap on a booster and shoot it out of a VLS..

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 15 Sep 2018, 04:45

popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

That'll also potentially give carriers a pretty significant strike radius, especially when combined with the MQ-25.

Not just CVNs... No reason why they can't strap on a booster and shoot it out of a VLS..

Indeed. SSN/SSGNs with VLO cruise missiles would be pretty potent, too.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 15 Sep 2018, 13:56

popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

Well considering they USE to have an 1800-mile LO cruise missile in the form of the AGM-129 (until the brain trusts at the DoD retired it). . .they still have a ways to go:

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 15 Sep 2018, 13:59

XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:That's a pretty old picture. Today it's more like this:

DM.jpg

Yep, my point is they drew from those for year and years, and i assume those are the B-1s they put out to pasture specifically to free up parts years back. but I stand to be corrected.

Pretty sure, as you point out, that's exactly what they're for.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 15 Sep 2018, 16:00

sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

Well considering they USE to have an 1800-mile LO cruise missile in the form of the AGM-129 (until the brain trusts at the DoD retired it). . .they still have a ways to go

All nukes though.

Not a bomber but a VLO multi-role (with more legs than F-15E) able to seed as many as 4 x JASSM-ER per aircraft, plus 2 x JSM internally and 2 x SLAMMERS, plus 2 x AIM-9X, has similar combined strike range (and is actually usable). In practical terms they've got it covered.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 15 Sep 2018, 16:24

element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote:
popcorn wrote:JASSM-XR is going to ensure the legacy bomber fleets remain relevant going forward. What's not to like with 1000-mile LO cruise missile?

Well considering they USE to have an 1800-mile LO cruise missile in the form of the AGM-129 (until the brain trusts at the DoD retired it). . .they still have a ways to go

All nukes though.

So were AGM-86s. . .until they weren't.

hkultala · by **hkultala** » 17 Sep 2018, 08:34

FlightDreamz wrote:Is anyone else not concerned over the B-1 Spirit's bigger bomb bay's (as compared to the B-21 Raider) that is being retired.
Someone already mentioned the M.O.A.B. will the B-21 be able to carry that?

Even B-1B cannot carry MOAB.

MOAB is carried by C-130.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 17 Sep 2018, 19:16

hkultala wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:Is anyone else not concerned over the B-1 Spirit's bigger bomb bay's (as compared to the B-21 Raider) that is being retired.
Someone already mentioned the M.O.A.B. will the B-21 be able to carry that?

Even B-1B cannot carry MOAB.

MOAB is carried by C-130.

He was probably thinking about the MOP.

hkultala · by **hkultala** » 17 Sep 2018, 21:36

wrightwing wrote:
hkultala wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:Is anyone else not concerned over the B-1 Spirit's bigger bomb bay's (as compared to the B-21 Raider) that is being retired.
Someone already mentioned the M.O.A.B. will the B-21 be able to carry that?

Even B-1B cannot carry MOAB.

MOAB is carried by C-130.

He was probably thinking about the MOP.

MOP can be carried by B-2. No need to be carrier by B-21 if B-2 is not replaced by B-21.