lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (Loyd M. Enochs) (05/30/91)
From: Loyd M. Enochs <lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil> In Vol 7 issue 34, Andrew Cowie made several points concerning the no-show by the B1 in the Gulf. He made the point that "the B-1 is the United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key component of their nuclear triad....the pentagon did not want any B-1s anywhere near a combat zone;" That may well be true... however, published reports in the New York Times, as well as information broadcast by ABC news stated that the *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded for engine problems. Additionally, the B-1 has _never been certified_ for conventional munitions! The B-1 has had a very poor history of reliability - so much so that SAC has been searching for years to find an answer. Loyd M. Enochs
john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) (06/02/91)
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (Loyd M. Enochs) writes: > In Vol 7 issue 34, Andrew Cowie made several points concerning the > no-show by the B1 in the Gulf. He made the point that "the B-1 is the > United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key > component of their nuclear triad Exactly. The B-1 is currently nuclear only. The mission was to free Kuwait, not blow it to bits. > That may well be true... however, published reports in the New York > Times, as well as information broadcast by ABC news stated that the > *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded for engine problems. You have to be careful with the word grounded. There were a few engine problems during the summer and fall. SAC did not want to lose any B-1s over what might be a minor problem common to all B-1s. The B-1 was on active duty the entire time, with at least 2 aircraft on alert in Abaline, TX, at all times during the 'grounding'. I visited Dyess last fall, and I have pictures of this. If the cold war suddenly heated up, the B-1 would have been ungrounded and used as planned. Training missions were curtailed, though. > Additionally, the B-1 has _never been certified_ for conventional munitions! This is true. There is no reason to spend money working on outfitting the B-1 for conventional bombing when the US currently has 200+ B-52 that are perfectly able to carry iron bombs. When the B-2 comes on line, the B-1 will not be needed as the primary nuclear bomber. The B-1 is planned to be outfitted at that time to carry non-nuclear bombs. Once the B-1 is up to speed as a conventional bomber, the B-52 can be retired. > The B-1 has had a very poor history of reliability - so much so that > SAC has been searching for years to find an answer. Depends on where you get your information and how you crunch the numbers. The B-1 has a very good record of completing missions that are assigned to it, something over 98% if memory serves me (based on what the tour guide at Dyess told me). This is the fact that the USAF recites whenever someone attacks the B-1 program. The B-1 has had some teething problems. Some of the capabilitys that the plane was supposed to have turned out to be slightly ahead of what can be produced at that time. The electronic warfare systems are being upgraded. This is not too surprising when you consider that the B-1 is a very large and complex plane which is supposed to perform a mission that many doubt is even possible to perform. Much noise was made in the media about the fuel tank leaks in the B-1B. But the B-1B was not the only plane to ever have fuel tank leaks. Most planes have prototypes and early production runs to work out the bugs, but the B-1B was built on a fast track schedule without prototypes (no, the B-1A does not really count as a prototype for the B-1B). When the XB-70 had fuel tank leak problems there was only one or two planes to fix, while there were a lot more B-1Bs by the time the problem was solved. If you get a chance, get out to an airshow this summer and look for the B-1. It is truely amazing--it is huge, yet looks small from a distance. It hauls more than the B-52, yet performs like a fighter. And when you look up the word 'sexy' in the dictionary, you will find a picture of the B-1. Too bad SAC doesn't have a demonstration team like the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds! -- John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (06/04/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >> Times, as well as information broadcast by ABC news stated that the >> *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded for engine problems. If the *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded, then what was it that I saw doing a low flyby during the air show at Andrews AFB on May 11? It looked a lot like a B-1, the program said B-1, and the public announcement said B-1. For an airplane that was supposed to be ground, it sure is alive and flying! [The grounding under discussion was in the January timeframe. --CDR] >> Additionally, the B-1 has _never been certified_ for conventional munitions! >This is true. There is no reason to spend money working on outfitting >the B-1 for conventional bombing when the US currently has 200+ B-52 >that are perfectly able to carry iron bombs. Actually, they have been outfitting the B-1 for conventional bombing. The problem is that electronic equipment used in aiming and dropping the conv. bombs hasn't been satisfactory so far, and also that the conv. bombs kept hitting each other after they were dropped. The ABC broadcast mentioned that the Air Force was still trying to correct these problems. >> The B-1 has had a very poor history of reliability - so much so that >> SAC has been searching for years to find an answer. I don't think that the B-1 has a poor history of reliability. It is an unusual plane, pushed to the maximum limit of performance. One example is the unusual design of its fuel tanks which has to be incorporated into its swing wing design. Its leaking fuel problem is nothing unusual. The SR-71A had the same problem because of its unusual fuel tank design which has to allow for the expansion and contraction of the fuel tank due to high temperature associated with high supersonic speed. Its fuel tank was not like a complete sealed box; rather it was more like two halves of a box, with one half inside the other, with very close tolerances. This allows the whole box to slide apart or together as temperature rises or decreases. Hence, you will have to expect some fuel to leak. The SR-71A uses a very thick jet fuel which helps minimize fuel leaking. >Much noise was made in the media about the fuel tank leaks in the B-1B. >But the B-1B was not the only plane to ever have fuel tank leaks... See above. >If you get a chance, get out to an airshow this summer and look for the >B-1. It is truely amazing--it is huge, yet looks small from a >distance. It hauls more than the B-52, yet performs like a fighter. Yeah, at the air show at Andrews AFB, the B-52 had to maneuver slowly as not to exceed its structural strength. I understand that B-52 pilots have to be careful when they fly the B-52, for this reason. By comparison, the B-1 flew just like a fighter plane. Beautiful. >And when you look up the word 'sexy' in the dictionary, you will find a >picture of the B-1. That's a good one!
lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (Loyd Enochs) (06/05/91)
From: "Loyd Enochs" <lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil> In Volume 7 : Issue 38, John A. Weeks III sez: >You have to be careful with the word grounded....If the cold war >suddenly heated up, the B-1 would have been ungrounded and used as >planned. Training missions were curtailed, though. Sorry for the confusion. We mean the same thing. >The B-1 has a very good record of completing missions that >are assigned to it, something over 98% if memory serves me (based on >what the tour guide at Dyess told me). That's probably true, but the B-1's mission has been curtailed due to... >..had some teething problems. Some of the capabilitys that >the plane was supposed to have turned out to be slightly ahead of what >can be produced at that time. The electronic warfare systems are >being upgraded. Sounds like a problem to me! If the aircraft does not have all the capability it "was supposed to have", then it is not fully mission capable in terms of the reason it was purchased. If, in order to raise the effectiveness numbers, the AF has lowered mission standards or removed mission requirements, then the numbers are being "crunched" untruthfully. I agree: the B-1 was a fast-track project. I agree: no prototypes existed. But avionics upgrades are a given for any recent airframe (as the state of the art expands) and not an excuse for significant downtime. Besides, by the time a new aircraft model has been completely deployed to field units (i.e., production run completed), 6 years after the first delivery of the aircraft to an operational unit, I would have expected a much more robust and mature aircraft than we got. Here are some numbers the 96th Bombardment Wing crunched. For Feb 1989 (four years after Dyess got it's first B-1) Dyess had a Fully Mission Capable rate of zero and scheduled flights were canceled because of maintenance 13.7% of the time. The mission capability rate was 38.8% and the total Non-Mission Capable rate was 55.6% for Feb 89. As a taxpayer, I don't think I got my money's worth. Agreed - it is a *beautiful* bird and if any of you have a chance to get "up close and personal" with one, DON'T BLOW THE CHANCE! Loyd M. Enochs (ex-USAF) - Dynamics Research Corporation - Andover, MA Munitions Maintenance, 74-80 - Computer Programmer/Analyst,80-87