| B-1 Lancer | |
|---|---|
| A B-1B flying over the Pacific Ocean. | |
| Role | Supersonic Strategic bomber |
| National origin | United States |
| Manufacturer | North American Rockwell/Rockwell International Boeing |
| First flight | 23 December 1974 |
| Introduction | 1 October 1986 |
| Status | In service |
| Primary user | United States Air Force |
| Number built | B-1A: 4 B-1B: 100 |
| Unit cost | US$283.1 million in 1998 (B-1B)[1] |
The Rockwell (now part of Boeing) B-1 Lancer[N 1] is a four-engine variable-sweep wing strategic bomber used by the United States Air Force (USAF). First envisioned in the 1960s as a supersonic bomber with sufficient range and payload to replace the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, it developed primarily into a low-level penetrator with long range and supersonic speed capability at high altitude.
Designed by Rockwell International, the bomber's development was delayed multiple times over its history, as the theory of strategic balance changed from flexible response to mutually assured destruction and back again. This change in stance repeatedly demanded then ignored the need for manned bombers. The initial B-1A version was developed in the early 1970s, but its production was canceled, and only four prototypes were built. The need for a new platform once again surfaced in the early 1980s, and the aircraft resurfaced as the B-1B version with the focus on low-level penetration bombing. However by this point development of stealth technology was promising an aircraft of dramatically improved capability. Production went ahead as the B-1B would be operational before these "Advanced Technology Bomber" concepts, during a period when the B-52 would be increasingly vulnerable. It entered service in 1986 with the USAF Strategic Air Command as a nuclear bomber.
In the 1990s, the B-1B was converted to conventional bombing use. It first served in combat during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and again during the NATO action in Kosovo the following year. The B-1B continues to support U.S. and NATO military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Lancer is the supersonic component of the USAF's long-range bomber force, along with the subsonic B-52 and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. The bomber is commonly called the "Bone" (originally from "B-One"). With the retirement of the General Dynamics/Grumman EF-111A Raven in 1998 and the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in 2006, the B-1B is the U.S. military's only active variable-sweep wing aircraft. The B-1B is expected to continue to serve into the 2020s, when it is to be supplemented by the Next Generation Bomber.
Contents |
In December 1957, the U.S. Air Force selected North American Aviation's proposal to replace the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress with the B-70 Valkyrie.[2] The Valkyrie was a six-engine bomber that could reach Mach 3 speeds at high altitude (70,000 feet / 21,000 m)[3] to avoid interceptor aircraft, the only effective anti-bomber weapon in the 1950s.[4] Soviet interceptors were already unable to intercept the high-flying Lockheed U-2;[5] and the Valkyrie would fly at similar altitudes and much higher speeds.[4] By the late 1950s, however, anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) could threaten high-altitude aircraft,[6] as demonstrated by the 1960 downing of Gary Powers's U-2.[7]
The USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) began moving its bombers to low-level penetration before the U-2 downing. This tactic greatly reduces radar detection distances by use of terrain masking.[8] At that time SAMs were ineffective against low-flying aircraft.[8][9] Also during this era, low flying aircraft were difficult to detect by higher flying interceptors since their radar systems could not readily pick out opposing aircraft against the radar clutter from ground reflections. Planners outlined a series of low-level profiles for the B-70, but higher drag at low level limited the B-70 to subsonic speed while dramatically decreasing its range.[6] The result would be an aircraft with similar speed but less range than the B-52 it was meant to replace. Unsuited for this new role and because of a growing intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, the B-70 bomber program was canceled in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy,[4][10] and the two XB-70 prototypes were used in a supersonic research program.[11]
The Convair B-58 Hustler, designed to requirements essentially calling for a shorter-range B-70, demonstrated these problems in practice. Like the B-70, the B-58 had been designed to overfly the Soviet Union at high altitudes and Mach 2 speeds, delivering a single weapon from an external store. When forced into the low-level role, the aircraft had severely limited range, greatly limiting the selection of targets it could attack. It was also a hugely expensive aircraft to purchase and operate. In June 1960 the Air Force released SOR 183 calling for a new aircraft dedicated to the low-level role.[12] This emerged in 1965 as the FB-111A, a smaller and less expensive aircraft than the B-58 which offered roughly equal performance in strategic terms, yet was much more survivable and had considerable multi-purpose capabilities.
Although never intended for the low-level role, the B-52's flexibility allowed it to outlast its intended successor as the nature of the air war environment changed. The B-52's large airframe with internal room allowed the addition of improved electronic countermeasures suites.[13] During the Vietnam War the concept that all future wars would be nuclear was turned on its head, and the "big belly" modifications increased the B-52's total bomb load to 60,000 pounds (27,215 kg),[14] turning it into a powerful tactical aircraft as well. A combination of these features in a penetrator design was an obvious development.[9]
The first post-B-70 strategic penetrator study was known as the Subsonic Low Altitude Bomber (SLAB), which was completed in 1961. This produced a design that looked more like an airliner than a bomber, with a large swept wing, T-tail and large high-bypass engines.[15] This was followed by the similar Extended Range Strike Aircraft (ERSA), which added a variable-sweep wing planform, something in vogue in the aviation industry. ERSA envisioned a relatively small aircraft with a 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg) payload and a range of 8,750 nautical miles (16,200 km), with 2,500 nmi (4,600 km) being flown at low altitudes. In August 1963 the similar Low-Altitude Manned Penetrator (LAMP) design was completed, which called for an aircraft with a 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) bomb load and somewhat shorter range of 7,150 nmi (13,200 km).[16][17]
These all culminated in the October 1963 Advanced Manned Precision Strike System (AMPSS), which led to industry studies at Boeing, General Dynamics, and North American.[18][19] In mid-1964, the USAF had revised its requirements and retitled the project as Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA), which differed from AMPSS primarily in that it also demanded a high-speed high-altitude capability, albeit slower than the Valkyrie at about Mach 2.[20] Given the lengthy series of design studies, Rockwell engineers joked that the new name actually stood for "America's Most Studied Aircraft".[21][22]
The arguments that led to the cancellation of the B-70 program had led some to question the need for a new strategic bomber of any sort. The Air Force was adamant about retaining bombers as part of the nuclear triad concept that included bombers, ICBMs, and Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in a combined package that complicated any potential defense. They argued that the bomber was needed to attack hardened military targets and to provide a safe counterforce option because the bombers could be quickly launched into safe loitering areas where they could not be attacked. However, the introduction of the SLBM mooted the mobility and survivability argument, and a newer generation of ICBMs had the accuracy and speed needed to attack point targets. During this time, ICBMs were seen as a less costly option based on their lower unit cost,[23] but development costs were much higher.[6] Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara preferred ICBMs over bombers for the Air Force portion of the deterrent force[24] and felt a new expensive bomber was not needed.[25][26] McNamara limited the AMSA program to studies and component development beginning in 1964.[26]
Program studies continued; IBM and Autonetics were awarded AMSA advanced avionics study contracts in 1968.[26][27] McNamara remained opposed to the program in favor of upgrading the existing B-52 fleet and adding nearly 300 FB-111s for shorter range roles then being filled by the B-58.[9][26] He again vetoed funding for AMSA aircraft development in 1968.[27]
President Richard Nixon re-established the program after taking office, keeping with his administration's flexible response strategy that required a broad range of options short of general nuclear war.[28] Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, reviewed the programs and decided to lower the numbers of FB-111s, since they lacked the desired range, and recommended that the AMSA design studies be accelerated.[28] In April 1969 the program officially became the B-1A.[9][28] This was the first entry in the new bomber designation series, first created in 1962. The Air Force issued a request for proposals in November 1969.[29]
Proposals were submitted by Boeing, General Dynamics and North American Rockwell in January 1970.[29][30] In June 1970, North American Rockwell's design was selected and was awarded a development contract.[29] The original program called for two test airframes, five flyable aircraft, and 40 engines. This was cut in 1971 to one ground and three flight test aircraft.[31] The company changed its name to Rockwell International and named its aircraft division North American Aircraft Operations in 1973.[32] A fourth prototype, built to production standards, was ordered in the fiscal year 1976 budget. Two hundred forty B-1As were planned to be built, with initial operational capability set for 1979.[33]
Rockwell's design featured a number of features common to 1960s U.S. designs. Among these was the use of a "crew capsule" that ejected as a unit during emergencies, which was introduced to improve survivability in the case of an ejection at high speed. Additionally, the design featured large variable-sweep wings in order to provide both high lift during takeoff and landing, and low drag during a high-speed dash phase.[34] With the wings set to their widest position the aircraft had considerably better lift and power than the B-52, allowing it to operate from a much wider variety of bases. Penetration of the USSR's defenses would take place at supersonic speed, crossing them as quickly as possible before entering into the less defended "heartland" where speeds could be reduced again.[34] The large size and fuel capacity of the design would allow this portion of the flight to be relatively long.
In order to achieve the required Mach 2 performance at high altitudes, the exhaust nozzles and air intake inlets were variable.[35] Initially, it had been expected that a Mach 1.2 performance could be achieved at low altitude, which required that titanium be used in critical areas in the fuselage and wing structure. The low altitude performance requirement was later lowered to Mach 0.85, reducing the amount of titanium and therefore cost.[31] A pair of small vanes mounted near the nose are part of an active vibration damping system that smooths out the otherwise bumpy low-altitude ride.[36] The first three B-1As featured an escape capsule that ejected the cockpit with all four crew members inside. The fourth B-1A was equipped with a conventional ejection seat for each crew member.[37]
The B-1A mockup review occurred in late October 1971.[38] The first B-1A prototype (s/n 74-0158) flew on 23 December 1974. Three more B-1A prototypes followed.[39] As the program continued the per-unit cost continued to rise in part because of high inflation during that period. In 1970, the estimated unit cost was $40 million, and by 1975 this figure had climbed to $70 million.[40]
In 1976, Viktor Belenko defected to Japan with his MiG-25 "Foxbat".[41] During debriefing he described a new "super-Foxbat" (almost certainly referring to the MiG-31) that had look-down/shoot-down radar systems in order to attack cruise missiles. This would also make any low-level penetration aircraft "visible" and easy to attack.[42] Given that its armament suite was similar to the B-52, and it now appeared no more likely to survive Soviet airspace than the B-52, the program was increasingly questioned.[43] In particular, Senator William Proxmire continually derided it in public, arguing it was an outlandishly expensive dinosaur. During the 1976 federal election campaign, Jimmy Carter made it one of the Democratic Party's platforms, saying "The B-1 bomber is an example of a proposed system which should not be funded and would be wasteful of taxpayers' dollars."[44]
When Carter took office in 1977 he ordered a review of the entire program. By this point the projected cost of the program had risen to over $100 million per aircraft, although this was lifetime cost over 20 years. He was informed of the relatively new work on stealth aircraft that had started in 1975, and he decided that this was a far better avenue of approach than the B-1. Pentagon officials also stated that the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) launched from the existing B-52 fleet would give the USAF equal capability of penetrating Soviet airspace. With a range of 1,500 miles (2,400 km), the ALCM could be launched well outside the range of any Soviet defenses and penetrate at low altitude just like a bomber, but in much greater numbers at a lower cost.[45] A small number of B-52s could launch hundreds of ALCMs, saturating the defense. A program to improve the B-52 and develop and deploy the ALCM would cost perhaps 20% of the price to deploy the planned 244 B-1As.[44]
On 30 June 1977 Carter announced that the B-1A would be canceled in favor of ICBMs, SLBMs, and a fleet of modernized B-52s armed with ALCMs.[33] Carter called it "one of the most difficult decisions that I've made since I've been in office." No mention of the stealth work was made public with the program being top secret, but today it is known that in early 1978 he authorized the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project, which eventually led to the B-2 Spirit.[46]
Domestically, the reaction to the cancellation was split along partisan lines. The Department of Defense was surprised by the announcement; internal expectations were that the number of B-1s ordered would be cut down to around 150.[47] Congressman Robert Dornan (R-CA) claimed, "They're breaking out the vodka and caviar in Moscow."[48] In contrast, it appears the Soviets were more concerned by large numbers of ALCMs representing a much greater threat than a smaller number of B-1s. Soviet news agency TASS commented that "the implementation of these militaristic plans has seriously complicated efforts for the limitation of the strategic arms race."[44] Western military leaders were generally happy with the decision. NATO commander Alexander Haig described the ALCM as an "attractive alternative" to the B-1. French General Georges Buis stated "The B-1 is a formidable weapon, but not terribly useful. For the price of one bomber, you can have 200 cruise missiles."[44]
Flight tests of the four B-1A prototypes for the B-1A program continued through April 1981. The program included 70 flights totaling 378 hours. A top speed of Mach 2.22 was reached by the second B-1A. Engine testing also continued during this time with the YF101 engines totaling almost 7,600 hours.[49]
It was during this period that the Soviets started to exert themselves in several new theaters of action, in particular through Cuba during the Angolan Civil War starting in 1975 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The U.S. strategy to this point was containment of Communism and war in Europe, which almost all military planning had been focused on. These newer actions revealed that the military was simply incapable of supporting any sort of effort outside these narrow confines.[50]
The Army responded by accelerating its Rapid Deployment Forces concept but suffered from major problems with airlift and sealift capability.[51] In order to slow an enemy invasion of other countries, air power was critical; however the key Iran-Afghanistan border was outside the range of the U.S. Navy's carrier-based attack aircraft, leaving this role to the Air Force. Although the B-52 had the range to support on-demand global missions, its long runway requirements limited the forward basing possibilities.[52]
During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan campaigned heavily on the platform that Carter was weak on defense, using the cancellation of the B-1 program as a prime example, a theme he continued using into the 1980s.[53] During this time Carter's defense secretary, Harold Brown, announced the stealth bomber project, apparently implying that this was the reason for the B-1 cancellation.[54]
On taking office, Reagan was faced with the same decision as Carter before: whether to continue with the B-1 for the short term, or to wait for the development of the ATB, a much more advanced aircraft. Air Force studies suggested that the existing B-52 fleet with ALCM would remain a credible threat until 1985, as it was predicted that 75% of the B-52 force would survive to attack its targets.[55] After this, the introduction of the SA-10 missile, the MiG-31 interceptor and the first Soviet AWACS systems would make the B-52 increasingly vulnerable.[56]
During 1981, budget funds were given to a new study for a bomber for the 1990s time-frame. These studies led to the Long-Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA) project which compared the B-1, F-111 and ATB as possible solutions. An emphasis was placed on the design being multi-role, as opposed to a purely strategic weapon.[55] At the time it was believed the B-1 could be in operation before the ATB, covering the time period between the B-52's increasing vulnerability and the introduction of the ATB. Reagan decided the best solution was to purchase both the B-1 and ATB (later B-2), and this eventually led to Reagan's 2 October 1981 announcement that 100 aircraft of a new version of the B-1 was being ordered to fill the LRCA role.[34][57]
In January 1982 the U.S. Air Force awarded two contracts to Rockwell worth a combined $2.2 billion for the development and production of 100 new B-1 bombers.[58] Numerous changes were made to the design to better fit it to real-world missions, resulting in the new B-1B.[45] These changes included a reduction in maximum speed,[54] which allowed the variable-aspect intake ramps to be replaced by simpler fixed geometry intake ramps in the newer design. This reduced the B version's radar signature; the reduction in radar cross-section was seen as a good trade off for the speed decrease.[34] High subsonic speeds at low altitude became a focus area for the revised design,[54] and low-level speeds were increased from about Mach 0.85 to 0.92. The B-1B has the capability for maximum speeds of Mach 1.25 at higher altitudes.[34][59]
The B-1B's maximum takeoff weight was increased to 477,000 pounds (216,000 kg) from the B-1A's 395,000 pounds (179,000 kg).[34][60] The weight increase was to allow for takeoff with a full internal fuel load and for external weapons to be carried. Rockwell engineers were able to reinforce critical areas and lighten non-critical areas of the airframe, so the increase in empty weight was minimal.[60] In order to deal with the introduction of the MiG-31 and other aircraft with look-down capability, the B-1B's electronic warfare suite was significantly upgraded.[34]
Opposition to the plan was widespread within Congress. Critics pointed out that many of the original problems remained in both areas of performance and expense.[61] In particular it seemed the B-52 fitted with electronics similar to the B-1B would be equally able to avoid interception, as the speed advantage of the B-1 was now minimal. It also appeared that the "interim" time frame served by the B-1B would be less than a decade, being rendered obsolete shortly after the introduction of a much more capable ATB design.[62] The primary argument in favor of the B-1 was its large conventional payload, and that its takeoff performance allowed it to operate with a credible bombload from a much wider variety of airfields. The Air Force spread production subcontracts across many congressional districts, making the aircraft more popular on Capitol Hill.[55]
B-1As #2 and #4 were modified to include B-1B systems. The first one was completed and began B-1B flight testing in March 1983. The first production B-1B was rolled-out on 4 September 1984 and first flew in 18 October 1984.[63] The 100th and final B-1B was delivered on 2 May 1988;[39] as a point of controversy, even before the last B-1B was delivered the Air Force had determined that the plane was vulnerable to Soviet air defenses.[64]
The B-1 has been upgraded since production, beginning with the "Conventional Mission Upgrade Program" (CMUP) This program added a new MIL-STD-1760 smart-weapons interface to enable the use of precision-guided conventional weapons. CMUP began with Block A, which was the standard B-1B with the capability to deliver non-precision gravity bombs. Block B brought an improved Synthetic Aperture Radar, and some upgrades to the Defensive Countermeasures System and was fielded in 1995. Block C provided an 'Enhanced Capability' for delivery of up to 30 Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs) per sortie with modifications made to 50 bomb racks.[65]
Block D added a "Near Precision Capability" for B-1 aircrews to accurately put bombs on target with improved weapons and targeting systems, and added advanced secure communications capabilities.[65] The first part of the electronic countermeasures upgrade added Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), ALE-50 Towed Decoy System, and anti-jam radios.[66][67][68] Block E upgraded the avionics computers and incorporated the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air to Surface Standoff Munition), substantially improving the bomber's capability. Upgrades were completed in September 2006.[69] Block F was the Defensive Systems Upgrade Program (DSUP) to improve the aircraft's electronic countermeasures and jamming capabilities, but it was canceled in December 2002 due to cost overruns and schedule slips.[70]
The Sniper XR targeting pod is being integrated on the B-1 fleet. The pod is mounted on an external hardpoint at the aircraft's chin near the forward bomb bay.[71] Following accelerated testing, the Sniper pod was fielded in summer 2008.[72][73] Future precision munitions include the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb.[74] In 2011, the Air Force was considering upgrading the B-1s with multiple ejector racks so that they can carry three times as many smaller JDAMs than currently.[75]
Subsequent upgrades will provide for better network-centric capability. A program was begun in 2005 to provide integrated data linking and upgraded crew station displays.[76] A B-1 equipped with the Fully Integrated Data Link (FIDL) first flew on 29 July 2009. The FIDL allows for electronic data sharing so the crew will no longer have to enter information between systems by hand. The USAF is expected to place a contract to have FIDL installed in the entire fleet by the end of 2010.[77] In July 2011, Boeing announced the Integrated Battle Station (IBS) program to modify the B-1B fleet. Upgrades include the integration of new display units in the cockpit, a Central Integrated Test System; intended to improve situational awareness. Two monochrome displays are replaced by four multi-function color displays; the obsolete Aircraft Performance Monitoring Computer is replaced by an upgraded unit.[78]
The B-1 has a blended wing body configuration, with variable-sweep wing, four turbofan engines, and triangular fin control surfaces. The wings can sweep from 15 degrees to 67.5 degrees (full forward to full sweep). Forward-swept wing settings are used for takeoff, landings and high-altitude maximum cruise. Aft-swept wing settings are used in high subsonic and supersonic flight.[79] The wings of the B-1B originally were cleared for use at settings of 15, 25, 55 and 67.5 degrees. The 45-degree setting was later cleared in 1998–99 timeframe. The B-1's variable-sweep wings and thrust-to-weight ratio provide it with better takeoff performance, allowing it to use more runways than previous bombers.[80] The length of the aircraft presented a flexing problem due to air turbulence at low altitude. To alleviate this, Rockwell included small triangular fin control surfaces or vanes near the nose on the B-1. The B-1's Structural Mode Control System rotates the vanes automatically to counteract turbulence and smooth out the ride.[81]
Unlike the B-1A, the B-1B made no attempt at Mach 2+ speeds. Its maximum speed is Mach 1.25 (about 950 mph or 1,530 km/h at altitude),[82] but its low-level speed increased to Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h).[59] Technically, the current version of the aircraft can exceed its speed restriction, but not without risking potential damage to its structure and air intakes. To help lower its radar cross section (RCS), the B-1B uses serpentine air intake ducts and fixed intake ramps, which limit its speed compared to the B-1A. Vanes in the intake ducts serve to deflect and shield radar emissions from the highly reflective engine compressor blades.[83]
The B-1A's engine was modified slightly to produce the GE F101-102 for the B-1B, with an emphasis on durability, and increased efficiency.[84] The core of this engine has since been re-used in several other engine designs, including the GE F110 which has seen use in the F-14 Tomcat, F-15K/SG variants and most recent versions of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.[85] It is also the basis for the non-afterburning GE F118 used in the B-2 Spirit and the U-2S.[85] However its greatest success was forming the core of the extremely popular CFM56 civil engine, which can be found on some versions of practically every small-to-medium sized airliner.[86] The nose gear cover door has controls for the auxiliary power units (APUs), which allow for quick starts of the APUs upon order to scramble.[87][88]
The B-1's main computer is the IBM AP-101, which is also used on the Space Shuttle orbiter and the B-52 bomber.[89] The computer is programmed with the JOVIAL programming language.[90] The Lancer's offensive avionics include the Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) AN/APQ-164 forward-looking offensive passive electronically scanned array radar set with electronic beam steering (and a fixed antenna pointed downward for reduced radar observability), synthetic aperture radar, ground moving target indicator (MTI), and terrain-following radar modes, Doppler navigation, radar altimeter, and an inertial navigation suite.[91] The B-1B Block D upgrade added a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver beginning in 1995.[92]
The B-1's defensive electronics include the Eaton AN/ALQ-161A radar warning and defensive jamming equipment,[66] which has three sets of antennas; one at the front base of each wing and the third rear-facing in the tail radome.[93][94] The ALQ-161 is linked to a total of eight AN/ALE-49 flare dispensers located on top behind the canopy, which are handled by the AN/ASQ-184 avionics management system.[95] Each AN/ALE-49 dispenser has a capacity of 12 MJU-23A/B flares. The MJU-23A/B flare is one of the world's largest infrared countermeasure flares at a weight of over 3.3 pounds (1.5 kg).[96] The B-1 has also been equipped to carry the ALE-50 Towed Decoy System.[97]
Also aiding the B-1's survivability is its relatively low radar cross-section (RCS). Although not technically a stealth aircraft in a comprehensive sense, thanks to the aircraft's structure, serpentine intake paths and use of radar-absorbent material its RCS is about 1/50th that of the B-52 (probably about 26 ft² or 2.4 m²), although the Lancer is not substantially smaller in mass than the Stratofortress.[95][98]
The second B-1B, "The Star of Abilene", was the first B-1B delivered to the USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) in June 1985. Initial operational capability was reached on 1 October 1986 and the B-1B was placed on nuclear alert status.[99][100] The B-1 received the official name "Lancer" on 15 March 1990. However, the bomber has been commonly called the "Bone"; a nickname that appears to stem from an early newspaper article on the aircraft wherein its name was phonetically spelled out as "B-ONE" with the hyphen inadvertently omitted.[101]
In late 1990 engine fires in two Lancers caused the grounding of the fleet. The cause was traced back to problems in the first-stage fan, the aircraft were placed on "limited alert"; in other words, they were grounded unless a nuclear war broke out. Following inspections and repairs they were returned to duty beginning on 6 February 1991.[102][103] Due to the engine problems, the B-1B was effectively sidelined in the First Gulf War.[64]
Originally designed strictly for nuclear war, the B-1's development as an effective conventional bomber was delayed until the 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union had brought the B-1's nuclear role into question, leading to President George H. W. Bush ordering a $3 billion conventional refit.[104] By 1991, the B-1 had a fledgling conventional capability, forty of them able to drop the 500 lb (230 kg) Mk-82 General Purpose (GP) bomb, although mostly from low altitude. Despite being cleared for this role, the problems with the engines precluded their use in Operation Desert Storm.[105] B-1s were primarily reserved for strategic nuclear strike missions at this time, providing the role of airborne nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union.[105] The B-52 was more suited to the role of conventional warfare and it was used by coalition forces instead.[105]
After the de-activation of Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the establishment of the Air Combat Command (ACC) in 1992, the B-1 developed a greater conventional weapons capability. Part of this development was the start-up of the US Air Force Weapons School B-1 Division.[106] In 1994, two additional B-1 bomb wings were also created in the Air National Guard, with former fighter wings in the Kansas Air National Guard and the Georgia Air National Guard converting to the aircraft.[107] By the mid-1990s, the B-1 could employ GP weapons as well as various CBUs. By the end of the 1990s, with the advent of the "Block D" upgrade, the B-1 boasted a full array of guided and unguided munitions. The B-1B no longer carries nuclear weapons;[34] its nuclear capability was disabled by 1995 with the removal of nuclear arming and fuzing hardware.[108]
Operationally, the B-1 was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq, during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, employing unguided GP weapons. B-1s have been subsequently used in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) and, most notably, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[34] The B-1's role in Operation Allied Force has been criticized as the aircraft was not used until after enemy defenses had been suppressed by aircraft like the older B-52 it was intended to replace.[64] The B-1 has deployed an array of conventional weapons in war zones, most notably the GBU-31, 2,000 lb (900 kg) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).[34] JDAM munitions were heavily used by the B-1 over Iraq, notably on 7 April 2003 in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam Hussein and his two sons.[109] At the height of the Iraq War, a B-1 was permanently airborne to provide rapid precision bombardment upon important targets as intelligence identified them.[110] During Operation Enduring Freedom, the B-1 was able to raise its mission capable rate to 79%.[97]
The B-1 has higher survivability and speed when compared to the older B-52, which it was intended to replace. It also holds 61 FAI world records for speed, payload, distance, and time-to-climb in different aircraft weight classes.[111][112] In November 1983, three B-1Bs set a long distance record for the aircraft, which demonstrated its ability to conduct extended mission lengths to strike anywhere in the world and return back to base without any stops.[113] The National Aeronautic Association recognized the B-1B for completing one of the 10 most memorable record flights for 1994.[97]
Of the 100 B-1Bs built, 93 remained in 2000 after losses in accidents. In June 2001, the Pentagon sought to place a third of its then 93-strong fleet into reserve; this proposal resulted in several Air National Guard officers and members of Congress lobbying against the proposal, including the drafting of an amendment to prevent such cuts.[64] The 2001 proposal had been intended to allow money to be diverted to further upgrades to the remaining B-1Bs, such as computer modernisation.[64] In 2003, accompanied by the removal of B-1Bs from the two bomb wings in the Air National Guard, the USAF decided to retire 33 aircraft to concentrate its budget on maintaining availability of the remaining.[114] In 2004 a new appropriation bill called for some of the retired aircraft to return to service,[115] and the USAF returned seven mothballed bombers to service to increase the fleet to 67 aircraft.[116]
On 14 July 2007, the Associated Press reported on the growing USAF presence in Iraq as a result of "surge" in forces. Also mentioned is the reintroduction of B-1Bs to be a close-at-hand "platform" to support Coalition ground forces.[117] B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2008 B-1s have been used there in an "armed overwatch" role. They loiter over the region maintaining surveillance, ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted.[118][119]
The B-1B underwent a series of flight tests using a 50/50 mix of synthetic and petroleum fuel; on 19 March 2008, a B-1B from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, became the first US Air Force aircraft to fly at supersonic speed using a synthetic fuel during a flight over Texas and New Mexico. This was conducted as part of an ongoing Air Force testing and certification program to reduce reliance on traditional oil sources.[120] On 4 August 2008, a B-1B flew the first Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod equipped combat sortie where the crew successfully targeted enemy ground forces and dropped a GBU-38 guided bomb in Afghanistan.[72]
The USAF had 65 B-1Bs in service in September 2010, split between four squadrons organized into two Bomb Wings: the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess AFB, Texas, and the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.[78][121] In March 2011, B-1Bs from Ellsworth Air Force Base attacked undisclosed targets in Libya as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn.[122]
With upgrades to keep the B-1 viable, the Air Force may keep the bomber in service until approximately 2038.[123] Despite upgrades, the B-1 has repair and cost issues resulting from its age. For every flight hour it needs 48.4 hours of repair. The fuel, repairs and other needs for a 12-hour mission costs $720,000 as of 2010.[124] In June 2010, senior US Air Force officials met to consider retiring the entire fleet to meet budget cuts.[125] It is expected to be supplemented by the Next Generation Bombers in the 2020s.[126]
The B-1A was the original B-1 design with variable engine intakes and Mach 2.2 top speed. Four prototypes were built; no production units were manufactured.[116][127]
The B-1B is a revised B-1 design with reduced radar signature and a top speed of Mach 1.25. It was otherwise optimized for low-level penetration. A total of 100 B-1Bs were produced.[127]
The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft.[128] The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% less range.[129]
Existing external hardpoints would be modified to allow multiple conventional weapons to be carried, increasing overall loadout. For air-to-air defense, an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar would be added and some existing hardpoints modified to carry air-to-air missiles. If needed the B-1R could escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters with its Mach 2+ speed. Few aircraft are capable of sustained speeds over Mach 2.[128]
Nine B-1s have been lost due to accidents. Between 1984 and 2001, 17 crew members and people onboard have been killed in B-1 crashes.[139]
Data from USAF Fact Sheet,[97] Jenkins,[153] Pace,[59] Lee[66] except where noted
General characteristics
Performance
Armament
Avionics
| External images | |
|---|---|
| Rockwell B-1A Cutaway | |
| Rockwell B-1A Cutaway from Flightglobal.com | |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
