"The B-1B Lancer may be slated for retirement ..." Topic

…but it's still got a lot of fight left in it

"As America's secretive new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, continues development, it's clear that the days of America's legacy bomber platforms, the B-2 Spirit and the B-1B Lancer, are numbered. With the B-21 expected to enter into service in the mid-2020s, America's current heavy payload stealth bombers and heavy payload supersonic bombers will begin their transition into retirement, gone the way of previous legendary aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird or the F-117 Nighthawk.

Of course, when looking toward the future, we need to be careful not to discount the present, and if you ask the Air Force, America's only mach-capable heavy payload bomber, the B-1B Lancer, has a whole lot of fight left in it. As the B-21 program works to render the "Bone" obsolete, the Air Force has plans to inject new life into the bomber to make sure it remains a viable platform well after the B-21 takes to the skies…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Meanwhile, older B-52 just keeps on truckin…

I wonder what happens when the B-21 is late. I wonder what happens whey they discover the hourly operating cost of the B-21 is astronomical. I wonder what happens if it's 2025 and we're still in Afghanistan and thanks to whoever gets elected in 2020 we have yet another commitment that requires air support.

End of the day, the retirements will probably not happen on schedule.

The "Bone" has a short life because it's being used for low-altitude flight. That's really hard on the airframe.

The BUFF has spent almost it's entire life impersonating an airliner, flying at high altitude. That's a lot easier on the airframe.

I'm halfway expecting Northrup to propose a 'new' light bomber/strike fighter that uses most of the F23 airframe with an expanded forward fuselage to hold a single rotary launcher.

With every new generation readiness and potential for use has dipped dramatically.

The B2 was meant to take on the worst of the Cold War level threats and still deliver that payload. Now it's a hangar queen that is too expensive to go around the airfield let alone get scratched or wet dropping ordnance on some Taliban mudbrick house.

The B1 is less demanding, but has the same basic problems in that it's also a highly inefficient way of dropping bombs on third world targets.

The B52 meanwhile has long been paid off an any hour you can get out of one is a bonus. It's not free or cheap, but it's the main mudmover of the Airforce in terms of tonnage dropped and ready availability.

So why don't we build new B52's: same design, new parts.

From what I've read, they largely are new aircraft, given so many parts being replaced over time.

Retirement of the B-1s seems premature. Surely they can get at least a couple more decades from them.

Again, Thresher, the problem is that flying down in the weeds terrain-following is murder on the airframe. Lots of high-impact loads, and most of them are in the irreplaceable wing hinge box.

B52s don't fly that way, so can last a lot longer in terms of hours flown.

I remember seeing the first B-1 flying at Offutt. I think during General Davis' retirement ceremony. But, then again, I may have heard it fly overhead because I think it was too cloudy to see anything.