Rockwell B-1 Lancer
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. The initial B-1A version was developed in the early
1970s, but its production was canceled, and only four prototypes were
built. In 1980, the B-1 resurfaced as the B-1B version with the focus on
low-level penetration bombing. 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.
Development
Background
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 unable to intercept the high-flying
Lockheed U-2;
[5] the Valkyrie was to 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. Higher drag at low level operations 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]
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.
[12] 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),
[13]
turning it into a powerful tactical aircraft as well. In spite of its
flexibility, the B-52 was far from perfect; higher speed would aid even a
low-level approach in the strategic role, something the
F-111 took advantage of.
[9]
Design studies and delays
The first post-B-70 study was known as the
Subsonic Low Altitude Bomber (SLAB), which was completed in 1961. 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).
[14][15]
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.
[16][17] 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.
[18]
Given the lengthy series of design studies, Rockwell engineers joked
that the new name actually stood for "America's Most Studied Aircraft".
[19][20]
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,
[21] 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
[22] and felt a new expensive bomber was not needed.
[23][24] McNamara limited the AMSA program to studies and component development beginning in 1964.
[24]
Program studies continued;
IBM and
Autonetics were awarded AMSA advanced avionics study contracts in 1968.
[24][25] 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][24] He again vetoed funding for AMSA aircraft development in 1968.
[25]
B-1A program
A B-1A showing its underside in 1981
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.
[26] 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.
[26] In April 1969 the program officially became the
B-1A.
[9][26] 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.
[27]
Proposals were submitted by Boeing, General Dynamics and North American Rockwell in January 1970.
[27][28] In June 1970, North American Rockwell's design was selected and was awarded a development contract.
[27]
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.
[29] The company changed its name to
Rockwell International and named its aircraft division North American Aircraft Operations in 1973.
[30]
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.
[31]
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.
[32]
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.
[32] The large size and fuel capacity of the design would allow this portion of the flight to be relatively long.
B-1A nose section with ejection capsule denoted. Three of the four B-1As were fitted with escape capsules.
In order to achieve the required Mach 2 performance at high altitudes, the exhaust nozzles and air intake inlets were variable.
[33]
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.
[29] 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.
[34] 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.
[35]
The B-1A mockup review occurred in late October 1971.
[36] The first B-1A prototype (s/n 74-0158) flew on 23 December 1974. Three more B-1A prototypes followed.
[37] 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.
[38]
New problems and cancellation
In 1976,
Viktor Belenko defected to Japan with his
MiG-25 "Foxbat".
[39] 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.
[40]
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 and remained highly controversial.
[41] 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."
[42]
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.
[43]
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.
[42]
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.
[31]
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.
[44]
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.
[45] Congressman
Robert Dornan (R-CA) claimed, "They're breaking out the vodka and caviar in Moscow."
[46]
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."
[42] 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."
[42]
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.
[47]
Shifting priorities
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.
[48]
The Army responded by accelerating its
Rapid Deployment Forces concept but suffered from major problems with airlift and sealift capability.
[49]
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.
[50]
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.
[51] 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.
[52]
B-1B program
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.
[53] 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.
[54]
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.
[53]
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.
[32][55]
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.
[56] Numerous changes were made to the design to better fit it to real-world missions, resulting in the new
B-1B.
[43] These changes included a reduction in maximum speed,
[52] 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.
[32] High subsonic speeds at low altitude became a focus area for the revised design,
[52]
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.
[32][57]
B-1B banking during a demonstration in 2004
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).
[32][58]
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.
[58] 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.
[32]
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.
[59]
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.
[60]
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.
[53]
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.
[61] The 100th and final B-1B was delivered on 2 May 1988;
[37]
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.
[62]
Upgrades
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.
[63]
B-1B releasing bombs and ejecting a MJU 23 decoy flare
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.
[63] The first part of the electronic countermeasures upgrade added
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM),
ALE-50 Towed Decoy System, and anti-jam radios.
[64][65][66] 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.
[67]
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.
[68]
Sniper XR pod hangs from the chin of an
Edwards AFB-based B-1
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.
[69] Following accelerated testing, the Sniper pod was fielded in summer 2008.
[70][71] Future precision munitions include the
GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb.
[72]
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.
[73]
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.
[74]
In 2011 Air Force is considering upgrading the B-1s with multiple
ejector racks so that they can carry three times as many smaller JDAMs
than currently.
[75]
Design
B-1B nose view with small triangular fins shown
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.
[76]
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.
[77]
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.
[78]
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),
[79] but its low-level speed increased to Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h).
[57]
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.
[80]
A B-1B makes a high-speed,
transonic pass at the Pensacola Beach air show, 2003
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.
[81] 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.
[82] It is also the basis for the non-
afterburning GE F118 used in the B-2 Spirit and the
U-2S.
[82] 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.
[83] The nose gear cover door has controls for the
auxiliary power units (APUs), main gear doors and nearby entry ladder.
[84] Controls there allow for quick starts of the APUs upon order to scramble.
[85]
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.
[86] The computer is programmed with the
JOVIAL programming language.
[87] 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.
[88] The B-1B Block D upgrade added a
Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver beginning in 1995.
[89]
The B-1's defensive electronics include the
Eaton AN/ALQ-161A radar warning and defensive
jamming equipment,
[64] which has three sets of antennas; one at the front base of each wing and the third rear-facing in the tail
radome.
[90][91] 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.
[92]
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).
[93] The B-1 has also been equipped to carry the
ALE-50 Towed Decoy System.
[94]
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.
[92][95]
Operational history
Strategic Air Command
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.
[96][97]
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.
[98]
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.
[99][100] Due to the engine problems, the B-1B was effectively sidelined in the
First Gulf War.
[62]
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.
[101]
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.
[102]
B-1s were primarily reserved for strategic nuclear strike missions at
this time, providing the role of airborne nuclear deterrent against the
Soviet Union.
[102] The B-52 was more suited to the role of conventional warfare and it was used by coalition forces instead.
[102]
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.
[103] 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.
[104]
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;
[32] its nuclear capability was disabled by 1995 with the removal of nuclear arming and fuzing hardware.
[105]
Conventional role
A B-1B Lancer with wings swept full forward
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.
[32]
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.
[62] 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).
[32] 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.
[106]
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.
[107] During Operation Enduring Freedom, the B-1 was able to raise its
mission capable rate to 79%.
[94]
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.
[108][109]
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.
[110] The
National Aeronautic Association recognized the B-1B for completing one of the 10 most memorable record flights for 1994.
[94]
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.
[62]
The 2001 proposal had been intended to allow money to be diverted to
further upgrades to the remaining B-1Bs, such as computer modernisation.
[62]
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.
[111] In 2004 a new
appropriation bill called for some of the retired aircraft to return to service,
[112] and the USAF returned seven mothballed bombers to service to increase the fleet to 67 aircraft.
[113]
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.
[114]
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.
[115][116]
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.
[117] 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.
[70]
The USAF had 65 B-1Bs in service in September 2010.
[118] In March 2011, B-1Bs from
Ellsworth Air Force Base attacked undisclosed targets in
Libya as part of
Operation Odyssey Dawn.
[119]
With upgrades to keep the B-1 viable, the Air Force may keep the bomber in service until approximately 2038.
[120]
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.
[121] In June 2010, senior US Air Force officials met to consider retiring the entire fleet to meet budget cuts.
[122] It is expected to be supplemented by the
Next Generation Bombers in the 2020s.
[123]
Variants
The rear section showing the B-1A's pointed radome
- B-1A
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.
[113][124]
- B-1B
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.
[124]
- B-1R
The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft.
[125] 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.
[126]
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
Specifications (B-1B)
General characteristics
- Crew: 4 (aircraft commander, copilot, offensive systems officer and defensive systems officer)
- Payload: 125,000 lb (56,700 kg) ; internal and external ordnance combined
- Length: 146 ft (44.5 m)
- Wingspan:
- Extended: 137 ft (41.8 m)
- Swept: 79 ft (24.1 m)
- Height: 34 ft (10.4 m)
- Wing area: 1,950 ft² (181.2 m²)
- Airfoil: NA69-190-2
- Empty weight: 192,000 lb (87,100 kg)
- Loaded weight: 326,000 lb (148,000 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 477,000 lb (216,400 kg)
- Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F101-GE-102 augmented turbofans
- Dry thrust: 14,600 lbf (64.9 kN) each
- Thrust with afterburner: 30,780 lbf (136.92 kN) each
- Fuel capacity, optional: 10,000 U.S. gal (38,000 L) fuel tank for 1–3 internal weapons bays each
Performance
- Maximum speed:
- At altitude: Mach 1.25 (721 knots, 830 mph, 1,340 km/h at 50,000 ft/15,000 m altitude)
- At low level: Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h at 200–500 ft/60-150 m altitude)
- Range: 6,478 nmi (7,456 mi, 11,998 km)
- Combat radius: 2,993 nmi (3,445 mi, 5,543 km)
- Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
- Wing loading: 167 lb/ft² (816 kg/m²)
- Thrust/weight: 0.38
Armament
- Hardpoints: six external hardpoints for 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons currently restricted by START I treaty[70]) and three internal bomb bays for 75,000 lb (34,000 kg) of ordnance.
- Bombs:
Avionics
