B-1A vs. B-1B

Delta Force

Banned
What if an aircraft based on the B-1A had been selected for production instead of the B-1B? The B-1A had early versions of technologies and equipment later used on the B-1B, but for the purposes of this we will assume that the B-1A program continues for a few years. The avionics, ECM, ALCM compatibility, and increased gross takeoff weight are all implemented. The major difference is with the airframe. Rather than using fixed inlets and being limited to Mach 1.2 as on the B-1B, this B-1 (which we'll call the B-1A still to avoid confusion) will have variable intakes and a maximum dash speed of Mach 2.3. We'll assume the RCS reduction program also isn't implemented, so the B-1A has an RCS of around 10 cubic meters instead of 1.5 as on the B-1B (not sure how accurate this figure is, just one I've seen). Basically, this would be somewhat similar to the B-1R rebuild that has been proposed, or to the design philosophy the Soviets adopted with their Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber.

How would this B-1A type aircraft compare to the B-1B in performing strategic and conventional missions?
 
first the B-1a (179,000 kg) would lighter as B-1b (216,000 kg)
much faster high altitude Mach 2 but slower at low altitude Mach 0.85 compare to B-1b
Defense and Armament of B-52s
no Stealth technology like in B-1b (air intake modification and part of airframe have low radar profile)
no external external weapons
no takeoff with a full internal fuel load need refuel in air
has no reinforce critical areas and lighten non-critical areas of the airframe like B-1b

last one would be critical
in TL were Ronald reagan is already president in 1976, he had push the B-1a program for replacement of B-52 by 244 B-1a
today the USAF would have old Bomber with metal fatigue more likely that already the B-3 would replace them in 2000s
 
Carter cancelled the B-1A in part because he needed the money for the F-117 and B-2 programs. Reagan accused him of being weak on defense for the cancelation but Carter couldn't say anything about the secret stealth projects.

In the grand scheme of things having more B-1As built won't add much to USAF capabilities, but funding would have to be stripped of something else.
 
Carter cancelled the B-1A in part because he needed the money for the F-117 and B-2 programs. Reagan accused him of being weak on defense for the cancelation but Carter couldn't say anything about the secret stealth projects.

They'd like you to believe that. Carter was weak on defense and more than likely never intended B-2 or new any expensive manned strategic bomber to enter service when he cancelled the B1A. In fact, when the B-2 was finally rolled out, most of the same Democrats who touted Carter for his supposed support of the stealth program found plenty of reasons to oppose and almost kill the B-2. Carter would have also. It was in their blood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
B-1A was the wrong aircraft. Not sure if the B-1B was the right aircraft, but the B-1A was definitely the wrong one.

High speed high altitude penetration was an outdated concept, one pretty much certain to result in aircraft loss in its strategic mission. Mach 2.3 is great until you realize that the enemy has built a ridiculous number of Mach 3 fighters in response to a previously cancelled program (XB-70) that will flat run down and eat up you high speed bomber (not to mention actually making the enemy's massive investment in the MiG-25/31 a sound use of defense funds) with a Mach 4.5 missile that is actually only useful against high speed penetration bombers, although it can be used in "look down/shoot down" mode as well.

What you want is something similar to the B-1B, although somewhat smaller, for use on conventional missions. The F-15E turned out to be just about the right aircraft for that mission, although an upgraded FB-111 (call it the FB-1) with improve avionics and a smaller signature would be a nice, if not critically important, bit for the toolbox. The B-1B can be used in a tactical role where the B-52 is unable to handle the threat environment (again, something an updated 'Vark could handle as well).

The Manned deep strike nuclear strike bomber, barring some sort of impossible to enforce Arms Treaty that outlawed SLBM & ICBM, is a dead issue.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Wasn't the B-1A supposed to rely heavily on ECM and active countermeasures (flares, chaff, etc.) to penetrate Soviet airspace? I know the B-1B has some rather impressive systems for that, but I'm not sure how much of that was going to be on the production B-1A as opposed to being developed later on for the B-1B. I think the B-1A was also supposed to penetrate Soviet airspace at low altitudes, then do a supersonic dash once safe to do so.

I wonder why they didn't pursue more of a hybrid approach for SAC. One of the roles proposed for the F-108 was serving as an escort for the B-70, guarding it against air attack and punching a hole through the Soviet air defense network that the strategic bombers could pass through. I wonder why an FB-111 or F-15E couldn't have been used in a similar role? Are air attack corridors that recent a concept? It's standard doctrine nowadays (my father helped plan air campaigns while in the USAF), but it seems after the @950s SAC planned for the strategic bombers to perform their missions (or at least the strategic ones) without escorts or the creation of air attack corridors.
 
Now we Brits did have a plane with a small radar profile, that could do that in the 60's. Now what was it called? Oh yes the TSR2!:D
 
Now we Brits did have a plane with a small radar profile, that could do that in the 60's. Now what was it called? Oh yes the TSR2!:D

I thought the TSR2 was just the government's way to rationalize the airframe and aero-engine industry. It was certainly effective at it.
 
Should have just built the B-70 instead of trying to get tricky. I am going to come in at Mach 3+ and their is nothing you can do about it.:)
 

Delta Force

Banned
Should have just built the B-70 instead of trying to get tricky. I am going to come in at Mach 3+ and their is nothing you can do about it.:)

Except by the 1970s the Soviets did have ways of stopping a Mach 3 target. I'm not sure if the MiG-25 would be up to the job, but the SA-4 Ganef (2K11 Krug), SA-5 Gammon (S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna), and perhaps the SA-1 Guild (S-25 Berkut) and SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) seem to have been capable of doing so.

Roaring in at Mach 3+ might have been interesting. It certainly would have lowered intercept times, but I'm not sure if that would have been enough. Active systems such as escort aircraft, ECM, flares, chaff, decoys and air-to-air missiles would have helped to tip the balance. The B-70 was originally to have been escorted by the F-108 Rapier, then it was to have been armed with Pye Wacket air-to-air missiles, but the B-1 has the ultimate active air defense systems. It's rumored that it might even be capable of using air-to-air missiles for self defense.
 
Now we Brits did have a plane with a small radar profile, that could do that in the 60's. Now what was it called? Oh yes the TSR2! :D
It may have had a smaller radar cross-section due to being physically smaller but as far as I'm aware it never incorporated any low observable technology. There's also the question of whether all its systems would have worked up to specification as they really were pushing the state of the art for the time, if they had been built then I'd expect we would have seen them start out with slightly less developed systems to begin with and be developed/upgraded over time.


I thought the TSR2 was just the government's way to rationalize the airframe and aero-engine industry. It was certainly effective at it.
Well for a certain value of 'rationalize', sure. :)
 
Except by the 1970s the Soviets did have ways of stopping a Mach 3 target. I'm not sure if the MiG-25 would be up to the job, but the SA-4 Ganef (2K11 Krug), SA-5 Gammon (S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna), and perhaps the SA-1 Guild (S-25 Berkut) and SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) seem to have been capable of doing so.

Roaring in at Mach 3+ might have been interesting. It certainly would have lowered intercept times, but I'm not sure if that would have been enough. Active systems such as escort aircraft, ECM, flares, chaff, decoys and air-to-air missiles would have helped to tip the balance. The B-70 was originally to have been escorted by the F-108 Rapier, then it was to have been armed with Pye Wacket air-to-air missiles, but the B-1 has the ultimate active air defense systems. It's rumored that it might even be capable of using air-to-air missiles for self defense.

How many of those missiles successfully intercepted a SR-71? Not even the MIG-25 got intercepts on the SR-71. A B-70 has just about the same performance envelop as the SR-71. Also the B-70 is more agile and much better EW capabilities and the B-70 can shoot back. You launch a missile at me I will launch a nuclear tipped Air to Ground missile back at you and my missile will hit your radar site long before your missile gets anywhere near me. The general rule of thump is that in order to start having a chance against a aircraft a missile has to have about 2.0 speed advantage. Think about a missile has to climb from a starting speed of 0 to the bombers altitude. The only missile that even starts to come close is the SA-5 and even then a intercept is iffy. Basically the B-70 scared the crap out of the Soviets because they knew that they had no effective counter. However McNamara was a idiot and threw away all the development time with this bomber to build more ICBM's.
 
How many of those missiles successfully intercepted a SR-71? Not even the MIG-25 got intercepts on the SR-71. A B-70 has just about the same performance envelop as the SR-71. Also the B-70 is more agile and much better EW capabilities and the B-70 can shoot back. You launch a missile at me I will launch a nuclear tipped Air to Ground missile back at you and my missile will hit your radar site long before your missile gets anywhere near me. The general rule of thump is that in order to start having a chance against a aircraft a missile has to have about 2.0 speed advantage. Think about a missile has to climb from a starting speed of 0 to the bombers altitude. The only missile that even starts to come close is the SA-5 and even then a intercept is iffy. Basically the B-70 scared the crap out of the Soviets because they knew that they had no effective counter. However McNamara was a idiot and threw away all the development time with this bomber to build more ICBM's.

The SR-71 never really flew into the most densely defended airspace though, something the B-70 can't avoid. Had that project gone forward
the Soviets would complete the interceptor version of the Sukhoi T-4. Betting on the B-70 would likely have led to another fiasco like the B-58 which had to be withdrawn after just 10 years in service.

At any rate canceling the B-70 was a smart decision considering ICBMs, SLBMs, and ALCMs had the nuclear triad more than covered. Which program would you kill for the B-70? I can't think of one.
 
The SR-71 never really flew into the most densely defended airspace though, something the B-70 can't avoid. Had that project gone forward
the Soviets would complete the interceptor version of the Sukhoi T-4. Betting on the B-70 would likely have led to another fiasco like the B-58 which had to be withdrawn after just 10 years in service.

At any rate canceling the B-70 was a smart decision considering ICBMs, SLBMs, and ALCMs had the nuclear triad more than covered. Which program would you kill for the B-70? I can't think of one.

SR-71's routinely flew over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. I am not sure where you are getting your facts about SR-71's not flying into heavily defended airspace. Also a SR-71 flew into Libya 6-hours after the 1986 bomb raid for damage assessment when all the air defenses where active without issue. So the T-4 never even achieved it's design speed of Mach 3 but somehow it is going to intercept it mach 3+ bomber. I would love to see that. Even assuming that the Soviet Union had the resources to put it into production. The MIG-25 was supposed to be that interceptor of Mach 3+ bomber and it even feel short. The only true Mach 3+ interceptor was the YF-12.

I would simply kill the entire B-1 program. Build the B-70 instead. It is more likely to get through air defenses than the B-1. Also a B-70 has one big thing over SLBM's, ICBM's and ALCM , it can be recalled. Despite what Hollywood might have us believe a SLBM, ICBM and ALCM are not able to be recalled after launch a B-70 can up until the point that the bombs are leaving the racks.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts about the SR-71 flying into heavily defended Soviet airspace.

I'm not sure the SR-71 overflew the Soviet Union at all. I've seen some references to missions over Petropavlovsk, but I don't think they would have risked flying over the Western Soviet Union or Siberia.
 
SR-71's routinely flew over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. I am not sure where you are getting your facts about SR-71's not flying into heavily defended airspace. Also a SR-71 flew into Libya 6-hours after the 1986 bomb raid for damage assessment when all the air defenses where active without issue. So the T-4 never even achieved it's design speed of Mach 3 but somehow it is going to intercept it mach 3+ bomber. I would love to see that. Even assuming that the Soviet Union had the resources to put it into production. The MIG-25 was supposed to be that interceptor of Mach 3+ bomber and it even feel short. The only true Mach 3+ interceptor was the YF-12.

I would simply kill the entire B-1 program. Build the B-70 instead. It is more likely to get through air defenses than the B-1. Also a B-70 has one big thing over SLBM's, ICBM's and ALCM , it can be recalled. Despite what Hollywood might have us believe a SLBM, ICBM and ALCM are not able to be recalled after launch a B-70 can up until the point that the bombs are leaving the racks.

There is a huge difference between flying over North Vietnam/Libya and Soviet Airspace.
 

Riain

Banned
The SR71 had over 1000 SAMs fired at it during it's career but was never hit, however as others have pointed out it never went deep into the Soviet Union and into the heart of the SA5 envelope.

The recon versions of the Mig25 did hit Mach 3.2 but landed with burnt out engines, a more realistic speed for a recon plane was Mach 2.8 or so. An interceptor with missiles could only do Mach 2.6 at best, which on the face of it appears woefully inadequate to intercept an SR71. However it wouldn't a Mig 25, it would bea flight or even a squadron taking on the job and in the mid 80s a flight of 4 Mig25s got into intercept positions that their target SR71 couldn't have escaped from if they attacked.

Whether this sort of tactic would be viable against hundreds of B70s is a bit more questionable. But this and the SA5 thinning out the B70s would have caused SAC and the US cause for concern over which of their nukes would actually make it.

As for the B1A/B, I'll take half and half thanks; 122 B1As in the late 70s and 122 B1Bs in the late 80s.
 
Top