Other operators of the B-1

Pangur · Oct 1, 2012

This may have been addressed before however what other air forces conceivably could have flown a version of the B1? The UK comes to mind as a replacement for the V bombers and just maybe the RAAF. I clearly see the US would be very careful about who they sold the B-1 to however I would have thought that the British and the Aussies would be seen to be seen as `OK’

Gunnarnz · Oct 1, 2012

I'm sure the RAAF would love to have it, but it seems a little unlikely. In the first place it might be seen as excessive for their needs, and in the second the maintenance costs might well make them unaffordable. Anyone have any idea what the "bone" costs in maintenance, and how that compares with the FB-111?

Pangur · Oct 1, 2012

Gunnarnz said:
I'm sure the RAAF would love to have it, but it seems a little unlikely. In the first place it might be seen as excessive for their needs, and in the second the maintenance costs might well make them unaffordable. Anyone have any idea what the "bone" costs in maintenance, and how that compares with the FB-111?

Heck, I know it would be a very expensive toy however by OP would have looked a bit odd with just the one other operator. Mind you I guess if Aussie had a serious potential enemy close to home say have some of the Sov fleet home porting in near by and have the option to keep the bone going curtailed then just maybe they would get them

BigWillyG · Oct 1, 2012

What about the Israelis? Not sure how they could afford it but I could see them wanting it for Osrerik type raids.
Taiwan or Japan might be contenders to if we find away around the political issues involved in selling "offensive" weapons to either.

Riain · Oct 1, 2012

Australia looked at 8-10 V bombers in the very late 50s, but the F111 is more than ennough bomber for Australia's needs. The only possible candidate would be the British, with their geographic position well back from the Soviet Union and their established V bomber force.

The Oncoming Storm · Oct 1, 2012

I suppose if Britain had kept the V-Force then the B-1 is the most likely replacement. It would need to be modified to carry out the rapid start up so the fleet could get away before the Soviet missiles destroyed their bases.

Bureaucromancer · Oct 1, 2012

Riain said:
Australia looked at 8-10 V bombers in the very late 50s, but the F111 is more than ennough bomber for Australia's needs. The only possible candidate would be the British, with their geographic position well back from the Soviet Union and their established V bomber force.

Never heard of that, sounds fascinating. Got any details? Was it going to include nuclear weapons?

TheMann · Oct 1, 2012

Bureaucromancer said:
Never heard of that, sounds fascinating. Got any details? Was it going to include nuclear weapons?

The original plan, as I understand it, was that the RAAF would buy the TSR.2 and a number of V-Bombers would transferred to the RAAF as backup for the fast attackers. I highly doubt nukes would be part of the plan.

Matt Wiser · Oct 1, 2012

This is an aircraft that would have, at best, one export operator: the RAF. The Shah of Iran did express an interest, however, he was firmly, but politely, turned down.

As for quick starts: the aircraft has a button right at the top of the ingress ladder, so that as the crew is getting into the aircraft as the horn sounds, the first crewer pushes that button and that gets the engines going.

TheMann · Oct 1, 2012

Matt Wiser said:
This is an aircraft that would have, at best, one export operator: the RAF. The Shah of Iran did express an interest, however, he was firmly, but politely, turned down.

Well, I must be honest, I think it is entirely possible that Canada and Australia might be able to afford a few, but realistically you're pretty close to right on this one. Japan could afford it but would they go for it, probably not.

StevoJH · Oct 1, 2012

TheMann said:
The original plan, as I understand it, was that the RAAF would buy the TSR.2 and a number of V-Bombers would transferred to the RAAF as backup for the fast attackers. I highly doubt nukes would be part of the plan.

In that time frame (1960's) Nuke definately *would* have been part of the plan.

I seem to recall that Australia's plans to develop a Nuclear arsenal were derailed when the UK as part of the Polaris Agreement agreed not to transfer knowledge and materials to Australia??

Riain · Oct 1, 2012

The V bomber sqn was to operate alongside the Canberra to use the nukes that Australia half-expected to get. By the time the TSR2 and F111 were coming to fruition the whole RAAF V bomber idea had been dead and buried for about 5 years.

SAVORYapple · Oct 1, 2012

Riain said:
Australia looked at 8-10 V bombers in the very late 50s, but the F111 is more than ennough bomber for Australia's needs. The only possible candidate would be the British, with their geographic position well back from the Soviet Union and their established V bomber force.

the F-111s australia has have been retired, replaced by far less capable F/A-18 E superhornets. Fuck superhornets. Their less capable than the SU-30MKI, and I have no idea why the U.S. government is not moving to thrust vectoring nozzles (you can fit three flaps to the end of the nozzle and that's it).

sparky42 · Oct 1, 2012

SAVORYapple said:
the F-111s australia has have been retired, replaced by far less capable F/A-18 E superhornets. Fuck superhornets. Their less capable than the SU-30MKI, and I have no idea why the U.S. government is not moving to thrust vectoring nozzles (you can fit three flaps to the end of the nozzle and that's it).

Haven't Boeing floated that idea along with some extra fuel tanks and uprated radar at some point in the last year or so.

The cynic in me thinks that the DOD doesn't want the 4.5 gen Superhornet improved anymore in case somebody in Congress starts getting ideas about cutting the f 35.

superkuf · Oct 1, 2012

B-1 could only be motivated by one reason: long range. The needs of Japan and Iran could be covered with smaller, cheaper and less sensitive bombers such as A-6 or F-111.

The B-1 is a nuclear bomber, and would have given all enemies "nuke fever" at first sight. You don't want the shah to start WW3 by having a iranian squadron of B-1 doing sloppy navigation along the Iran-Soviet border.

I can only see two potential customers for the B-1. Firstly, Great Britain wants a long range, high speed bomber after the Falklands War just in case Argentina decides to repeat the invasion. But that was extremely unlikely since the junta fell. The second is an Australia with bigger population and economy (=bigger military budget) and a Soviet Union that bases a bigger navy in the Pacific (maybe even based in Vietnam), and that Australia want B-1 for anti-shipping duties along with their F-111.

Pangur · Oct 1, 2012

sparky42 said:
Haven't Boeing floated that idea along with some extra fuel tanks and uprated radar at some point in the last year or so.

The cynic in me thinks that the DOD doesn't want the 4.5 gen Superhornet improved anymore in case somebody in Congress starts getting ideas about cutting the f 35.

That sounds to be on the button. Heck they have enough issues as it stands with out some one providing a ready made answer to the problem

Pangur · Oct 1, 2012

superkuf said:
B-1 could only be motivated by one reason: long range. The needs of Japan and Iran could be covered with smaller, cheaper and less sensitive bombers such as A-6 or F-111.

The B-1 is a nuclear bomber, and would have given all enemies "nuke fever" at first sight. You don't want the shah to start WW3 by having a iranian squadron of B-1 doing sloppy navigation along the Iran-Soviet border.

I can only see two potential customers for the B-1. Firstly, Great Britain wants a long range, high speed bomber after the Falklands War just in case Argentina decides to repeat the invasion. But that was extremely unlikely since the junta fell. The second is an Australia with bigger population and economy (=bigger military budget) and a Soviet Union that bases a bigger navy in the Pacific (maybe even based in Vietnam), and that Australia want B-1 for anti-shipping duties along with their F-111.

The two points being made here seem fair. God know I had not even considered a sloppy naviguesser ! The fact it is at its core a nuclear strike aircraft rules Israel out as option. The fact that it can drop non nuclear bombs seems to get lost on the mix.

The Aussies with a large base is Vietnam is a possible reason. The F-111 replacements that the RAAF got had all the PAL and other nuke kit removed so its not impossible. Just how to square that comment with my previous one I am not sure

NothingNow · Oct 1, 2012

sparky42 said:
Haven't Boeing floated that idea along with some extra fuel tanks and uprated radar at some point in the last year or so.

The cynic in me thinks that the DOD doesn't want the 4.5 gen Superhornet improved anymore in case somebody in Congress starts getting ideas about cutting the f 35.

Yeah, that's most of it probably. A Superbug with uprated engines and a Thrust vectoring system wouldn't be that hard to do (but Boeing would rather sell Slam Eagles and Silent Eagles over Super Hornets.) As for the APG-79, it is as good, or better than any radar you'd get from the Russians save the set on a Foxhound.

But the RAAF might've been better served by adopting an Eagle derivative along the lines of the F-15K/SG or the Rafale as an F-111 replacement.

As it is, the RAAF isn't big enough to justify developing their own design for a Bomber/Strike aircraft, and can't sell something like it in high enough quantities overseas, (nor are they the Swedes, and willing to put a lot of effort into building and maintaining the capability to build combat jets.) Now if the Canadians were looking for a proper interceptor scaled for the Arctic, and were willing to go in for part, it'd be a different story. Then I'd say a modernized F-111 with either F135s or F100-132s, Diverterless Supersonic inlets, a clone of the F-35's EOTS and space for a pair of Storm Shadows (or Electronics pallets) internally, and swiveling hardpoints on the wings, like those from the Tornado IDS/ECR. And maybe space for a pair of CFTs atop the fuselage if needed.

StevoJH · Oct 1, 2012

SAVORYapple said:
the F-111s australia has have been retired, replaced by far less capable F/A-18 E superhornets. Fuck superhornets. Their less capable than the SU-30MKI, and I have no idea why the U.S. government is not moving to thrust vectoring nozzles (you can fit three flaps to the end of the nozzle and that's it).

The F-18 is far more capable than the F-111 in all but one measure, and that measure is unrefueled range.

And unrefueled range isn't a good indicator of capablity and mission range in a time where Aerial Refueling is as common as it is today, or havent you read about the shiny new tankers the RAAF has recently received?

sparky42 · Oct 1, 2012

Pangur said:
That sounds to be on the button. Heck they have enough issues as it stands with out some one providing a ready made answer to the problem

Again from memory but what they found was with the shoulder fuel tanks they were suggesting that the .8 mach performance was actually improved over the current models due to the tanks.

As I said I really think that the reason is politics. The only reason Boeing is floating the silent Eagle is that the production line is about to shut down because of no orders, the Bug still has orders so they don't need to push it as much.