Other operators of the B-1

[Bernard Woolley]

Gives me an excuse to post this:

This:

And a shot of a RAF Lancer B.1 of 617 Squadron painted in anti-flash white as part of the squadron's 60th Anniversary celebrations:

 

[Riain]

When you have a captive audience you don't have to try very hard. But some of their aircraft were designed to be upgradable. See the Tu95, Tu16, etc. In a centralised economy you have to rely on yearly orders to keep factories running to capacity, so why upgrade when you're going to be issued with new machines anyway. And our machines get so much TLC that they live long enough to make upgrading worth while. If you pile up all the money you paid for those F18s, all the money you've spend on maintenance and the money for the uggrades and you could have bought MiG23MLD back then, thrown them away, and buy Su30MKA now...

And we'd have to buy 50% more in order to keep up the same number of sorties because they struggle to maintain 60% availability compared to the 90% US aircraft demonstrate time and again in war and on exercise.

I've yet to see what is so wrong with the way we've things over recent decades that would require a drastic shift to Russian aircraft and methods. Whats more I've yet to see that the Russian aircraft and methods proven to be as good as western ones.

 

[sparky42]

And we'd have to buy 50% more in order to keep up the same number of sorties because they struggle to maintain 60% availability compared to the 90% US aircraft demonstrate time and again in war and on exercise.

I've yet to see what is so wrong with the way we've things over recent decades that would require a drastic shift to Russian aircraft and methods. Whats more I've yet to see that the Russian aircraft and methods proven to be as good as western ones.

Apart from those facts wouldn't it have to be after 91 before those high end Russian fighters would be on the market for a US ally?

 

[AdA]

And we'd have to buy 50% more in order to keep up the same number of sorties because they struggle to maintain 60% availability compared to the 90% US aircraft demonstrate time and again in war and on exercise.

I've yet to see what is so wrong with the way we've things over recent decades that would require a drastic shift to Russian aircraft and methods. Whats more I've yet to see that the Russian aircraft and methods proven to be as good as western ones.

There's nothing wrong. I just think your "Su30s are shit" opening statement was prejudiced. Your default choice of US airplanes is a safe bet, specially if you plan to use them for a long time and have the money to pay for the maintenance conditions that generate those avaiability rates.
And those avaiability rates should be corrected at the times the whole fleet is grounded because the planes are trying to kill its pilots (oxygen issues) or a F15 breaks up in flight...
And if you had ordered Su30MKA you'de be flying them now, not waiting for the F35 to be found under the pile of money that the costumers are dumping on the project...

 

[AdA]

Apart from those facts wouldn't it have to be after 91 before those high end Russian fighters would be on the market for a US ally?

Sure. Purely harmless fantasising here. There's a prejudice against Russian fighters. And the Russians made it worse by exporting really baseline versions to people who were not very good at using them and got shoot down in largely one sided wars...

 

[CalBear]

Fuck, like with F-111s, you could use them for long range interceptors, armed with tons of Sparrows and Phoenixes, or even a Talos derivative in the case of the B-1. Obviously they'd be useless outside of being flying missile batteries, but could go way out, stay on station a lot longer, and scare the fuck out of the Soviets, as the B-1 wing orbiting Ellesmere island could have ALCMs, or just fucktons of AAMs flying patrol. But that'd take different wiring and radars etc.

The Soviets reputedly did this with a few Tu-22M Backfires. The idea was to provide some level of defense against NATO (i.e. USN) carrier borne fighters. Larry Bond actually modeled it in the original Harpoon. Sort of a cool concept, provided the other side doesn't have an AAM with more range than the ones carried by the modified bomber.

Unfortunately, at least for game play, the USN had the Tomcat and its AIM-54, a weapon system designed to kill things like big, fast supersonic heavy bombers. Things generally did not end well for the Backfires.

 

[Petike]

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria...

 

[NothingNow]

The Soviets reputedly did this with a few Tu-22M Backfires. The idea was to provide some level of defense against NATO (i.e. USN) carrier borne fighters. Larry Bond actually modeled it in the original Harpoon. Sort of a cool concept, provided the other side doesn't have an AAM with more range than the ones carried by the modified bomber.

Unfortunately, at least for game play, the USN had the Tomcat and its AIM-54, a weapon system designed to kill things like big, fast supersonic heavy bombers. Things generally did not end well for the Backfires.

Which is probably why they put so much into the Novator K-100 and Vympel R-37. But for something just expected to lob missiles at bombers, and the odd escort-fighter, that vulnerability might not be a problem. I mean it'd just end up being an utterly massive take on the MiG-31 or F-14, for CAP in the really desolate places of the world.

 

[El Pip]

And if you had ordered Su30MKA you'de be flying them now, not waiting for the F35 to be found under the pile of money that the costumers are dumping on the project...

Unless of course your Su30 fleet is grounded after accidents caused by problems with the fly by wire system, as has happened three times (so far) to the Su-30MKI.

I think it's fair to say your not exactly an unbiased observer yourself and your view of Russian aircraft is more than a little rose tinted.

 

[RandomChance]

The Soviets reputedly did this with a few Tu-22M Backfires. The idea was to provide some level of defense against NATO (i.e. USN) carrier borne fighters. Larry Bond actually modeled it in the original Harpoon. Sort of a cool concept, provided the other side doesn't have an AAM with more range than the ones carried by the modified bomber.

Unfortunately, at least for game play, the USN had the Tomcat and its AIM-54, a weapon system designed to kill things like big, fast supersonic heavy bombers. Things generally did not end well for the Backfires.

By bizarre co-incidence, I've just finished reading Vulcan's Hammer by Chris Gibson. Amongst the more rational ideas the British had during the 60s/70s was a proposal to kit out some surplus Vulcans with long range air to air weaponry. The first proposal was to carry 10 air launched Sea Dart - the problem was the Type 909 radar was too big. The better proposal was a dozen AIM54. Operating at altitude would have been much less wear on the airframes too.

Of the more barking mad ideas was fitting ducting to the Olympus engines and 10 lift jets in the bomb bay of the Vulcan to produce a VTOL variant. Noisy, sure, likely a gas guzzler - but would have been awesome at an airshow!

 

[von hitchofen]

Vulcan's Hammer by Chris Gibson. Amongst the more rational ideas the British had during the 60s/70s was a proposal to kit out some surplus Vulcans with long range air to air weaponry. The better proposal was a dozen AIM54. Operating at altitude would have been much less wear on the airframes too.

that is excellent book

the bits about the VC-10 "Pofflers" is fascinating

I was never sure why the Vulcan/AWG-9/AIM-54 combo was never adopted - it would made more sense than the Tornado F-3.... the deterrent factor would have been immense

it could have made air patrols over the Falkland task force much easier

it's a shame that book stops before the military applications for the Concorde comes into the public domain...

 

[AdA]

that is excellent book

the bits about the VC-10 "Pofflers" is fascinating

I was never sure why the Vulcan/AWG-9/AIM-54 combo was never adopted - it would made more sense than the Tornado F-3.... the deterrent factor would have been immense

it could have made air patrols over the Falkland task force much easier

it's a shame that book stops before the military applications for the Concorde comes into the public domain...

Aren't Vulcans expensive to operate? If you want a flying SAM battery, why not make it cheap to run by using an airliner as a base?
Take the proven 737 with the most economical engines, put surplus radars from retired F14 in the nose, fit a rotary launcher in its belly for AIM54s and you can have an asset you can deploy to Taiwan quietly.
Does the late model AIM54 have a secondary ABM capabilIty? Even if it's marginal it would make funding it easier.

 

[von hitchofen]

or the VC-10, which had hardpoints [and no engines] on the wings from the get-go

the Phoenix was certainly good for downing ASMs [Silkworm, Exocet] and presumably cruise missiles, but as an ABM I doubt it

 

[RandomChance]

While a commercialised aircraft (militarised to some extent) for the air defense role makes some sense, the Vulcan has a number of advantages.

Firstly, it has a more robust airframe and is considerably more manoeuvrable than a commercial aircraft. I'm not saying it could dogfight, but evading/surviving any return fire from possible escorts is probably useful.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, it wouldn't be mistaken for a civilian aircraft on radar or other sensors. As such, any prospective enemy has less of an excuse for accidentally shooting down an innocent 737.

I can see the attraction of a modified civilian plane, but in the 70's, the Vulcan was seen as almost redundant as a bomber (with the RN largely handling deterrence), and the airframes were already available and easy to modify.

You could certainly see a butterfly effect with respect to the Tornado ADV. if it is adopted, a long range missile is likely - perhaps 4/6 AIM54?

If the Vulcan ADV entered service, you could also see it considered as an armed escort/distraction force for a B1 attack force too. Quite an interesting strategy...

 

[BlondieBC]

Aren't Vulcans expensive to operate? If you want a flying SAM battery, why not make it cheap to run by using an airliner as a base?
Take the proven 737 with the most economical engines, put surplus radars from retired F14 in the nose, fit a rotary launcher in its belly for AIM54s and you can have an asset you can deploy to Taiwan quietly.
Does the late model AIM54 have a secondary ABM capabilIty? Even if it's marginal it would make funding it easier.

It seems like when you try to add dense weight(bomb) to civilian airlines, you get severe air frame issues. You just can't add up the weight of the passengers and luggage spread throughout a plane and compare to a bomb load. Concentrating the weight of 100 persons in a very small area cause metal fatigue, if not outright structural failure.

 

[AdA]

It seems like when you try to add dense weight(bomb) to civilian airlines, you get severe air frame issues. You just can't add up the weight of the passengers and luggage spread throughout a plane and compare to a bomb load. Concentrating the weight of 100 persons in a very small area cause metal fatigue, if not outright structural failure.

So no rotary launcher, but rather conformal under fuselage carriage (F14 style)?
The idea would be to make the conversion costs low, and operating costs bearable. If the Vulcans had been economically viable, a maritime strike version with sea eagle AShM would make sense.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

or the VC-10, which had hardpoints [and no engines] on the wings from the get-go

Such a design existed. I'll see if I've got some artwork that illustrates it.

 

[BlondieBC]

So no rotary launcher, but rather conformal under fuselage carriage (F14 style)?
The idea would be to make the conversion costs low, and operating costs bearable. If the Vulcans had been economically viable, a maritime strike version with sea eagle AShM would make sense.

I am not an expert on this, but I have read long technical discussions on other boards that say you get a cost nightmare. Civilian airplanes are made to carry the load they are designed for, and when you add a lot more weight, then you have to build a new tube or new wings. The problem is bombs are very dense compared to people, luggage or cargo. So when you spread the weight out, say Air Force One or AWACs, you have an easy conversion. When you try to put several thousand pounds on a very small area (hard point say 2" by 3'), it will break things. An internal bomb bay of 10K's of pounds is even worse. So yes, you can likely put a weapon of a few hundred pounds on a wing spare, but it sounds a lot more like people want to put either very heavy air to air weapons (phoneix) or put ship based weapons, and large numbers of them. This does not work. If was easy, the USA would have had sockpiles of these weapons to retrofit to civilian airliners in case of war.

Now something like the Vulcan designed to military specs should be convertible. There is a lot more structural strength in a warplane than a civilian plane. The question here is more of costs associated.

 

[asnys]

I am not an expert on this, but I have read long technical discussions on other boards that say you get a cost nightmare. Civilian airplanes are made to carry the load they are designed for, and when you add a lot more weight, then you have to build a new tube or new wings. The problem is bombs are very dense compared to people, luggage or cargo. So when you spread the weight out, say Air Force One or AWACs, you have an easy conversion. When you try to put several thousand pounds on a very small area (hard point say 2" by 3'), it will break things. An internal bomb bay of 10K's of pounds is even worse. So yes, you can likely put a weapon of a few hundred pounds on a wing spare, but it sounds a lot more like people want to put either very heavy air to air weapons (phoneix) or put ship based weapons, and large numbers of them. This does not work. If was easy, the USA would have had sockpiles of these weapons to retrofit to civilian airliners in case of war.

Now something like the Vulcan designed to military specs should be convertible. There is a lot more structural strength in a warplane than a civilian plane. The question here is more of costs associated.

Does this mean those pics of 747s converted into cruise missile carriers wouldn't work? Because I've seen a lot of those floating around, and most of them seem to be Boeing internal documents. E.g., this.

 

[BlondieBC]

Does this mean those pics of 747s converted into cruise missile carriers wouldn't work? Because I've seen a lot of those floating around, and most of them seem to be Boeing internal documents. E.g., this.

My understanding is that it would require a new tube. You can probably use the same wings and engines as long as the total weight is the same. But you need a completely new tube. It is not converting an existing air plane, but in reality building a new plane or at least a new half plane. Sort of like the F-18 is partially built on the cancelled F-17 frame. Or like a BF 109 with a in-line engine is the same plane as a BF 109 with a radial engine. Sure it is doable, but it is not cheap or fast. It is a back door way of designing a new airplane while claiming it is some cheap and fast option. Now it might be a great weapon system. It might work better than the B-52 or B-1 we now use.