Other operators of the B-1

I would have loved to see the B-1 in RAF service. It would have worked as a replacement for the Vulcan. That being said there were one giant issue with it, price per unit. If the price was cut but a large amount then I could see RAF looking a picking up some. Canada might look to a very small number 3~6 for a northern strike capacity, as there would be such a small number, the US would be very involved in keeping them flying at a lower cost. Australia might pick up the same amount.

One idea is that Rockwell designs an "export" model that is not designed to carry a nuclear payload but is designed around a high speed anti-shipping missile.
 
I would have loved to see the B-1 in RAF service. It would have worked as a replacement for the Vulcan. That being said there were one giant issue with it, price per unit. If the price was cut but a large amount then I could see RAF looking a picking up some. Canada might look to a very small number 3~6 for a northern strike capacity, as there would be such a small number, the US would be very involved in keeping them flying at a lower cost. Australia might pick up the same amount.

One idea is that Rockwell designs an "export" model that is not designed to carry a nuclear payload but is designed around a high speed anti-shipping missile.

I understand the point, but would it really be worth buying an expensive B-1 as an antiship platform, when you arming yourself to go to war against the Soviet Union?
Why shouldn't Great Britain and Canada simply buy some Nimrod's and put a bunch of Sea Eagle's or Harpoon's on them? After all, they would be going after the Soviet Fleet with only STOVL fighters, operating well out of range of any land based interceptors.
 
I would have loved to see the B-1 in RAF service. It would have worked as a replacement for the Vulcan. That being said there were one giant issue with it, price per unit. If the price was cut but a large amount then I could see RAF looking a picking up some. Canada might look to a very small number 3~6 for a northern strike capacity, as there would be such a small number, the US would be very involved in keeping them flying at a lower cost. Australia might pick up the same amount.

One idea is that Rockwell designs an "export" model that is not designed to carry a nuclear payload but is designed around a high speed anti-shipping missile.

With a PoD butterflying Watergate and Belenko's Mig-25 flight, have the original B-1 design move ahead. The B-2 isn't ordered as early, the B-1 isn't cancelled in favour of upgrading B-52's, and there's a larger initial order.

The price of the airframe comes down and it could be in economic reach of Britain. Political reach, I don't know.
 
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.

Gotcha. I do like the concept, but I don't really know anything about aerospace stuff. :eek:
 
With a PoD butterflying Watergate and Belenko's Mig-25 flight, have the original B-1 design move ahead. The B-2 isn't ordered as early, the B-1 isn't cancelled in favour of upgrading B-52's, and there's a larger initial order.

The price of the airframe comes down and it could be in economic reach of Britain. Political reach, I don't know.

Considering one of the books about the B-1 is called "B-1 Lancer: The Most Complicated Warplane Ever Developed" I doubt price is going to go down much. :p Not even if the US orders the original 240 B-1A's. Apart from purchasing especially the upkeep is going to be horrendous for a strategic bomber as the B-1, especially for a non-US military in small numbers.

Wiki mentions a price for the B-1A starting at 40 mln USD in 1970 but escalating to 70 mln USD in 1975. Unfortunately the program was still in prototype stage by then and later costincreases were likely, even
Apparently the latter number amounts to a share of the GDP comparable to 645 mln USD in 2012.

I doubt the B-1 is in economic range of Australia or Canada. It's also outside of Britain's reach unless the BAOR and f.ex. the ASW focus in the North Atlantic go.

I would have loved to see the B-1 in RAF service. It would have worked as a replacement for the Vulcan. That being said there were one giant issue with it, price per unit. If the price was cut but a large amount then I could see RAF looking a picking up some. Canada might look to a very small number 3~6 for a northern strike capacity, as there would be such a small number, the US would be very involved in keeping them flying at a lower cost. Australia might pick up the same amount.

One idea is that Rockwell designs an "export" model that is not designed to carry a nuclear payload but is designed around a high speed anti-shipping missile.

Developing an extra version is going to increase cost yet more. Worse, the US didn't need or want a conventional bombing version untill the '90s, so that would mean the other operators would have to pick up the tap for that, as in the UAE and the F-16 Block 60.

Owning 3-6 aircraft means no more then 1-3 are operational at any one time. That doesn't make much sense IMHO.

Besides the previous poster made much sense; the RCAF already operates 21 CP-140 Aurora's, which can easily be adapted to fire Harpoons for a pittance.
 
Reading all the posts here I think the only realistic option for Britain keeping a strategic bomber would have been some kind of Vulcan MLU, I don't mean the proposed versions like the Phase 6 that could have carried 4 Skybolts under the wings but one that used the Olympus 301 engined aircraft that were planned to carry one under each wing. These were the aircraft that were used for Black Buck and what the engineers at Waddington did in the run up to the Falklands showed just what the Vulcan could have been capable of had it been fully developed. If Britain had more money at the relevant time and had Skybolt, or even an enhanced Blue Steel entered service then an enhanced Vulcan would probably have been developed, it probably would have had new engines, ECM, avionics and radar, it would have retained conventional bomber capability and its hardpoints could have been used for ASM's such as Sea Eagle or ALARM as the mission required.
 
Top