Subject: Re: B-1B Not Nuclear
From: paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin) 
Date: Jan 03 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In article <greenla-0201962214460001@host-202.subnet-40.med.umich.edu> greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) writes:
>> Wrong.
>> The B1 was from conception designed as a low-level penetrator.
>> Low-Observables 
>> technology came along well after the B1's specs and detailed design were 
>> completed.

>No, Howard was correct.  The B-1A was a high-altitude Mach 2 bomber, an
>outgrowth of the "AMSA" or Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft program,
>with VG inlets and reduced RCS (though far short of true "stealth"). 
>(AMSA grew out of the XB-70 program, actually.)  When it became apparent
>that high-altitude bombing was suicide, the airframe was strengthened in
>order to allow the rougher low-altitude penetration profile.  The VG
>inlets were changed to fixed geometry, limiting speed to Mach 1.2.  Only
>four B-1As (technically YB-1As, as there were no production birds) were
>built, one of which sits in front of the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson
>in Dayton.  Two of the B-1As were modified to B-1B design as testbeds for
>the B program, and they made it clear that the airframe had to be
>considerably strengthened for the low-altitude mission.  That added
>significant weight to the aircraft, which was one of many reasons for its
>cost overruns.

Lee;
You're confusing the development history of the B2 with the B1. 

Back in the early modern era, the B70 was the ultimate high speed, high 
altitude penetrator. Valkierie was canceled because absent stealth (not 
invented yet) the mission became suicide when SAMs like SA5 started cropping 
up.

AMSA which as you point out, became B1, was ab initio a low level penetrator. 
The airframe was initially stressed for low level flight and the penetrating 
profile was ~M1.2 on the deck. The presence of the moving inlets was (as near 
as I can tell) a just in case holdover which would allow M2+ flight at the 
tropause.

If high altitude penetration was a viable tactic, B70 would have been a _much_ 
more potent system than a B1A with much more range and a much higher Mach 
number. The AMSA study was explicit in mandating a low level penetrator 
design. The swing-wing design aleviated the gust response of theairframe at 
low levels and the ride control vanes just aft of the cockpit were supposed to 
smooth things out (I never understood that part).

During the B1A's development very little effort was put into decreasing RCS. 
The B1A was a quite a bit smaller than a BUFF but the reduction in RCS wasn't 
militarily significant. If I recall correctly, a B1A was claimed to have an 
RCS 10% that of a BUFF which translates into a reduction in detection range 
(fourth root of RCS) of about 45% (don't have my calculator handy). The RCS 
reduction measures of the B1B decreased RCS by a factor of 10 to 1% of a BUFF 
which still isn't earth-shaking. 

The B1B was still a low level penetrator, flying a hi-lo-hi profile. The lo 
portion of the of the flight, constituting only the 1500 miles or so to fly 
across the USSR, consumed as much fuel as the entire cruise portion of the 
flight (5000-6000 miles) because of increase air density.

As you point out, the inlets were changed to fixed, serpentine designs. The 
airframe structure wasn't changed although detail changes like the fairings 
that cover the swing-wing joint were mod'ed to decrease RCS. After the first 
B1Bs entered the test program, some problems surfaced. One of the biggies was 
the routing of hydraulics lines in the leading edge of the wing, making them 
real vulnerable to _large_ bird strikes (hell on the pelicans). The fact 
remains that the _structure_ (wing spars, wing pivot structure, stab and 
fuscelage structure) were essentially the same between the B1A and B1B.

Now, on the to B2. The Air Force originally specified the B2 as a high 
altitude penetrator because of the cruise efficiency that you gain operating 
above the tropause. The B2 was completely redesigned structurally after the 
Air Force added a low-level penetration requirement. I think they did that as 
an insurance program to extend the life of the B2 when long range search 
sensors prevent operation at high levels. 

The Air Force may have remembered the experience with the B52. BUFFs were 
originally designed to operate in the stratosphere. In the early sixties, SAM 
systems caused them to start flying on the deck and the airframes started 
cracking with a vengence.

The whole B52 fleet had to have new wings and major reenforcements to the 
aft fuscelage. You think the B1 has problems. The tail broke off one BUFF and 
the crew managed to fly it home. This was before the days of defense 
scandal-mongering. If the same thing happened now, we'd have a chinese 
refrigerator factory style management incentive program with lots of inocents 
getting it in the neck.

Anyway, that's the real story on bomber development since the late sixties.

Subject: B1s, B2s and costs (was Re: The B-2 IS a good weapon (was Re: Why
From: paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin) 
Date: Jan 15 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In article <greenla-1401961356490001@host-202.subnet-40.med.umich.edu> greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) writes:

>Money isn't what it's really about.  Money is just a proxy, a measure for
>resources.  "Screw the cost" has emotional appeal, but in the real world,
>resources are NEVER unlimited!  Schwartzkopf was very upfront in
>describing the critical role of logistics in winning DS.  Even Clancy, in
>his "Fighter Wing" of which some are highly enamored, belabors the point
>of logistics.  Fuel, spare parts, turnaround time, operational readiness:
>if your weapon strains these limits past their breaking point, you have no
>weapon.
>
>If you can't feed it, it can't fight for you!

Lee;
Amen to that. This and the related thread on the B1 (which you have 
contributed considerably to) lose track of the reason we keep track of costs.

I'm an old sailor and am convinced that a CVBG is the most flexible system for 
delivering large amounts of ordinance to a foreign shore. I also agree that 
buying more B2s is not the best use of funds. Good as a B2 is and will be at 
ordinance delivery, the money earmarked for procurement of a further 20 
airframes would be better spent on smart ordinance.

That said, a lot of spleen has been expended to no purpose.

Twenty B2s have been paid for, as have 96 B1Bs. These are sunk costs that have 
produced considerable capitol assets. 

You may dislike the procurement policies that produced them, question the 
doctrine that they were originally bought under or consider the "window of 
vulnerability" a fraud. 

The existance of the assets is a fact. A further fact is that money is _not_ 
available to buy the equivalent fleet of F15Es or F117s (or A12s for that 
matter). What we've got is what we've got.

To offer advice of disposing of those assets rather than paying the cost of 
upgrades to use smart munitions is irresponsible. So is exageration of the 
relative cost of those mods compare to e.g. the same mods to the BUFF fleet.

_No_ heavy bomber can now deliver smart ordinance independently. Not a BUFF, 
not a B1, not a B2. The equipment kits to make the B52Hs capable of Harpoon 
and HAVE NAP were taken from the decomm'ed -Gs and as near as I can tell 
haven't been installed yet. No BUFF has a laser designator nor does it have 
the data bus to talk to JDAMs, WCMs or JSOWs.

Consider the cost of delivery of ordinance on target. The cost elements are: 
ordinance cost (a wash between systems), delivery system procurement (assume 
all aircraft already bought), support systems costs (tanking requirements) and 
training & maintenance costs.

Take as a strawman delivery of 100K (nominal) pounds of ordinance at three 
different radii: 500 miles, 1000 miles and 2500 miles.

F15E would require 25 aircraft, BUFF would require two aircraft, B1 would 
require two aircraft, B2 would require three aircraft.

Delivery System : the capitol cost of all of the aircraft are at risk. 
Replacement cost of F15E is about $100M, B1 about $250M and B2, $600M. The 
BUFFs are (literally) unreplaceable.
F15E: $2.5B
BUFF:$?
B1:$500M
B2:$1.8B

Support costs:
At 500 miles, the F15E would probably need to tank once. At 1000 miles tanking 
requirements double and at 2500 miles, 5X. That means 25 downloads of about 
20K pounds, total 500K pounds at 500 miles. That's 2-3 KC10 sortees. At 1000 
miles, 4-6. At 2500 miles, 10-15.

None of the heavies require tanker support for any of these ranges.

Traiing & Maintenance costs:
This is a big swinger. B1 and B2 have about the same generation engines and 
avionics as F15E. BUFF offensive and defensive avionics were upgraded in the 
seventies so they're not 50's generation (thank ghod). F15E, B1 and B2 LRUs 
probably have about half the MTBF and MTTR as the B52 LRUs. 

Engine mean time between overhauls is about the same between F15E, B1 and B2. 
BUFF engines have a _much_ shorter maintenance cycle (say twice as often).

B1 and B2 probably have twice the number of LRUs as a F15E and half that of a 
BUFF. B2 has the same number of engines as F15E, B1 has twice as many and BUFF 
has 4 times as many of course.

Avionics LRUs counting number and MTBF/MTTR (all referenced to F15E)
F15E: 25
B52:16
B1:4
B2:6

Engine Removals (all referenced to F15E)
F15E: 50
BUFF: 32
B1:8
B2: 6

Aircrew
F15E: 50+tanker crew
BUFF: 8
B1: 8
B2: 6

In order of cost on target, the F15E delivery is _much_ the most expensive.
Delivery     Combat AC    Tanker   Aircrew  Engines   LRUs
F15E(500)       25        2-3        60          50     25
F15E(1000)      25        4-6        70          50     25
F15E(2500)      25        10-15      90          50     25
BUFF(all)        2        0           8          32     16
B1(all)          2        0           8           8      4
B2(all)          3        0           6           6      4

Now the relative dollar cost of each of these elements isn't known but
when an F15E is the largest in each catagory, it _has_ to be most
expensive and gets worse as range increases.

Capitol costs are _much_ larger for the F15E than for the B1 or even
the B2. Using a historic 3% loss rate for F15E and B1 and 1% for B2,
the F15E capitol cost is $75M, B1 is $15M and B2 is $18M.

Subject: Re: B-1B's Potential
From: paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin) 
Date: Jan 15 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In article <greenla-1401961337410001@host-202.subnet-40.med.umich.edu> greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) writes:

Lee, this is getting tiresome.

>It can ferry 7500 miles, but only one-way with no load.

Ferry range is usually spec'ed with no payload. There's no deception there. 
How far can an F15E ferry with no load?

>The "full scale" load it can carry at 30,000 ft with half a load (97,000
>lb of fuel) is its Cold War hi-hi-hi profile nuke strike load, eight SRAMs
>and eight B-61 "silver bullet" free-fall nukes: total weight 24,000 lb
>(plus or minus a few depending on exactly which B-61 variant).  Or 500 lb
>less than an F-15E can carry at that altitude.  They're not actually
>lying, mind you, that 24,000 lb was considered a "full load" for
>intercontinental nuclear strike in the hi-hi-hi mission profile. 

What is an F15E's radius with 24,500 pounds of ordinance? 400 miles? The Bone 
should carry that ordinance about 2.5 times as far (twice the engines, 5 times 
the fuel).

So, Lee how much runway _does_ a B1 need with 170K pounds of ordinance and 
fuel? It's more than 8000 feet. What is it?

Subject: Re: B-1B's Potential
From: paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin) 
Date: Jan 16 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In article <4daipb$5bq@cloner2.ix.netcom.com> ciacon@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:

>aggie37@aol.com (Aggie37) wrote:

>>Okay, enough of the ecm issue.  It is not an issue.  That's all I can say
>>about it here.

>Say no more.

>>As for worldwide basing, bones deploy overseas regularly.  All you need is
>>8000 ft or runway and the weight bearing capacity.  It's not a problem.

>I've seen the Bone, unloaded, at Van Nuys Airport, which I believe is
>an 8,000 foot runway, and at March AFB, at about the same length.  I
>don't  know what, if anything, it was loaded with at March - probably
>nothing - but it got off the ground very quickly, using less than half
>the runway.

>>As for overflying the Rockies, and striking at medium altitudes, the bone
>>is actually better at this than the F-111.  I've seen b-1s strike at the
>>UTTR from the lower thirties with full scale weapons drops.  If I'm not
>>mistaken, the rockies top out just above 14k.

We tend to forget the pain of the past. When 'vaarks were in their development 
cycle they were constantly slanged for being over-weight, under-powered and 
draggy. Sound familiar?

To put the Bone-bashing into perspective, when the F111A was tested with full 
ordinance load, it wouldn't fly at MIL power. It required afterburner to 
maintain constant airspeed in level flight below 10K feet. One report I read 
said that an F111A couldn't clear Pike's Peak with full ordinance load (sound 
familiar again?).

A lot of this bashing is with malice aforethought. The airplanes exist and 
represent a $40B investment. There are those in this group who get blinded by 
their desire for vengence on the folks involved. 

They wave around $300M per airplane costs to "fix" the avionics. Bullshit. 
$300M could buy the same ECM suite used in BUFFs for all 96 aircraft. $400M 
was the cost of both the Defensive Avionics and Offensive Avionics upgrades 
for the BUFFs in the mid-80s.

Several respondents keep saying "no external ordinance, the hardpoints are 
welded over". The only reason that was done was to comply with START. If all 
B1s are taken off nuclear alert duties, they don't fall under START and 
hardpoints could be re-installed.

In summary, it's irresponsible to talk about destroying the B1 fleet to get 
revenge on the perpetrat^H^H^H^H^H Program managers. We've got the things in 
the inventory. We FUCKING WELL better figure out how to use them.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: B-1B's Potential
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:45:53 GMT

On Sun, 14 Jan 1996 09:39:07 GMT, ciacon@popd.ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) said:

>As for worldwide basing, bones deploy overseas regularly.  All you
>need is 8000 ft or runway and the weight bearing capacity.  It's not
>a problem.

WJ> I've seen the Bone, unloaded, at Van Nuys Airport, which I believe
WJ> is an 8,000 foot runway, and at March AFB, at about the same
WJ> length.  I don't know what, if anything, it was loaded with at
WJ> March - probably nothing - but it got off the ground very quickly,
WJ> using less than half the runway.

Er, when they were doing some of the initial bomb-dropping tests here
at Edwards, it used to take most of the 15,000-ft runway for the B-1
to get airborne in the winter when it was carrying much of a load.  I
was out by the runway for another program and got to watch.  In the
summer they could only take off heavyweight flights extremely early in
the morning, according to one of the test pilots.

The B-2 has been dropping bombs recently--they routinely take off
before the center taxiway (and they don't have afterburners like the
B-1 does), which is at the 7,500-ft point.  I've seen them do it three
times in the last year (I go down for SR takeoffs and the B-2 seems to
sortie at the same time as the Blackbird), summer early mornings and
winter mid-mornings.  I don't know if they're full, but they've sure
kept me out of the East Range for a long time while them make pass
after pass dropping live weapons.

I should probably add, for completeness, that a heavy SR-71 comes
unstuck at about the center taxiway, too.  A light one gets off before
it, as does a light B-1.  The SR is just barely louder, though, and
its shock diamonds are much superior to the B-1's.  The B-2 is about
as exciting as an airliner, although it's one of the most beautiful
aircraft I've ever seen (the B-1 and the XB-70 being strong contenders
for the title; I do like more than fighters).

--
Mary Shafer               NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer     Of course I don't speak for NASA 
shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov                               DoD #362 KotFR   
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:40:17 -0500

In article <4dg3od$skd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fubar2x@aol.com (Fubar2X) wrote:

> You sure do read a lot of strange claims on this group !

You sure do...

> (1)  A B-1B with 40% fuel and a full load of 84 Mk82 bombs weighs about
> the same as a fully loaded Boeing 707.  The B-1B has more than twice the
> thrust of the 707, a larger wingspan, and lots of high-lift devices to get
> it into the air quickly, so forward basing isn't really a problem.

The B-1B with a half-tank of fuel and a full load of 84 Mk.82s might weigh
about the same as a loaded 707, but it has a wing loading of 170+ lb/sq
ft.  (At "typical" max takeoff weight with full fuel and 84 Mk.82s it's
221 lb/sq ft!)  That's more than any other aircraft we fly.  A
fully-loaded 707 at its max takeoff weight (not with half a tank of gas)
has a loading of 110, a *fully-loaded* BUFF is only 126, and a Strike
Eagle maxed out is 133.  And "high-lift devices" are also high-drag
devices.  The Bone's thrust/weight with those Mk.82s and half fuel is an
anemic 0.175; with full fuel it's 0.135.  Even in full burner it's only
0.285, and it ain't going far burning fuel like that.  Even a BUFF, fully
loaded, manages a T/W of 0.282 (and that's without any reheat).  That's
why the Bone's takeoffs are long and its climbouts slow: it's overloaded
and underpowered.  Forward basing is an option if your war is 100 miles
from Dyess.  Otherwise, you take off with almost no gas and grab a tanker
mighty quick.  Why spend hundreds of millions trying to fix Bones so they
can deploy to forward bases where they'll stress our already thinly spread
tanker assets, when BUFFs and Beagles can launch fully loaded from those
bases already?

> (2)  The ceiling of a fully loaded B-1B is indeed about 10,000 feet, at
> maximum gross weight and with the wings at minimum span.  In order to
> reach that maximum gross weight, though, you'd have to load the plane with
> 20 tons of lead bricks, since the plane no longer can carry external
> loads.  With a full load of bombs and fuel, the takeoff weight is more

No, I'm referring to the AF's "typical" fully loaded TOW, 431,600 lb
(i.e., 195,000 lb fuel and 84 Mk.82s at 531 lb each).  Again, at
"mid-mission", 50% fuel remaining and 84 bombs aboard, the Bone's wing
loading is just too high and its thrust too low to pull altitude.  Sure,
the Bone can theoretically get up to 30k ft with that load... if you run
in burner.  How far away is that target?

> back.  Its got plenty of power to go faster, but its limited to Mach 0.95
> by the low level turbulence damping vanes under the forward fuselage.

Plenty of power?  No, it can just barely match the BUFF's T/W *in
burner*.  Dry, it's grossly underpowered.  Low-level, the Bone is limited
to 0.95 Mach, as you note.  Even the AF's Bone hype people only claim the
Bone can go supersonic "at altitude".

> There are a lot of things you can realistically criticize about the B-1B,
> but performance just isn't one of them.

We can indeed criticize its performance.  And should.  As have the GAO, an
ex-USAF test pilot, the very general who was responsible for the B-1B, and
pretty much every independent review of the program.  It's overweight and
underpowered, and no number of megabucks will fix that.

Subject: B1 Potential & Performance
From: paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin) 
Date: Jan 18 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

We've had a lot of heat and little light about the B1B. A lot of people have 
made claims about B1B performance (or lack thereof). I don't carry the torch 
for the Bone or for the Air Force but the noise level was getting high so I 
applied some modest analysis to try to verify some of the claims.

Most of the criticism of the B1B is about payload, performance and basing. 
I'll try to address each and tell you what my analysis says. Up front, I'll 
say I've only seen a Bone once and am only privy to the "secrets" reported in 
AvWeek.

Issue 1. Aerodynamics and propulsion
One respondent has repeatedly bashed the B1 for having "very high wing 
loading" and being underpowered. 

In order to delivery efficient performance as a bomb truck, the B1 has a very 
highly loaded wing JUST LIKE THE B52. High wing loading is required for 
efficient cruise performance. Boeing invented the approach with the B47 and 
every jet transport has followed it since. A secondary benefit is a highly 
loaded wing has a low gust response, which promotes a smooth ride at low level.

The B1B has smaller wing are that a B52 (30% smaller) but at takeoff, it is 
much less swept and has the benefit of leading-edge flaps as well as trailing 
edge flaps so low speed lift looks like a wash.

Installed thrust to weight ratio of the B1B is 3% less at takeoff than a BUFF 
at the following conditions: 

B1B: 195,000 pounds fuel (full load) and 64,000 pound of ordinance for a 
total of 445,000 pounds with 120,000 pounds takeoff thrust. T/W=0.2695

B52H at max takeoff weight (488,000 pounds) with 136,000 pounds takeoff 
thrust. T/W=0.2787

In cruise (no AB), the B1B has a little more than half the thrust of a B52 
but neither the B1B nor the BUFF use MIL power for cruise flight (they both do 
during low-level penetration). The B1B averages 58% power in long range cruise.

{cruise power analysis: B1B consumes 195,000 pounds of fuel during a max 
range ferry mission. Mission duration 12.5 hours. F101 SFC in mil power is 
0.66 lb fuel/lb thrus/hr and mil power is 18,000 pounds. When you divide 
195,000 pounds consumed by 4X18,000x12.5 hr*SFC you get average power level of 
58%}

Conclusion: for a given runway length, the B1B should be able to use the same 
runway as a B52H for the conditions quoted above.

Issue 2: High Altitude Cruise
An unsupported assertion that a B1B can only attain 30,000 feet altitude with 
no more than 24,000 pounds payload doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 7500 mile 
ferry profile with 195,000 pounds of fuel is certainly flown at high altitude. 
If 195,000 pounds combined fuel and payload is the high altitude load limit, 
then we can generate a HI-HI-HI payload range chart(discussed below).

Issue 3: Payload & Range performance
Using the 7500 mile ferry range carrying 195,000 pounds of fuel, we can 
generate a HI-HI-HI no-refuelling payload-range chart. Trading fuel for 
payload using the cruise SFC and average power setting, for 500 mile 
increments, we get the following:
	0-2500 miles: 64,000 pounds ordinance
	3000 miles: 39,000 pounds
	3500 miles: 13,000 pounds

For the HI-LO-HI mission, the LO range segment is flown at MIL power for a 
42% increase in fuel flow. The B1B can deliver 64,000 pounds ordinance with up 
to a 1000 mile LO segment (in and out) for ranges up to 1500 miles. 

At 2000 miles, you can deliver 64,000 pounds with a 800 mile LO segment 
beyond that you trade payload for fuel. At 2000 miles/1000 miles LO, ordinance 
load is 57,000 pounds. 

At 3000 miles range with a 200 mile LO segment, Payload shrinks from 39,000 
pounds to 32,000.

Summary:
A B1B can deliver a lot of ordinance at long range. A similar analysis for 
other platforms would show that for equal ordinance on target, using a 
fighter-sized aircraft would cost more, place more aircrew in combat and 
require a lot of tanker lift to accomplish.

The B1B has sufficient thrust to weight to equal a B52's "short" field 
performance.

Subject: Re: B-1B Not Nuclear/Mach 2 speed
From: smithiesjs@aol.com (SmithiesJS)
Date: Jan 23 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Hey doc, A. I hardly think the good Col.'s aritcle is what you'd call an
"unbiased" viewpoint.  2.  One of the fallacies of the GAO report is that
it didn't recognize that we WERE putting real-world stresses on the jet
during that test!  We flew over 50 complex and composite exercises during
that six months culminating in a two week bare-base deployment to Roswell,
NM (ever been there?).  Our squadron alone flew just over 5000(!) flying
hours of quality training last year.  It's fine to look at "objective"
sources to form your viewpoint, but you've got to let some of the past
politics go and start looking at the facts of the jet.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
Date: 26 Jan 1996 18:20:26 GMT

The B-1B ECM is going to be an issue until it is "fixed" (which may well
be impossible) or replaced by a non-integrated system, which is not likely
to be funded in the near future (of course, such a modification is
unlikely to be publicly known until a contract is awarded, and I haven't
heard of that happening yet).  I believe official estimates of ECM
effectiveness are based on ignoring the existence of certain threat
systems or optimistic mission planning (where it is assumed certain 
threats will not be encountered).

Combat radius is not a big deal as long as there are tankers.  Who cares 
what you take off with if the tankers can support?

I think the mission capable rate of the B-1 shows it breaks more often, 
depsite the claimed lack of spares.  Even with spares from 
non-participating bases during its "test," the B-1 didn't exceed the 70% 
mark by much.  B-52G rates during Desert Storm exceeded peacetime rates, 
hovering around 90% (and I know the BUFF breaks a lot, just not so 
seriously as to prevent flying a mission).  This was at deployed 
locations where there were not a huge number of spares immediately 
available (just WRSK, or War Reserve Spares Kits).  I don't know if the 
Bone is more expensive to repair; although it may be assumed the more 
technologically advanced a part is the more it costs to produce. 

The B-52 can fly deep strike missions with support; the B-1 can fly 
deep-strike with support.  The only difference I see is speed and the 
type of weapons available.  Bone has speed, BUFF has the weapons 
advantage.  The BUFF can keep flying for years; the Hs have around 10,000 
hours each on the airframes.  I really don't know if they have ever fixed 
or improved the badly flawed conventional upgrade they came up with 
first for the B-1; it would have made Rube Goldberg proud.  If one bomb 
couldn't drop, none of them could using that complicated system.  If they 
haven't improved it, it is a serious deficiency in the conventional 
capability.  Nothing could be more frustrating than fighting your way in 
to a target only to take your bombs home with you.

Altitude is probably another problem with heavy loads:  I was told by a
reliable authority (a SAC general) in 1991 that the B-1 can't drop a full
load above 17K feet, because the plane can't fly high altitude when heavy. 
In a situation where high-altitude is more survivable (such as Desert
Storm) this is a serious disadvantage. 

I don't know if these deficiencies are cost-effective to fix vs. buying a
new airframe (B-2).  It seems to me that the Air Force should either spend
the money or retire the airframe, but not spending the money to fix it and
claiming it is fixed does not protect our national security any. It is clear
the US needs a long-range bomber, but I have doubts as to whether the B-1
can fulfill that role in its present state.  

Steve Ryan

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 23:04:40 -0500

He's baaack...  I've been laying low in the Bone-bashing arena awaiting
the results of some Freedom of Information Act requests and other data on
the Lancer with which to assess some claims as to its performance and
flexibility.

In article <4etfv3$k56@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smryan@umich.edu
(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:

> SmithiesJS (smithiesjs@aol.com) wrote:
> 
> : > Even with spares from non-participating bases during the "test", the B-1
> : didn't exceed the 70% mark by much.
> 
> :    First of all, get your facts correct.  The congressionally mandated
> : "test" required a 75% MC rate.  The Bone completed the six-month test with
> : an MC rate of 84%!  For those of you keeping score, that's 9% more than
> : was required.  I don't know if that is "by much"-enough for you.
> 
> Mea culpa on the numbers...

Don't "mea culpa" just yet.  The ONE squadron involved in the ORA
assessment reached, at peak, 84% readiness, but that was its one best
week, according to the GAO's independent audit.  The overall Bone fleet
has never exceeded 65%, and the average for the one ORA test squadron over
its six-month demonstration was 78%.  I'd call that not exceeding the
Congressional mandate by much.  Further, the audit found that the AF
misrepresented the costs and difficulty of keeping that 78%.  The GAO did
not believe that level could be achieved and maintained fleet-wide at
sustainable funding levels even with an estimated $2.4 billion in planned
improvements.

This claim of 84% readiness, like much else about the Bone, is true*. 
That's right, true*.  With an asterisk.

> : >Altitude is probably another problem with heavy loads:  I was told by a
> : reliable authority (a SAC general) in 1991 that the B-1 can't drop a full
> : load above 17K feet, because the plane can't fly high altitude when heavy.
> 
> :    Obviously you're S-command contact was misinformed.  The B-1 can drop
> : full conventional loads AFT WING (i.e. fast) into the 30Ks.  I did not
> : hear this from someone, I have DONE this, multiple times in my 6 years
> : flying the jet.

I'm sure you have, because I've received part of the numbers I've been
seeking and have FOIA requests pending for the others.  But what I've
received has been enought to allow me, with an aerodynamics prof's help,
to rough out some estimates of the Bone's real performance parameters.

Would you care to share with us how much fuel you were carrying up there,
and how long you can run in burner to stay there?  How high can you
actually fly in a useful fashion, without asterisks: level stable cruise
with reserve 100fpm climb ability i.e. "service ceiling" parameters (I'll
even grant you winter, dry air, and full-out wings) without reheat,
carrying 95,000 lb of fuel and 84 Mk.82's?

I don't have the Bone's lift/drag yet, but I do know that to generate 171
lb/sq ft of lift at 20,000 MSL takes serious speed, which unless the
Bone's lift/drag is really incredible the Bone doesn't have the thrust to
maintain without reheat.  It may not even be able to crack FL200 at that
weight in burner, but I don't have an estimate for the F101's thrust at
that altitude yet.  Overall, I suspect the general was right.  But the
claim that the Bone "can do that" isn't false, technically, it's just
another *.

[snip]

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: 4 Feb 1996 17:52:28 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: >that the AF wouldn't send any to the Gulf. The BUFF's have

: Ummm, maybe not?  I remember back then that the B-1b conventional systems
: conversion wasn't completed.  Unless we wanted to nuke Iraq, the use of 
: the B-1b would have been somewhat inappropriate.  Also, weren't a large
: number of the B-1bs sitting/being held back for nuclear alert at the time????

: I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong on the timing of the mods.

At least 40 B-1Bs had Mk.82 AIR capability at that time.  The Bone wasn't
sent to the Gulf because of reliability problems.  The official AF reason
was that it was on nuclear alert, but that's another asterisk: the Bone
was actually on "limited"  nuclear alert at the time, meaning the aircraft
were grounded but they'd fly if Doomsday happened. 

The reason for the "limited" alert and the Bone fleet grounding at the 
time of DS was the Dec 19, 1990 fire in Lancer 84-0071's #3 engine which 
revealed a problem with the first stage fans.  The fleet wasn't released 
until mid-April 1991, precluding participation in DS.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1's ECM
Date: 4 Feb 1996 18:44:07 GMT

Jacob M McGuire (mcguire+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
:   Everyone knows that the current ECM suite of the B-1 does not meet specs.

:   Many people claim that it is OK anyway.

:   I just remembered reading an article somewhere, I don't remember what
: the overall topic was, but it had a line to the effect that what
: happened with the B-1 was that the AF made an initial "feeler" about the
: ECM, saying that they would like a system that was all-singing,
: all-dancing, and could jam anything from something like 10kHz to 20 GHz,
: or something similarly impossible, then Rockwell, either trying to
: improve their chances of getting the contract, or trying to get more
: money, or whatever, said "sure, we can do that."  And that even now, no
: one has the capability to make a system that would meet the B-1 ECM
: specs.

:   So, has anyone else heard this, or am I just hallucinating again?

The B-1 was supposed to have a completely automated jamming system whose
operator would really only need to decide if a threat *shouldn't* be
jammed.  It was supposed to have a broad enough frequency coverage to jam
all current and most expected new threats.  The automation and single
integrated system was what was supposed to be the improvement over the
B-52 system, which is to a large extent operator-dependent and consists of
many different types of ECM systems of varying levels of technology 
(1960s thu 1980s).

The reality was that the plane's single computer wasn't advanced enough to
handle ECM and offensive tasks (bombing, radar tasks) at the same time. 
Additionally, there were serious gaps in the frequency coverage, with the
result that the system was mostly useless when the plane first rolled out. 

Some fixes were made, but the gaps still remain, because it may be
impossible to mount effective receive/jamming antennae in required areas
on the plane, and because there has never been (and never will be) enough
money spent to fix this problem. The best "fix" may be to install some
off-the -shelf jamming systems (from planes like the B-52) that work,
which sacrifices integration and possibly some of the B-1s stealthy
characteristics (due to mounting new receive/jam antennae).  I don't know 
if the AF will ever bite the bullet and admit the integration idea is a 
failure in the B-1s case, and I suspect that officials would rather spend 
the money on other weapon systems anyway.  

It may be that the technology of the late 1970s was not up to the task of
a truly integrated, automated ECM system, but the problem is we are stuck
with what they could design.  1990s EW technology could easily design such
a system, but a retrofit would cost more than the B-1s initial unit cost
per plane.  

My personal view is the AF doesn't want to spend even enough to "patch" 
the problems and would rather officially ignore that any gaps or
deficiencies exist.  If, like the AF, you say "oh, but we will never see
*that* threat because we will plan around it or most countries don't own
it" to justify a claim of no ECM deficiencies, you're kidding yourself. 

Steve Ryan

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lee's r.a.m. policies (Was: Re: Lets talk NAPALM)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:51:03 -0500

In article <4f65ob$745@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smryan@umich.edu
(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:

> I don't doubt B-47s used the airfield, but the 34th Bomb Squadron's B-52s 
> could not taxi on the entire taxiway, and could only park on parts of the 
> airfield due to weight considerations.  We could only take off or land 
> there partially loaded to keep the weight down.  The B-1 is nearly as 
> heavy, and I understand it has a similar weight distribution as the 
> B-52.

Actually, this may not be true.  The ACC's public affairs office has not
been willing to share the Bone's LCN with me so I can't really tell you
what its loading is, but by way of comparison the Bone runs a main gear
tire pressure of up to 280 PSI, almost twice that of the much heavier
KC-10 fully loaded.  The Bone may weigh less than a loaded BUFF, but could
still put higher pressure per unit area on pavement because of the number
and diameter of tires and the area it spreads over; it certainly weighs
less than a loaded Extender, but stresses concrete more.  Anyone have the
BUFF's main-gear tire pressure handy?

In any event, I do know that billions were spent upgrading bases already
handling BUFFs to be able to handle Bones, so there is clearly some
difference.  

In fairness, I have learned that the extra-thick runways at Dyess were
intended for the Bone's heaviest GTOW, the 477,000 lb loading the AF no
longer uses, but even at its present 431,600 it's still a lot of pressure
per unit area.

> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52 
> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and 
> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to 
> spend.

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:59:49 -0500

In article <bebrrwh.942.005261B2@business.utah.edu>,
bebrrwh@business.utah.edu (Bill Huber) wrote:

> In article <4f2ros$oqj@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH) writes:
> 
> >The reason for the "limited" alert and the Bone fleet grounding at the 
> >time of DS was the Dec 19, 1990 fire in Lancer 84-0071's #3 engine which 
> >revealed a problem with the first stage fans.  The fleet wasn't released 
> >until mid-April 1991, precluding participation in DS.
> 
> I don't know where that came from

It comes from "Strategic Bombers: Updated Status of the B-1B", report to
the US Congress, call # GA 1 13 NSIAD-91-189.

> but I know for a fact that the 
> B-1s actually started flying again in late January 1991

I think I can illuminate the source of the discrepancy: "the" B-1Bs didn't
start flying in 1991, "some" B-1Bs did.  The aircraft were grounded on
12/20/91 due to the 12/19/91 engine fire, restricted to limited nuclear
alert.  They were released *one at a time*, as their engines were
inspected, reassembled, tested, and reinstalled.  The first few did return
to flight status by the end of January 1991, but it was March before the
inspections passed the 50% mark and mid-April when they were completed and
the fleet released.

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 13:24:31 -0500

In article <bebrrwh.941.0045EE54@business.utah.edu>,
bebrrwh@business.utah.edu (Bill Huber) wrote:

> Just a WAG here. 
> Fuel:   195K
> Mk82s:  84 x 500 lbs ea.:       42K
> Racks:  How much? I'll round up? 5k ea.? 15K
> 
> At that load, the weight reaches 477K only if the airframe, crew, 
> and other items weigh 225K. I thought the B-1s only weighed about 
> 170 - 180 or so each. 

The AF doesn't use the 477,000 lb figure as the Bone's max GTOW any
longer.  That figure was with the external hardpoints loaded, and the
external hardpoints are gone.  Current "typical" max GTOW is 431,600. 
That is:

192,000 empty with rotary dispensers installed
195,000 full load of internal fuel
44,604 lb bombs (Mk.82 "500" lb bombs actually weigh 531 lb each)

> Lots of room left.

Depends on what you mean by room.  The Bone has an exceptionally high wing
loading (221 lb/sq ft at 431k lb, vs a maxed-out 505,000 lb BUFF's loading
of 126) and has a thrust/weight of 0.285 in afterburner (comparable to the
afterburner-less KC-10).  Without burner, loaded at 431k, its T/W is
0.135, which makes for a long slow climb.  Operation fully laden from a
hot humid location such as Diego Garcia, or a high hot one like Nellis,
can become problematic as the wing loading doesn't drop, but lift and
engine thrust decline with altitude, temp, and humidity.  My bro, who
worked more than two dozen Flags as an air traffic controller at Nellis,
says on warm days Bones can "use up every last brick" of Nellis' 11,000 ft
runways, so they generally tried to get 'em off early in the mornings. 
The only way to decrease that wing loading is to take off with partial
fuel or leave the bombs at home.

What I've been able to get from AF public sources suggests typical
training missions for Bones take off much lighter than 431k in order to
achieve reasonable climb performance, then tank shortly after takeoff. 
(Of course, this gets them air refueling practice too, and I presume
that's a skill which takes practice.)  Can any of our Bone pilots hereon
share what their usual mission profile is like?

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lee's r.a.m. policies (Was: Re: Lets talk NAPALM)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 13:49:33 -0500

In article <4fairj$nm1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, interns@ostp.eop.gov wrote:

> In article <greenla-0602961251030001@manfred.med.umich.edu>,
greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) says:

> High tire pressure=high ramp loadings?  A bundle of assumptions there.

No, only one, really: that the tires deform under load.  If they do, then
the pressure inside has to equal the pressure on the ground.

> FWIW, this load factor should be based not on some "maximum carrying
> capacity at altitude after refueling," but on a standard mission profile
> ramp weight.

It seems to me that there are two legitimate bases for the factor:
standard mission profile ramp weight, and max GTOW.  That's gross takeoff,
not max in the air after refueling.  Part of the problem is that the
mission profile is not usually specified in AF claims for the Bone's
basing flexibility, so one can't really evaluate those claims or their
implications (such as strain on tanker logistics).

> Very few high performance military aircraft sit on the ramp at max gross.
> Even fewer take off at max gross.  We load them up with bombs, put
> enough gas on them to get them to the ARCP, and that's how they launch.

I've read extended interviews with Beagle drivers who claim they do indeed
launch at their max gross of 81,000 lb.  Sometimes they do so with partial
fuel in order to carry extra ordnance, but they don't have to launch below
max GTOW from any of our bases.  That's the kind of detail which makes a
difference in evaluating the practical utility of a weapons system.

> Comments about ramp weight, ramp loads, bomb load limitations, fuel load
> limitations, combat radius limitations, etc. should take this into
> account.  The "max gross" ramp weight figures apply only to SIOP alert
> configurations.  Historically a limited CONUS-based mission.

Absolutely, a good point.


> budget numbers handy, what is the line-item breakdown for  costs due to
> the CASS  construction?  Take that out.  How much of the construction
> went to dormitories, office buildings, and other programs?  Take those
> out.  How much of the cost went to "upgrading the ramp" to provide
> employment opportunities for local contractors?  Take that out.  What are
> you left with?  

Unfortunately, it's not really that neat; AF accounting is notoriously
Byzantine.  As best I can figure it, somewhere in the neighborhood of
$500-600 million (of $1.2 billion) went for concrete.  Now, how much of
that was really needed, vs. how much was Congressional pork for local
contractors, well that's a fair question.  (And begs the question of
whether the whole B-1B program has been pork from the start, and basing
just another example thereof.)

> A perfect example of what I have previously noted.  Why do you think the
> 477,000 gross figure was used in the first place, Lee?

It's the AF's number, and was considered correct by the AF at the time
they pitched the basing mods to Congress.

> >> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52 
> >> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and 
> >> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to 
> >> spend.
> 
> 
> Take all of these expenses, examine them objectively and critically, and
> it's quite a Potemkin village you've got there, Lee.

I don't agree.  Discount as many items as you want, but I do not believe
you would have a hope or prayer of modifying Mountain Home to handle Bones
for less than $300 million or so in current dollars (the $1.2 billion
spent elsewhere was 1985 dollars).  At one time the budget did call for
modifying Mountain Home by 1998, but those bucks are no longer budgeted
AFAIK.  The original poster's comment remains correct: there is no way the
AF is going to take those dollars away from its other priorities.

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 14:03:04 -0500

In article <4faj2m$nm1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, interns@ostp.eop.gov wrote:

>   And the point of all this is . . . ?  In any given year supporting the
> B-52 and KC-135, we would "ground the fleet" at least once, maybe twice
> a year!  This is SOP.  The depots would find a crack or something, an
> emergency action TCTO would be issued saying "ground the fleet until
> so-and-so inspection/repair is accomplished" etc.

No, the point was to address the original question, why the Bones did not
go to the Persian Gulf.  The answer was that it wasn't an option.

This wasn't a case of just "find a crack or something", the aircraft had
an inflight fire which would not extinguish despite using both the main
and reserve suppressant bottles.  The fire resulted from a catastrophic
failure of the engine's first stage fan, the same failure which had caused
the inflight loss of 86-0128's engine two months earlier.  The aircraft
weren't just grounded, they were prohibited from even operating the
engines on the ground until the fan blade retaining rings were replaced
with thicker rings of stronger material.

>  So what?  Does this
> make the B-1B an "unrelaiable and trouble prone weapon system?"

By itself, no, it's only one example.  But the Bone has accumulated enough
examples to earn skepticism of its reliability.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: 8 Feb 1996 01:10:19 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Well, O.K., the fleet is grounded but ok for SIOP.  Only 40 aircraft are
: available to even fly conventional.  Do you send the Bone or not.  No.
: Because the aircraft is 1) dangerous, 2)  etc.?  No; simply because it
: makes more sense from a resource utilization perspective to cover the
: SIOP lines with the bone and cover the conventional lines with the BUFF.

It should be noted that at the time there were only 2 conventional 
bombloaders for these 40 aircraft, and the average time to load a B-1 
without a loader was approx. 28 hours.  Can't fight a war with that kind 
of turnaround time.  Plus, they were still having significant problems 
getting the bombs to 1) drop and 2) go where they were intended with this 
conventional mod, at least during and for some time after the war.  I 
don't know what the fix was for these early problems but I am assuming it 
is fixed now.

Steve Ryan

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 14:19:36 -0500

In article <4fakfc$nm1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, interns@ostp.eop.gov wrote:

>   -  On more than one occasion in this thread, people have used "context"
>      in very misleading ways to make a point.

Indeed so.  And my point is that the AF has made a busy practice of doing
just that, in an effort to portray the Bone as more useful or flexible
than it realistically is.  I'm trying to figure out not "if the Bone is a
bad airplane", but how it compares to other options for spending our
defense dollar and getting the job done.  The AF's Bone propaganda
oversells what the aircraft can *practically* do, by painting a picture of
its capabilities based on what it can do in selected circumstances.

> >What I've been able to get from AF public sources suggests typical
> >training missions for Bones take off much lighter than 431k in order to
> >achieve reasonable climb performance, then tank shortly after takeoff. 
> 
> This is not some clever trick by the Air Force to make the Bone look good.
> This is SOP for the vast majority of high performance jet aircraft.  That

Vast majority?  Beagles routinely take off at their actual, 81,000 lb
GTOW.  Not light, then grab a tanker.  They taxied at 81,000 lb every day
in DS.  Vipers do likewise.  Which aircraft routinely leave the runway
well below their max GTOW then tank after climbing?

Beagles may climb then hit the tanker before going into hostile airspace
so they have plenty of gas if they need it, but they don't need a tanker
nearby to be able to take off at all.

Of course none of this "proves" the B-1B has to use tankers and other
aircraft don't.  The point is that Bone advocates claim as one
justification for the Lancer the idea that Strike Eagles aren't as useful
because they need tanker support: they don't have the Bone's range. 
That's an example of misleading, or what I referred to as asterisks in
previous posts.  The B-1B isn't less dependent on tanker resources;
indeed, flying Bones from bases not designed for them can place a much
greater strain on tanker resources than using Mud Hens for the job.

When compared to the alternatives, the Bone is not a practical choice even
if it "can" do various things given suitable circumstances.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lee's r.a.m. policies (Was: Re: Lets talk NAPALM)
Date: 8 Feb 1996 19:50:58 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: >> >> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52 
: >> >> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and 
: >> >> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to 
: >> >> spend.
:
: >I don't agree.  Discount as many items as you want, but I do not believe
: >you would have a hope or prayer of modifying Mountain Home to handle Bones
: >for less than $300 million or so in current dollars (the $1.2 billion
: >spent elsewhere was 1985 dollars).  At one time the budget did call for
: >modifying Mountain Home by 1998, but those bucks are no longer budgeted
: >AFAIK.  The original poster's comment remains correct: there is no way the
: >AF is going to take those dollars away from its other priorities.

: You are claiming or hinting that in order to fly the Bone out of Mountain
: Home would require 300 million dollars?  You don't really mean that, do
: you?

: Hasn't the Bone been operating out of Mountain Home off and on over the
: last few years?

I think he is pretty close...from its inception, the 366th Wing was
planned to have the 34th Bomb Squadron based at Mt. Home, but Air Combat
Command could not get the money to upgrade the facilities.  As I 
mentioned previously, the ramp and runway were inadequate for a B-52 or a 
B-1 to do more than visit Mt. Home.  Sure, we "operated" our B-52s out of 
there on a regular basis, and the Bones could "operate" under the same 
restrictions, but it was very impractical.  Having an airplane tie up 
the runway for an extra ten minutes to back-taxi for takeoff while you're 
trying to launch and recover 15 fighters is a big pain in the ass.  Heavy 
parking spots were limited, (the 4 KC-135Rs took up most of it), and 
wasn't a very "heavy" ramp anyway.  We always operated pretty light out 
of there.  

The composite wing idea has been attacked over and over as not cost
efficient because it is too expensive to have 5 different aircraft types
maintained at one base.  The AF would rather spend its shrinking budget on
new toys and not the 366th Wing, which (because it was a McPeak idea) is
under increasing political attack as within the AF.  I don't agree, but
there is significant political opposition to its continued existence.  So,
whether it's $100 million or $300 million, the B-1s are not going to be
based at Mt Home, IMHO. It definitely will cost something, and it just
ain't gonna happen. 

Steve Ryan

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lee's r.a.m. policies (Was: Re: Lets talk NAPALM)
Date: 9 Feb 1996 00:36:35 GMT

BUFFIRN (buffirn@aol.com) wrote:

: took off at near max gross.  Refueling was limited.  What I remember was
: that both used about 8000 feet of the runway.  Basically, if a Buff can
: use the runway, so can a Bone.  Similar takeoff performance.  The Buff has

Thanks for the comparison, Jim.  I've still had zip for luck getting 
takeoff by wt and climb performance by wt curves for the Bone, but this 
helps.

So be it resolved (for me, at least), if the concrete will support a BUFF 
it'll support a Bone, at currently advertised Bone weights (as the 477k 
no longer pertains).  Logistics, support facilities, etc are separate 
budget items of course, but new concrete needn't be poured if the place 
is up to BUFFs.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lee's r.a.m. policies (Was: Re: Lets talk NAPALM)
Date: 10 Feb 1996 03:05:42 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: The money to upgrade the facilities was requested in order to support
: the "composite wing" operation of the base.  How much of this "$300
: million" was required to support the larger number/mix of aircraft?
: What portion could *objectively* be considered to be "needed to support
: B-1B operations?"

All of it (or to be fair, all of it was needed for either bomber to
operate there)--the base facilities (maintenance facilities, hangars, and
mission ops buildings) were already upgraded for the fighter squadrons. 
There was no hangar suitable for BUFF (or B-1) maintenance, no mission ops
building for the squadron, no buildings for the bomber maintenance in
general, etc.  The infrastructure was in place for the 3 fighter squadrons
and the tanker squadron, but the bomber money was never received.  This
included upgrading the runway (I believe for weight and length) and
upgrading the WWII-era and early 50s parking ramp to hold *really* heavy
airplanes, and the taxiways to a uniform width and strength.  The problem
with the taxiways is they were *very* narrow at the ends. As I said
before, this base was not suitable for B-52 ops, and also not suitable for
B-1 ops.  The AF knew it wasn't, knows it still isn't, but they can't
get the money for it now after the shine is off the composite wing idea. 
The chance to get the funds was when they were excited about getting the
concept working--not 4 years and a "balance the budget" Congress later. 

: ****  SNIP criticisms of composite wing concept  ****

Just to clarify, I like the composite wing concept--the critcisms were the
ones I heard from others, which make me believe it won't be easy to keep
it going in the current political climate. 

Steve Ryan

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:34:35 -0500

In article <4fg2b5$qj9@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, interns@ostp.eop.gov wrote:

> Are we ready to agree that the issue boils down to the opinions of the
> professional cost and effectiveness trade-off analyzers vs. the opinions
> of the assembled cast?
> 
> The professionals have voted for the Bone.

The professionals who get their paychecks from the Bone have voted for,
not surprisingly, what they get their paychecks from.

We'll never come to agreement on this of course, because we're coming from
utterly different places.

You regard the people you praise as "the professionals", i.e., the AF, as
knowledgeable and credible and the ones I praise as "independent
assessors" i.e., the GAO etc., as out to do a politically motivated
hatchet job on the B-1B program.

I, OTOH, find no support for the contention that the GAO is out to get the
Lancer.  I point to the AF's history of dissembling about the Bone
(fudging the RCS results by a factor of 10, lying to John Glenn's
Congressional subcommittee about the status of the ECM, hiding data from
auditors, and these are just the ones they've been caught at, who knows
what else they're faking) and to their actions such as canning the B-1B
program chief (Gen. P. W. Odgers) when he admitted publicly that the
Bone's capabilities were "far less than we hoped they would be".  And if
the AF really did believe they were getting the shaft from the GAO, they
always have the option of contracting with KPMG Peat Marwick or Coopers
and Lybrand or whomever to do a genuine, independent audit; why haven't
they?  I believe these are the actions of folks with something to hide,
and that the problem of credibility is with the AF, not the GAO.

So you don't think my sources are credible, and I don't think yours are
truthful.  Hence it seems improbable to me that we'll come to agreement on
the worth of the B-1B program.  But the debate certainly has been an
interesting exercise!  Cheers, -Lee

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B's potential
Date: 17 Feb 1996 19:26:45 GMT

Stephen Swartz (swartzst@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: What was dishonest about the Air Forces' various reports about the RCS
: profile and the ECM tests?  I have noted the assertion and am waiting for
: some references.  I have been following the tortured public relations

Start with Congressional testimony documents Y 4.Ar 5/2 a:987-88/108 and 
GA 1 13:NSIAD-91-189.  In a nutshell, the AF claimed that the Bone had a 
near-stealth RCS, but when audited was found to have fudged the data by a 
factor of 10, and finally admitted that the Bone has "no useful reduction 
in detection range compared to the B-52H".  The details about what they 
claimed for the ECM and what it really did are classified, but they were 
divergent enough that John Glenn openly accused the AF of lying to Congress.

: Not nonsense at all.  The GAO is a highly politicized arm of the federal
: government and serves at the beck and call of it's various congressional
: sponsors.  If you can't imagine that this would lead to conflict of
: interest and a lack of objectivity, well, I can't help you.  Find some

So you mentioned.  So I looked up the Congressmen who requested the GAO 
audit of the Bone's ORA test.  Sam Nunn and Strom Thurmond.


------  

Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
From: smithiesjs@aol.com (SmithiesJS) 
Date: Feb 11 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Hey I'm back to answer the ole Doctor  Green's list from 2 Feb.  Sorry,
I've been in the process of moving.

Here's the response Doc, then I'll try to just respond to future
inacuracies with more lighthearted responses.  this is taking up too much
free time repsonding to your already made up point of view.  Anyway, here
goes, (Oh by the way, I'll take you up on the free beer gig)

Issue #1, Dr Green wrote:
>: "....,the ONE squadron involved in the ORA
assessment reached, at peak, 84% readiness, but that was its one best
week, according to the GAO's independent audit.  The overall Bone fleet
has never exceeded 65%, and the average for the one ORA test squadron over
its six-month demonstration was 78%."

HELLOOOOO?  The test was for one squadron, manned to the levels that it
SHOULD be manned at.  That one squadron took parts away from the others
because the Bone has never gotten a spare parts chain from Congress.  
We're all paying contractor prices for spare parts, and not getting the
ones we're supposed to have.  If I don't give you equipment you need in
your hospital, you can't very well do your job.  The test was designed to
see if a fully-equipped squadron could get the required mission capable
level.  The test for the ONE squadron required 75%, the ONE squadron that
was TESTED got 84%, ....that's a TOTAL AVERAGE of 84% over 6 months.

Issue #2, Dr Green
>:  "Would you care to share with us how much fuel you were carrying up
there,
and how long you can run in burner to stay there?  How high can you
actually fly in a useful fashion, without asterisks: level stable cruise
with reserve 100fpm climb ability i.e. "service ceiling" parameters (I'll
even grant you winter, dry air, and full-out wings) without reheat,
carrying 95,000 lb of fuel and 84 Mk.82's?"

Well Doc, thanks for "granting" me the weather parameters and the
'full-out' wings.  With the weight of the airplane itself, 44K of weapons
weight , and 95K of gas, that would total about 330 gross weight.  At 330,
I can reach,...and stay in,....the 30k's IN MILITARY POWER!  Fact.  I
don't WANT the "full-out" wings doc, I'd rather be 55 wing, doing .9 mach
because my energy level is much better, and my ability to threat REACT is
much better.  IF I want to stay in burner, I can get to and STAY IN the
HIGH 30s!   I would care to "share" it with you, but unfortunately the Air
Force probably wouldn't like me to.  I can tell you though, where to look.
 When you get your charts through the freedom of info gig, you look at the
stall warning charts for:  55 wing, 340 gross weight, SEF aircraft.  Then
take 340 gross times the load factor of 1.4 (45 degrees of bank) .  Get
your "aero prof" to help you out.  Enter the chart on the left, go across
to the 30,000 foot line (for example), then go down to find the mach you
will get "stall warning" on.  What you'll find is, that I can easily
maintain manueverable energy at that gross weight;.....and as we've
discussed before, those altitudes are sufficient to fly above any "factor"
surface-to-air threats.

Issue#3, Dr Green wrote:
>: "I don't have the Bone's lift/drag yet, but I do know that to generate
171
lb/sq ft of lift at 20,000 MSL takes serious speed, which unless the
Bone's lift/drag is really incredible the Bone doesn't have the thrust to
maintain without reheat.  It may not even be able to crack FL200 at that
weight in burner, but I don't have an estimate for the F101's thrust at
that altitude yet.  Overall, I suspect the general was right.  But the
claim that the Bone "can do that" isn't false, technically, it's just
another *."

WHATTTT?  Lbs per square feet?, next you'll be asking if the rivets are
the right weight, who cares?   You should have been an engineer.  At the
weights we've already talked about, I've already told you that the MIL
ceilings are easily into 30K, and with burner into the high 30's.  The
secret is maintaining my energy level once I get high, that's why I'd
rather be aft wing that forward wing--talk to your "aero prof" on that one
again.

Issue #4, Dr Green wrote:
>:  "I found out
from budget documents why the B-1B runways at McConnell and Dyess cost
over $10,000 a foot: they're 30 inches thick.  Standard runways are 24
inches (or so I'm told by a patient of mine who happens to be an airport
manager and ex-USAF logistics officer). "

Well, ask your "ex-Logy" bud what used to fly at Dyess and Ellsworth on
the very same runways.  The B-52.  Again, said it before, the Bone can
operate out of any place any other "heavy" airplane can operate.


Issue #4, Dr Green wrote:
>:  "I can't get hold of the Bone's
LCN (so far at least), but it appears that the Lancer can't safely operate
fully loaded from standard runways.  Especially in warm weather, its
takeoff run at its typical 431,600 lb max GTOW is too long for most
runways as well, and its climbout hazardously slow for populated areas. 
The Cold War dispersal SIOP called for the Bones to disperse with
KC-135Rs, launch at something like 330,000 lb GTOW, and proceed
immediately to the tanker to take on another 100-120,000 lb of fuel before
turning toward their targets.

Try a military "flight information handbook" from just about any airport
to get the LCN number; they're not classified.  Then get an "IFR
Supplement" from the same place.  Compare "twin tandem " gross weights
(the Bone's class) at any major airport for heavy's.  You'll prove
yourself wrong, I don't need to do it for you on that one.
But the other thing, a "TYPICAL" gross weight of 430K?  You can't get
there from here doc.  You physically can't do it.  Even with a FULL
weapons load, and a FULL fuel load (with weapons in the bays), you never
get to that weight.  We don't hang things outside the airplane--START
doesn't allow it.  As far as the "cold war" scenarios, can't really talk
about that, other than to say that you are incorrect.  You gotta find a
better reference document I guess, or stop reading Dale Brown's books.

Issue #5, Dr Green wrote:
>:  "As far as unrefueled combat radius, both the
BUFF and the Spirit do much better, and can operate from most bases fully
loaded without *."

Prove it Doc.  Tell me your source on the "better", and I've already told
you your wrong on the "operate from most......"

Issue #6, Dr Green wrote:
>:  "No, I've never flown a Bone, but I do get just a tad
suspicious when I hear "we can't show you it works, it's classified, but
trust us, it works".  Especially when the "trust us" comes from those
whose money, careers, etc are invested.  Every time I try to figure out
how one of the claims for the Bone might be true, I keep running into *. 
The numbers just don't square except under * conditions, but hey, what do
I know, I don't fly one, it could be a supernatural aircraft! 

Dooooooc, your talking politicians.  I'm not at all trying to tell you
that there hasn't been some screwed up operations in aquireing the B-1B
Bomber.  I'm not going to argue too much politics on the Bone (other than
the ORA stuff which I fully participated in as a flyer), that's for
others.  The problem is though, that you THINK you know what you're
talking about when it comes to the performance of the airplane when you
really don't. Granted YOUR mind is made up.  That's your right as an
American.  I however, am not going to let your perceptions of the B-1 go
unchallenged when you've never set foot in the jet.  I can always get
another job, but I've strapped my butt in the B-1 for 6 years and I know
it's a damn good jet.  Yah, I'd like to have this or that improved, and no
it's not perfect, but it's a damn fine airplane that people put they're
lives at stake for ready to go fight if the country calls.

Issue #6, Dr Green wrote:
>:  "Unfortunately, as both ret. Col Riccioni and former B-1 program chief
Gen.
Odgers have stated, the Bone's performance limitations are the result of
basic design.  It's never going to be good at anything but what it was
designed for: high speed low altitude bombing. "

Yah, that was a fine piece of literary majic that the good Col put
together.  When did he leave the Air Force, ....1975 was it?  Had a second
career as I remember, lets see, ......oh ya, at Northrop I think,....don't
they make the B-2? 

See ya, hope I've answered your innacuracies Doc.  I know I'll never
change your mind.  You've already made it up.  Oh well, keep firing away. 
Hope you get the info your looking for.  Try that reporter idea I told you
about, I'd really like to fly with you so you could actually get some
valid information.  Let's have that beer now, Im done typing.  Later.....

From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B Pros and Cons
Date: 17 Feb 1996 20:29:29 GMT

SmithiesJS (smithiesjs@aol.com) wrote:

: HELLOOOOO?  The test was for one squadron, manned to the levels that it
: SHOULD be manned at.  That one squadron took parts away from the others
: because the Bone has never gotten a spare parts chain from Congress.  
: We're all paying contractor prices for spare parts, and not getting the

"Should" be manned at?  This is a point I've made before, and on which we 
will very much disagree.  Anything can be made to fly if you put enough 
money and effort into it, and define that level as "how much it should 
get".  However, even the AF in its reply to the GAO's ORA audit admitted 
before Congress that the "100%" level of funding is unrealistic, and that 
no other aircraft gets that either.  Yet other aircraft do far better on 
ORA.  The problem with the Bone isn't that it "won't fly", it's that it 
requires excessive expense and effort to keep flying.  Claiming the Bone 
is reliable because it'll fly if it gets "everything it needs" is akin to 
claiming a classic Jaguar is reliable because you're wealthy enough to 
afford the constant repairs.

:  When you get your charts through the freedom of info gig, you look at the
: stall warning charts for:  55 wing, 340 gross weight, SEF aircraft.  Then
: take 340 gross times the load factor of 1.4 (45 degrees of bank) .  Get
: your "aero prof" to help you out.  Enter the chart on the left, go across
...
: discussed before, those altitudes are sufficient to fly above any "factor"
: surface-to-air threats.

Thanks for the info as to what to look for, I'll check them out when I 
get them.  I've also faxed Col. Riccioni a letter asking how he supports 
his assertion that you can't overfly AAA with a load of bombs and half 
tank of gas.

: the very same runways.  The B-52.  Again, said it before, the Bone can
: operate out of any place any other "heavy" airplane can operate.

This was settled while you were out moving: the extra concrete pertained 
to bases intended for the Bone's original 477,000 lb GTOW.  That's no 
longer a possibility, so at this point the issue of forward-based 
operations is limited to the logistics train.

: Yah, that was a fine piece of literary majic that the good Col put
: together.  When did he leave the Air Force, ....1975 was it?  Had a second
: career as I remember, lets see, ......oh ya, at Northrop I think,....don't
: they make the B-2? 

Well, I can certainly see how slamming Riccioni would be a matter of faith
in the B-1 community, but the man does have a few credentials.  He's the
"godfather" of the Lightweight Fighter Mafia, an aeronautical engineer who
knows a really workable aircraft and can prove it, as he was a major force
behind delivering the F-16.  He's also a bird colonel and ex-test pilot
with probably five times your hours, and apparently must know something
useful as the DoD still pays him real dollars as a consultant.  Might he
be biased?  Of course, hence my fax challenging his assertions too.  Might
there be touch of bias in the other direction on the part of a B-1B pilot?  
Or a "bomber general" whose roots are in SAC?  Hm, could happen. 

No, my mind isn't made up, I'm just profoundly skeptical.  The Bone was 
bought for and optimized for low-level penetration strategic bombing.  
It's now being plugged by its proponents as capable of a variety of other 
missions, the optimum design considerations for which conflict sharply 
with those around which the Bone was designed.  Given the false claims 
the AF has made for it in the past (like its RCS), I think it prudent to 
closely question these new claims of versatility in roles for which its 
design is ill-suited.  The more so because of the stakes: it costs a lot of 
money to keep going, money we can use for other things, and will cost a 
great deal more to add a decent range of conventional munitions to.

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 ECM Upgrade?
Date: 12 Jun 1996 11:55:57 GMT

Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:

:         Sounds good to me, considering when it was designed,
: I doubt if anyone anticipated the new equipment that would
: be available.    The way technology jumps sometimes, maybe
: they will have to be rewired again in another 12 years or so.

My point was the B-1 was built with one purpose (SIOP lone penetrator) 
and had no conventional capability.  To require such extensive 
modifications just to carry different (non-nuclear) weapons shows that 
the cost-cutting was a little out of hand.

BTW, I forgot to mention they are also building new Line Replaceable 
Units (because the hardware and software required is also completely 
different).  The B-1 was single-purpose down to the last detail and 
that is why such an extensive and expensive upgrade is necessary.  Would 
have been cheaper to build in the conventional capability from the beginning.

The B-52 was modified over and over, but I don't believe a complete 
rewiring was ever necessary (Although after spending a few hours delayed 
on the groung while maintenance tried to trace an electrical problem, it 
may have been advisable!).

Steve Ryan

From: smryan@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 ECM Upgrade?
Date: 12 Jun 1996 21:11:03 GMT

Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:

:         Yes, I guess the reason is that the plane was
: designed in the early to mid seventies, then modified
: quickly to fill a pressing need (better penetrator til
: the B-2 came on line), and the design had to be frozen
: at some point.
:         I think this does make some sense as there is
: now about 11 or 12 B-2s completed ( a couple in upgrades),
: and some of the B-1s can now have the major upgrades.

I guess it should be noted the B-1B was originally designed to be dual 
purpose (nuclear and conventional) and in order to get 100 planes built 
the design was changed to single purpose to save money.  This just proves 
no money was really saved by this manuever.

: : BTW, I forgot to mention they are also building new Line Replaceable 
: : Units (because the hardware and software required is also completely 
: : different).  The B-1 was single-purpose down to the last detail and 
: : that is why such an extensive and expensive upgrade is necessary.  Would 
: : have been cheaper to build in the conventional capability from the 
: : beginning.

:         It wasn't needed then, and many events since 1982
: occurred that were totally unexpected.    I kinda feel
: with the budget the way it is, the upgrade is needed,
: and I am very glad the penetrator role hasn't been needed
: so far.

If it had been on the plane, we might have seen B-1s in DS.

: : The B-52 was modified over and over, but I don't believe a complete 
: : rewiring was ever necessary (Although after spending a few hours delayed 
: : on the groung while maintenance tried to trace an electrical problem, it 
: : may have been advisable!).

:           They replace taxicabs about every 2 or three
: years. :-)    I flew quite a bit in B-25s that were only
: 3 or 4 years old, and they seemed ancient then. :-)
 
The B-52 always SMELLED ancient in the cockpit.  There's no mistaking the 
odor of used military aircraft.  We needed some of those little pine tree 
things to hang by the windscreen.

Steve Ryan