obrescia

What happened to the superlative manned penetrator the FB-111? Why on earth did we build the subsonic B-1B with the FB-111, (F-117), all manner of cruse missiles, armed Global Hawk and the B2 available? No augment here, that the B-1 sure is good looking airplane!!....but...

dalem

You're mixing a lot of different platforms, missions, and eras in there, hoss.

-dale

obrescia

FB-111, B-1A (B-1B?) and B2 have the same mission.... manned penetrator.

Silent Hunter

The FB-111 was getting a tad old.

obrescia

Yes absolutely.....just wonder if an FB-111 upgrade program (vs. B-1b program) may have saved some buck$?? In my view the FB-111 flying alone (or with an EF-111) is virtually unstoppable during target approach and egress ...even to this day.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

highsea

That's like saying an LA Class and Ohio Class have the same mission- traveling underwater.

The 3 bombers you mention have very different missions, the FB-111 was just an interim solution. And F-117, Global Hawk, B-2 were not available when the B-1 program began (nor were "all manner" of cruise missiles- there was Tomahawk).

B-1B actually has better low altitude performance than B-1A, and is supersonic (M1.25) at altitude, while neither stealth platform you mentioned or Global Hawk are. Range and payload are more than double the FB-111.

Of all the AC you mentioned, only B-2 has a range and loadout approaching the B-1B.

The Bone is an excellent aircraft, the flight crews love them. But they are also getting long in the tooth, the world today is not the world of 1970, and there are many more options today than we had back then.

Horses for courses.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

obrescia

Sure the B-1b is a beautiful airplane…yes it is! Now they want to use it as an air-air missile barge (?!) but really...our B-1 fleet is really without a mission. I don't think we should have/had to pay $$ for it.

highsea

Well, it's called national defense. Should we not have had to pay for fleet ballistic missile subs because we never nuked the Soviets? Was it money wasted? MX Missiles? Tridents? There is a long list of weapons we have developed and never had to use (some more useless than others). How many times were F-14's actually used in combat? Not many.

The B-1B gave/is giving good service in the Gulf wars and Afghanistan, and has dropped a sh*tload of ordnance on target. But yep, it's expensive to keep flying, as all VG wing AC are, and that's why they are being phased out.

As to being used to ferry AAM's, that seems unlikely.

obrescia

As to being used to ferry AAM's, that seems unlikely.[/quote]

Please see B-1R

dalem

By this logic the F-14 was a waste of money because the Backfires and Bears never actually came after our CVBGs. I don't get your point.

-dale

obrescia

...uh nothing else shoots the AIM-54. Do you mean why didn't I compare the F-14 with the Tornado...?

Jimmy

You're really not making any good points to defend your point of view. It sounds like most of your information came from the back of those little "spec sheets" they hand out at airshows. The F-14 and Tornado have absolutely nothing in common besides sweep wings and flying. The B-1 and FB-111 are just as related. The B-2 project was still in its infancy at most, and the F-117 has a horribly low payload.

The B-1R is a ridiculous idea that will never, ever happen. The Air Force WILL NOT pay for it. But anyway, the theory is that it would carry AAMs to defend itself, removing or alleviating the need for escorts...one of the reasons its a ridiculous idea (the Bone will never be able to maneuver itself in an A2A arena). It would still primarily be a bomber.

gunnut

FB-111 was a solution searching for a problem. It was designed as a strike aircraft, fleet interceptor, airforce bomber, whatever...

It had a bomb bay, but the main gear retracted into the fuselage and took up a lot of valuable real estate for bomb loads.

It had a short range compared to the B-1. I think the only reason why it was in service for so long was because the airforce was forced to buy a fleet of them and didn't want to throw them away.

B-1 is a great bomber. Too bad we don't have more of them. And they'll be replaced by the B-52 soon. Just like the B-2 will be replaced by the B-52 in 2040.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

glyn

.