It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B-1B To Fly Through 2040 Without Major Life Extension

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Wow. Not as long-lived as the B52 will be, but still. Pushing 50 years and older at retirement is pretty good.
There's been a lot of posts on here about how there have poor mission readiness and suck from a maintenance perspective, so maybe that explains part of their longevity.

B-1B




posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra


There's been a lot of posts on here about how there have poor mission readiness and suck from a maintenance perspective, so maybe that explains part of their longevity.

What other options exist?

Buffs and Spirits.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
As a former B1-b crew chief at Ellsworth Afb (meth capital of South Dakota right outside the front gates in Box Elder), I say good luck with that plan.

We had parts shortages when I left in '07, on a good day we got 1 out 3 birds airborne.

Admittedly they work better in a desert environment but still Ill wager they do not make it that long and feel comfortable doing so.

To have a chance they need a huge influx of parts and maintainers, but the fighter mafia does not care about knuckle draggers on the flight line, FMC birds just appear thanks to the grace of unicorn farts.
edit on 4-10-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Do you think that 3d printing will help with the parts shortages?
10 years ago, adaptive manufacturing was in its infancy. Now there's a 3d printer on the ISS.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

At this point in time, yes.
Once the LRS-B and "family of systems" rolls out, I suppose that opens the doors for multiple options.

I do say that it seems like extensive effort is being spent on everything being able to integrate together.
Could one of the B-21 missions be to fill the role that BSAX / Tacit Blue was for, or is that already covered with other assets?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

A bird that pretty cant be easy to work on.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

Hard to imagine them putting out special alloy metals with anywhere near the quality of machine milling.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

If you mean future contracts to build new bomber 'fleet', its in the... 'works'.

Decades away...



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: peter_kandra

A bird that pretty cant be easy to work on.


Hydraulic system nightmare, computer system nightmare, and with the high speed take offs and landings, tire and brake assembly nightmare.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Irishhaf

Do you think that 3d printing will help with the parts shortages?
10 years ago, adaptive manufacturing was in its infancy. Now there's a 3d printer on the ISS.


Not really the biggest problems I saw were..

1: Hydraulic: flex lines hate swept wing configuration.

2: the on board computer is old, the software is new they have trouble communicating.

3: Tire/brakes/and landing gear: Take a beating because the air crew are usually disgruntled wanna be fighter jocks that try to fly it like an F-16, no fixing stupid.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter_kandra

If you mean future contracts to build new bomber 'fleet', its in the... 'works'.

Decades away...


With all the heat from the f35, what other direction could it have gone?
The military can't afford to fix their current equipment yet alone develop new stuff.

To many missions, not enough money.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter_kandra

If you mean future contracts to build new bomber 'fleet', its in the... 'works'.

Decades away...


With all the heat from the f35, what other direction could it have gone?
The military can't afford to fix their current equipment yet alone develop new stuff.

To many missions, not enough money.

Too much complexity, too few number.

They want one aircraft for all branches, all missions.

Old battle between service branches. The Military Industrial Complex wins when they incorporate more features into one platform, the individual branches lose.

Only the marines need VTOL, the airforce needs long range interceptor bomber, the navy, carrier ready.

They all get stealth regardless.

Too expensive and complex, too many missions... jack of all trades, master of none.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think we can all agree that the procurement process is terribly inefficient.
To many people getting rich from government contracts,
To many people with agendas contrary to the greater good.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

I think we can all agree that the procurement process is terribly inefficient.
To many people getting rich from government contracts,
To many people with agendas contrary to the greater good.


Monopolies don't help either. Used to be there were several contractors for different branches, right?

The Air Force got the F15 Eagle and F 16 Falcon, the Navy got the F18 Hornet, the army and marines get support from gunships like the Watrhog and Apache, this is the way of the past. The F22, F35 and god forbid Osprey, represent the bureaucratic 'sole source' miasma of the future.
edit on 4-10-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter_kandra


There's been a lot of posts on here about how there have poor mission readiness and suck from a maintenance perspective, so maybe that explains part of their longevity.

What other options exist?

Buffs and Spirits.


Beef' em up is one option.

Boeing had a proposal for a variant called the B-1R. They planned to put PW F-119 engines in them (Raptor power plants) which would give the B-1 super-cruise capability and a higher top speed. Their version would make them basically missile trucks-which would be an option- but even with only an engine upgrade the B-1 becomes even more viable, just my opinion though.
edit on 4-10-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

I think we can all agree that the procurement process is terribly inefficient.
To many people getting rich from government contracts,
To many people with agendas contrary to the greater good.


Monopolies don't help either. Used to be there were several contractors for different branches, right?

The Air Force got the F15 Eagle and F 16 Falcon, the Navy got the F18 Hornet, the army and marines get support from gunships like the Watrhog and Apache, this is the way of the past. The F22, F35 and god forbid Osprey, represent the bureaucratic 'sole source' miasma of the future.


The F-15, F-16, and F-35 were all procured from contests with full scale demonstrators. The F-18 was a loser from one of the USAF plane contests. The book "Boyd" covers this (excluding the F-35).

www.pbs.org...
This PBS Nova covers the F-35 contest.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
2: the on board computer is old, the software is new they have trouble communicating.


Is it too costly to upgrade them with new hardware?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

The new cockpit has an upgraded computer system, and they've upgraded just about everything on the aircraft, except the toilet. I don't see how they don't consider that a life extension program.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I left them at the end of 07, at that time it was hydro, or com nav during a launch, and usually the pilot was an idiot for problems post flight.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

It was engines when they'd come through us most of the time. Although we had a hell of a good time with an antiskid issue their first deployment. Shut down a runway for almost 10 hours.

They hit less than 50% MC just before they started sending them through Tinker for the upgrades. When my buddy heard about some of what they were upgrading he was amazed that anything on the aircraft worked (500% improvement to braking).




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join