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.

 

Bone to retire

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
what do you guys think about the plan to retire the B-1 Lancer.
personally, i think they should be refitted and upgraded to keep up with the current state of the art. i just feel that it would be a waste to have spent all that time and money to develop a capable plane just to retire it a couple of decades down the road. they're saying it doesn't have a role in the current environment, it sounds to me like they're admitting that they're not creative enough to come up with possible uses for the plane.

Link



No decision has yet been announced, and there's always a chance the service is bluffing. After all, news of the B-1 early retirement first cropped up in a blog maintained by Air Force magazine, an independent publication whose interests still tend to be pretty much in sync with those of the Air Force itself.


i bet that after they retire the B-1, we'll be reading it in the news one day that they've been donated to either Israel or South Korea.

[edit on 7.1.10 by toreishi]




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well, gotta love that Bone!

One of my favorites, only seen it flying once, during the Daytona 500.

Its like 2 F-15's with burners on. LOUD.

The Bone is used on a daily basis in Afghanistan, not sure about Iraq. But they have adopted a close air support role.

Nice article here.

In particular, one quote from the article;





As the B-1 nears its 25th anniversary, a new chapter could be opening up for the bomber with an even more precise weapon, the airborne laser. The Air Force's chief scientist, Dr. Werner Dahm, flew on a Lancer recently to see if the crew could operate an airborne laser platform in the tightly spaced cockpit while continuing to do their duties. The laser is capable of precision targeting and minimizes unintended damage when the enemy places hostile networks near schools and mosques. The Lancer could be looking at a prototype laser by 2014.


I think the B1 will probably keep serving for another 25. There was also a story about upgrading the communications to enable network data link capability with the newer fighting force, here.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I'm surprised. Really. On the face of it that seems bizarre.

Why keep the B-52 flying for another 30 years but scrap the B-1. Whats missing from the picture? Does the B-1 have airframe life limitation issues or something? If its having fatigue issues that would make sense of it on cost grounds.

Very sad if true. B-1 is the only aircraft i've ever seen display that thrills like the Concorde and the Vulcan. Be sorry to see it go.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
hope the B1 keeps flying. BTW I read something where a B-52 pilot said that he thought the airframes would still be used when they were over 100.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
i hope to see the B-1 being used as a sort of mothership for UCAVs.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Well it should be around long enough for that!

With the upgrades its getting, it would be foolish to retire.

On the other hand, the military does foolish things everyday.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 


Agreed
. Have seen one on a low but fast flyby at an airshow once, very sexy aircraft!! Remember they wanted to retire the A-10 a while back also(another nice machine). There has to be a way to keep it in service, would be a waste not to imo.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Aww. This is my absolute favorite jet - ever. Very hot looking jet. I lived on a B1 base for a couple of years. I so love watching them fly!! I would be sad for them to be retired



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I read in the AF Times, I think, that the B52 and B2 will be converted to conventional only munitions. They won't be able to haul nukes.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


Well that is good news as i believe that role for the plane is over anyway. Why dispose of an otherwise very capable airframe? Thanks for the .s up.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
UPDATE:



General David Petraeus - the famous US officer who oversaw the "surge" in Iraq and is now set to take over the war in Afghanistan - has delivered a stinging bitchslap to the US Air Force's fleets of heavy manned bombers. Petraeus says that a mighty 200 tonne, quarter-billion-dollar B-1 "Lancer" is "almost" as good as having a much cheaper unmanned aircraft.


Link

they shouldn't be flying Bones over there if it costs too much for them to do so, just the loss of one Bone would be a very huge PR disaster. Bones were mostly designed to wipe the enemy back to the stone age, but in this war they're waging how can it do that when the enemy is barely out of the stone age.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join