Defending the Air Force’s B-1B Strategic Bomber
As the USAF program director responsible for the acquisition of the B-1B Strategic Bomber, I feel compelled to correct the many inaccuracies contained in Clarence A. Robinson’s article “Will the Bloated B-1B Be a Drag on the Stealth?” (Editorial Pages, Dec. 1).
ASSERTION: The B-1B has grown 80,000 pounds from the B-1A.
FACT: The USAF specifically grew the weight of the B-1B by 82,000 pounds to accommodate external carriage of cruise missiles. This was a conscious decision based upon excess performance in the basic aircraft. The truth of the matter is the maximum takeoff weight increase of 82,000 pounds over that of B-1A was an improvement, planned at the inception of the B-1B program, designed to increase payload and fuel capacity. Specifically, a weight-empty increase of 8,000 pounds allowed a 50,000 pound increase in payload and an additional 24,000 pound increase in fuel with this higher payload capacity. This increased capability provides a more flexible platform to perform more varied missions with more weapons and weapon types. Thus, the so-called extra weight is improving B-1B performance, not degrading it.
Unfortunately, what wasn’t pointed out in the article when it referred to the “80,000 pound” weight increase is that the B-1B’s payload is now 125,000 pounds compared to the B-1A’s payload of only 75,000 pounds . . . a 67% payload increase.
We have encountered no performance degradations in the penetration role as a result of the increased payload capability. In fact, the B-1B meets or exceeds all of its range specifications.
ASSERTION: Program cost will grow up to $4 billion to correct the loss of performance created by the additional weight.
FACT: Absolutely untrue . . . the additional gross weight has been part of the program since its inception. No cost growth has been experienced nor is any forecasted.
ASSERTION: B-1B program budgeted at a fixed cost of $19.6 billion (FY81).
FACT: The dollar cap has always been and continues to be $20.5 billion (FY81) for the acquisition of 100 B-1Bs. The program is expected to be completed within this goal.
ASSERTION: Wing design changes have added weight, thus increasing drag, which results in reduced range.
FACT: Absolutely untrue. There are no structured changes to the B-1B wing that increases drag or reduces range. As stated above, the B-1B meets or exceeds all of its range specifications.
ASSERTION: Failure of flap actuators has caused the B-1B fleet to be grounded for about a week.
FACT: Absolutely untrue. There has been no fleet grounding of the B-1B fleet for any reason since first delivery to SAC in June, 1985. There have been occasions where individual aircraft have been grounded for normal maintenance or engineering actions. We had previously experienced wing flap and slat movement problems in flight on a few aircraft. These problems have been corrected.
ASSERTION: Air Force and Rockwell used the wrong equations concerning the ability of B-1B wings to withstand turbulence.
FACT: Totally unfounded.
ASSERTION: Another problem--”wet spots” or fuel leakage--may be caused by wing turbulence.
FACT: Unrelated to wing turbulence, the wing and fuselage integral fuel tanks have experienced some fuel seepage and some leaks, which are rapidly being corrected. Some minor initial leakage is not too surprising in an integral fuel tank system where 290,000 fasteners and four miles of seams are exposed to fuel. Nothing leads us to believe that wing torsion intensifies this problem. As the aircraft accumulates more flying hours, the fewer the leaks. These trends have been accurately tracked on the older aircraft.
ASSERTION: Turbulence has caused carriage and separation problems for cruise missiles--the advanced cruise missile has tumbled out of control after being launched from wing pylons.
FACT: Absolutely untrue. We have yet to launch a single cruises missile from an external pylon. That testing will commence in 1987. Incidentally, the pylons are not on the wings at all . . . they are located on the underside of the fuselage.
ASSERTION: Bomb-bay door openings create severe flutter related to turbulence thus making the launch of weapons difficult.
FACT: The B-1B is certified to carry and launch nuclear bombs from all three weapon bays without restrictions. Short Range Attack Missiles (SRAM) can be carried and launched from the forward and mid bays without restrictions. Cruise missiles are planned to be certified in 1987. We have never experienced excessive flutter as a result of bomb-bay door openings. We are currently investigating the environment in and around the aft bomb bay with relationship to SRAM launches only, but again excessive flutter created by bomb-bay door openings has not been an apparent problem.
ASSERTION: Serious doubts about the capability of the Eaton defensive system to counter Soviet threats.
FACT: Robinson is quite correct in his assertion that the Soviet threat progressed at a rapid pace. The B-1B defensive system specification was scoped to the 1982 threat, as a base line had to be established for development and integration purposes. Fortunately, the B-1B defensive system is a digital system which possesses the capability to incorporate upgrades via software and firmware changes. That is exactly what is occurring--upgrading the system to counter 1986 threats by changes in software and firmware.
I wish to close by stating that the USAF is extremely proud of their new B-1B penetrating bomber. The program is progressing on schedule and within tight cost constraints established in 1981. Gen. Lawrence Skantze, commander of Air Force Systems Command, said at a press conference on Oct. 1 that “The B-1 clearly is the best, most capable manned penetrating bomber in the world today.”
The Air Force has always been willing to share the facts on the B-1B program both positive and negative with the news media. All it takes is a request for information.
PETER W. ODGERS
Major General, USAF
Deputy Commander for B-1B
Wright-Patterson AF Base, Ohio
