No one seems to love the B-1 bomber anymore.

While I have not noticed a great deal of commentary on this matter, I have noticed recently that no one in Washington seems to like the B-1 bomber anymore. Both options presented to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in the Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR), and three of the four recommendations that think tanks presented in advance, proposed eliminating the entire remaining fleet of some 67 or so B-1Bs. Breaking Defense recycled a rather nice and succinct one-page comparison of the ideas, and that line item is striking.

Frankly, I'm not surprised. Flying supersonic long-range bombers is a business of just two air forces today; the Russians have a single regiment of just 16 Tupolev-160s armed with both nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and conventional smart bombers. However, at least according to the Strategy Page, the Russian Air Force recently put on hold a plan to build another 14 aircraft. The production rate would have been too low for economical purchasing, and Russian nuclear deterrence really rests on the huge Strategic Rocket Forces. As for the B-1B in the USAF, I've argued before that the B-1B hasn't been decisive in any war that the US has fought since the airplane was introduced in the 1980s. Yes, it has been serving well over Afghanistan, but the B-52 could have accomplished that mission as well, and without taxing the capabilities of the small remaining fleet.

Disinterest in the B-1 seems to stem from the high operating costs, which may have something to do with that long-disfavored swing-wing design. The trouble for the public is that it's hard to know just what the operating costs really are, as the USAF doesn't publish those separately. Some bootlegged briefing slides from a few years ago suggested that the hourly cost of flying a B-1B ($63,000) is actually cheaper than flying B-52Hs ($72,000), and almost obviously less than that of flying B-2As ($135,000). 

I'm not convinced that the source of those pages is sound. That said, if the figures are accurate, then the interest in retaining the B-52Hs may stem from its continuing role as a carrier for American nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, or perhaps the capacity of a few of them to carry Harpoon antiship missiles over the western Pacific. In 1995, to comply with treaty limits, the wiring required for carrying nuclear weapons was removed from all the B-1Bs, and the B-1B hasn't ever carried a dedicated standoff antiship weapon in operational service.

Making the case for the B-1B would be challenging. In addition to arguing the presumably lower operating costs—a comparison that would need to be validated—the advocates would need to persuade the Defense Department that the nuclear role of the B-52Hs is superfluous to that of the smaller B-2A fleet, or that the B-1B could be readily re-modified for nuclear weapons. 

In the western Pacific, as I argued some three years ago, the Navy's new P-8 Poseidons would be much less expensive to fly than either USF plane as standoff bombers with cruise missiles. Perhaps it would help to show that the much faster-flying Bone could also be modified to launch antiship missiles, and that speed would matter tactically. Certainly this should not be a challenging integration, as the B-1B today carries the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM); the JASSM is the basis for the planned Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), and in recent tests for the Navy, a B-1B actually carried prototype LRASMs.

So no one, it seems, much loves the Bone—unless, of course, you live near Abilene, Texas or Rapid City, South Dakota—home to Dyess and Ellsworth Air Force Bases. This causes me to wonder whether the folks near those bases should be arguing their self-interested case for retaining bomber wings in their backyards. If so, they have some work to do. 

James Hasík +1-512-299-1269 • www.jameshasik.com • jhasik@jameshasik.com

Comments

[Brad S]

As far as removing the B-1B is concerned, Abilene at least has (greatly expanding) oil production nearby, and the area could use the extra housing left behind. Rapid City, OTOH, is dependent upon a tourist market that mainly drives there. It could have some difficulty adjusting.