[MSF BU]

I had thought that the B-1 would carry something like this. No doubt our FR AF experts will fill me in on just why the B-2 is a better choice. I’ve always wondered now the the USSR is dissolved, what is the justification for maintaining the B-1.

[DuncanWaring]

Same as the justification for keeping the B-52.

Sometimes you just need to be able to shovel out truckfulls of bombs.

[af_vet_rr]

I had thought that the B-1 would carry something like this. No doubt our FR AF experts will fill me in on just why the B-2 is a better choice. I’ve always wondered now the the USSR is dissolved, what is the justification for maintaining the B-1.

Probably the stealth factor. They were used in Libya early on. But it could also be used as a justification to keep the B-2 around.

You want to talk about B-1s, I don't know if they are still doing it, but they were using them in Afghanistan as close air support. There were some good reasons but the things take up a lot of resources just to have them flying around in case they are needed.

[CCGuy]

The B-2 is the vehicle of choice for the weapon because it has a very long and continuous bay that this long weapon can fit into.

The B-1B is a fine system, but it has a few bays that are segmented along the length of the airframe.

Also, you want the attack to be a surprise and the B-2 can get to the target without the enemy even knowing it is coming. The B-1 is more difficult to detect than many other bombers in the world, but is far less stealthy than the B-2.

[tanknetter]

I had thought that the B-1 would carry something like this. No doubt our FR AF experts will fill me in on just why the B-2 is a better choice.

The issue is the size of the weapons bay on the two aircraft.

The B-1 and B-2 were designed to go to war with the CSRL - the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher. Basically a big tube mounted in the weapons bay that could allow a variety of weapons, from B61s and SRAMs up to the big USAF cruise missiles (the AGM-86 and AGM-129), to be carried and launched selectively.

The B-2 has two side-by-side weapons bays sized for the CSRL. The B-1 as designed an built had one weapons bay sized for the CSRL, and a smaller one in the aft fuselage for either rack-mounted weapons or - usually - an extra fuel tank.

Thing is that the B-1's big forward CSRL-sized bay was also designed to be segmented into two smaller bays (ones that were too small for the CSRL) by inserting a bulkhead. When the B-1s were removed from the strategic/nuclear mission as a result of START, by treaty terms (and amongst other de-nuke mods**) the bulkheads were permanently fixed in place to prevent CSRLs (and specifically the cruise missiles they were designed for) from being carried.

So in designing the MOP the engineers went for the largest weapon capable of being crammed into the largest available USAF weapons bay, the ones on the B-2s, rather than something that could fit into a B-1 as well. As an aside I think that the B-52 weapons bay can physically handle a MOP as well.

** It should also be noted that the B-1B was designed to carry a whole slew of externally-mounted cruise missiles. IIRC the total number was supposed to be 20 - 8 internally on the CSRL, 12 externally on fuselage hardpoints. By START terms the external hardpoints were inactivated by filling them with some kind of a hard resin compound. Flash-forward 10-15 years to the mid-00s and the USAF actually had to have START renegotiated to allow the starboard forward hardpoint on its B-1s to be reactivated to mount LITENING and SNIPER pods, allowing the B-1 fleet to self-designate targets.

[JudgemAll]

Maybe we have the B1 because gangster Russia has
a fleet of Backfires and Blackjacks that are
more capable, along with 20 000 something nuke
stockpile ready to incinerate us when they’ll have
u and ur Obamerica look pretty enough for a
pedophile gallore like attack.