Bombers Away? The B-1 Could Be Near Its Demise

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Nixon launched it, Carter killed it and Reagan resurrected it. In its infancy, the Air Force's B-1 bomber was a quick and dirty military metaphor — Republicans wanted to buy weapons to defend the nation from the Soviet Union, and Democrats didn't. Now it could become a different kind of symbol: the Air Force is thinking of retiring its total 66-plane B-1 fleet to hit budget targets set by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Top Air Force officials met behind closed doors late last week to determine if permanently grounding the B-1 fleet makes sense.

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.

But the fact that the topic is even up for discussion is significant for three reasons. First of all, the idea that the B-1's future is in doubt highlights just how tight Air Force leaders believe military budgets are going to get. "The gusher (of post 9/11 defense spending) has been turned off," Gates warned last month, "and will stay off for a good period of time." Secondly, the Air Force seems to be trying to take the initiative in resetting budget priorities, instead of having them imposed from above by Gates or the White House. Finally, the notion that the B-1's fate is in play suggests just how quickly air warfare is changing."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2000020,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0sB4r8RVW

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. didn't know it hadn't been retired already. Classic boondoggle.

Neat plane from an engineering standpoint though.

[lpbk2713]

2. Just as a contrast ...

The B-52 is being flown by grandchildren of the crews that flew it when it first came out.

I guess rethuglicans weren't in on the procurement stage of the B-52.

[damntexdem]

3. But that makes me wonder about the announcement.

The B-52 would be the only heavy bomber operating (forget the B-2, which is too fragile to be based overseas). Will the Air Force really give up on heavy bombers, or rely on a plane that is over a half-century old?

[TexasProgresive]

5. That's what they've been doing.

The Air Force has never relied upon the B-1. The 52 carries the load.

[TexasProgresive]

4. My only regret is that

it was ever built. That plane is a deathtrap.

Maybe they should do a modern version of the B-52. Now that's a dependable bomber.

[Octafish]

6. TIME continues to lie about Democrats

Republicans wanted to buy weapons to defend the nation from the Soviet Union, and Democrats didn't.

Luce's turds continued the big lie on behalf of the War Party.