Editing Rockwell B-1 Lancer (section)

===B-1B program===
[[File:B-1 Bomber debut (1984).jpg|thumb|left|The B-1B debuted outside a hangar in [[Palmdale, California]], 1984.|alt= The first B-1B at its roll-out ceremony outside a hangar in Palmdale, California in 1984]]

On taking office, Reagan was faced with the same decision as Carter before: whether to continue with the B-1 for the short term, or to wait for the development of the ATB, a much more advanced aircraft. Studies suggested that the existing B-52 fleet with ALCM would remain a credible threat until 1985. It was predicted that 75% of the B-52 force would survive to attack its targets.<ref name=post-b-52>Mitchell, Douglas D. [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8615/ "IB81107, "Bomber Options for Replacing B-52s."] ''Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, via Digital Library, UNT,'' 3 May 1982. Retrieved 16 July 2011.</ref> After 1985, the introduction of the [[SA-10]] missile, the MiG-31 interceptor and the first effective Soviet [[Airborne Early Warning and Control]] (AWACS) systems would make the B-52 increasingly vulnerable.<ref>Jumper, John P. [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA518979 "Global Strike Task Force: A Transforming Concept, Forged by Experience."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312075538/http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA518979 |date=12 March 2012}} ''Aerospace Power Journal'' 15, no. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 30–31. Originally published by ''Air University'', Maxwell Air Force Base, 2001.</ref> During 1981, funds were allocated to a new study for a bomber for the 1990s time-frame which led to developing the ''Long-Range Combat Aircraft'' (LRCA) project. The LRCA evaluated the B-1, F-111, and ATB as possible solutions; an emphasis was placed on multi-role capabilities, as opposed to purely strategic operations.<ref name=post-b-52/>

In 1981, it was believed the B-1 could be in operation before the ATB, covering the transitional period between the B-52's increasing vulnerability and the ATB's introduction. Reagan decided the best solution was to procure both the B-1 and ATB, and on 2 October 1981 he announced that 100 B-1s were to be ordered to fill the LRCA role.<ref name="lee p.13"/><ref name="Reagan approves">Coates, James. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/635722892.html?dids=635722892:635722892&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Oct+03%2C+1981&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Reagan+approves+B-1%2C+alters+basing+for+MX&pqatl=google "Reagan approves B-1, alters basing for MX."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103092403/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/635722892.html?dids=635722892:635722892&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Oct+03,+1981&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Reagan+approves+B-1,+alters+basing+for+MX&pqatl=google |date=3 November 2012 }} ''Chicago Tribune'', 3 October 1981. Retrieved 28 July 2010.</ref>

In January 1982, the U.S. Air Force awarded two contracts to Rockwell worth a combined $2.2 billion for the development and production of 100 new B-1 bombers.<ref name=Jenkins_p62>{{harvnb|Jenkins|1999|p=62.}}</ref> Numerous changes were made to the design to make it better suited to the now expected missions, resulting in the ''B-1B''.<ref name="Withington p.7"/> These changes included a reduction in maximum speed,<ref name="Schwartz p.120"/> which allowed the variable-aspect intake ramps to be replaced by simpler fixed geometry intake ramps. This reduced the B-1B's radar cross-section which was seen as a good trade off for the speed decrease.<ref name="lee p.13">{{harvnb|Lee|2008|p=13.}}</ref> High subsonic speeds at low altitude became a focus area for the revised design,<ref name="Schwartz p.120"/> and low-level speeds were increased from about Mach&nbsp;0.85 to 0.92. The B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach&nbsp;1.25 at higher altitudes.<ref name="lee p.13"/><ref name=BNA_B-1B_specs/>

The B-1B's maximum takeoff weight was increased to {{convert|477000|lb|kg}} from the B-1A's {{convert|395000|lb|kg}}.<ref name="lee p.13"/><ref name=Spick_1986_p28/> The weight increase was to allow for takeoff with a full internal fuel load and for external weapons to be carried. Rockwell engineers were able to reinforce critical areas and lighten non-critical areas of the airframe, so the increase in [[Basic aircraft empty weight|empty weight]] was minimal.<ref name=Spick_1986_p28>{{harvnb|Spick|1986|p=28.}}</ref> To deal with the introduction of the [[MiG-31]] equipped with the new [[Zaslon]] radar system, and other aircraft with look-down capability, the B-1B's [[electronic warfare]] suite was significantly upgraded.<ref name="lee p.13"/>

[[File:A B-1 Lancer performs a fly-by during a firepower demonstration.jpg|thumb|A B-1B banking during a demonstration in 2004 |alt= B-1B with its wings swept back doing a banked turn during a demonstration]]
Opposition to the plan was widespread within Congress. Critics pointed out that many of the original problems remained in both areas of performance and expense.<ref>{{harvnb|Casil|2003|p=7.}}</ref> In particular it seemed the B-52 fitted with electronics similar to the B-1B would be equally able to avoid interception, as the speed advantage of the B-1 was now minimal. It also appeared that the "interim" time frame served by the B-1B would be less than a decade, being rendered obsolete shortly after the introduction of a much more capable ATB design.<ref>Germani, Clara, ed. [http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0921/092119.html "Former defense chief raps B-1 bomber plan."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120616165104/http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0921/092119.html |date=16 June 2012 }} ''Christian Science Monitor'', 21 September 1981. Retrieved 28 July 2010.</ref> The primary argument in favor of the B-1 was its large [[conventional weapon]] payload, and that its takeoff performance allowed it to operate with a credible bomb load from a much wider variety of airfields. Production subcontracts were spread across many congressional districts, making the aircraft more popular on [[Capitol Hill]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=B-1 Lancer {{!}} PDF {{!}} Aerospace Engineering {{!}} Aircraft |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/512722/B-1-Lancer |access-date=2024-04-24 |via=Scribd}}</ref>

B-1A No. 1 was disassembled and used for radar testing at the [[Rome Laboratory|Rome Air Development Center]] in the former [[Griffiss Air Force Base]], [[New York (state)|New York]].<ref name=Jenkins_p70>{{harvnb|Jenkins|1999|pp=70–74.}}</ref> B-1As No. 2 and No. 4 were then modified to include B-1B systems. The first B-1B was completed and began flight testing in March 1983. The first production B-1B was rolled out on 4 September 1984 and first flew on 18 October 1984.<ref name=Jenkins_p63-4>{{harvnb|Jenkins|1999|pp=63–64.}}</ref> The 100th and final B-1B was delivered on 2 May 1988;<ref name="B-1B_backgrounder">[http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b1-lancer/docs/B-1B_overview.pdf "B-1B Background Information."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061026163809/http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b1-lancer/docs/B-1B_overview.pdf|date=26 October 2006}} Boeing. Retrieved 8 October 2009.</ref> before the last B-1B was delivered, the USAF had determined that the aircraft was vulnerable to Soviet air defenses.<ref name="dao 1">Dao 2001, p. 1</ref>

In 1996, Rockwell International sold most of its space and defense operations to Boeing,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Peltz |first1=James |title=Rockwell to Sell Off Space, Defense Divisions to Boeing |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-02-mn-30527-story.html |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=2 August 1996 |access-date=13 February 2024}}</ref> which continues as the primary contractor for the B{{nbh}}1 as of 2024.<ref name="USAF B-1" />