USAF Boeing Model 733 / B-1A AMSA

[MAD]

'What If'

Boeing Model 733 / B-1A "Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA)"

With continues alarming intelligence about improvements in Soviet air defenses and the development of the US long-range ballistic missile Robert McNamara – Secretary for Defence declared the high-altitude bomber like the B-70 obsolete.
The Air Force still remained interested in a new manned bomber to replace its long-range Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, and in fact no sooner had the B-70 been given the axe that the USAF began to consider another new bomber. This requirement result was a variety of studies that started with the "Subsonic Low Altitude Bomber (SLAB)" in 1961; then the "Extended Range Strike Aircraft (ERSA)" in 1963; the "Advanced Manned Precision Strike System (AMPSS)" in 1964; and finally the "Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA)" in 1965
The AMSA study led to a request for proposals by the Air Force in November 1969. After due consideration of proposals from Boeing, General Dynamics, and North American Rockwell.
The USAF favored the North American design proposal, but U.S Congress concerned with the budgetary outlay for what promised to be a very advance and hence very expensive AMSA program, warmed to Boeing lobbying effort as its preferred design proposal.                                                                                                                            Boeing and the Senators of the State were Boeing was based, had cleverly proposed the cost effectiveness of utilizing the National Supersonic Transport program, which in 1963, President Kennedy had committed to subsidizing 75 per cent of the development costs of a commercial supersonic airliner to compete with the Anglo-French Concorde program.                                Boeing proposed that a Joint NST / AMSA program, could utilise many of the R&D and commanality in both production and parts, which would be very cost effective.               Boeing pointed out that commanality could be achieved in the variable-geomatry wing, engines, and a some-what fuselage (Boeing making it clear to Congress, that the AMSA fuselage would need to be strengthend and a large weapons bay incorporated.)
The USAF tried hard to sway the Congress that a Joint NST / AMSA program, would comprimise the full potential and capability of the AMSA variant.                 It was only when Congress threatened to withdraw its financial support for the AMSA program, that those in the USAF/SAC relised that it could not afford to have another of its bombers cancelled
After more consultation with Boeing, the USAF finally warmed to Congresses gun to its head and awarded the contract for the "B-1" bomber to Boeing on 5 June 1970, while General Electric was awarded a contract on the same day for the GE4/J5P turbojets afterburning turbojet engine that would power the aircraft.
The FAA designated commercial supersonic airliner variant the Model 733-197, while the USAF variant was designated the B-1A
The USAF originally wanted to build two ground-test airframes and five flying prototypes of the B-1A, but the requirement was cut in 1971 to one ground-test airframe and three flying prototypes. But disaster struck in March 1971, when despite the project's strong support by the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, the U.S. Senate rejected further funding to the NST / SST side of the 'Joint' program.                                After eveluation of the effects of the impact of the cancellation of the SST project, the USAF decided to continue with its variant, but at a higher cost per aircraft.                  With this in mind, the original Air Force wanted 240 production Boeing B-1A's was changed to 140, with the last of them to be delivered in 1979. It also meant that it would have to forget its plans for a so-called strategic variant of the General Dynamics F-111A – the FB-111A  
Congress, satisfied that the defence of the nation was in hand, cancelled the NST / SST side of the 'Joint' program in May 20 1971. At the time, there were 115 unfilled orders by 25 airlines.
It would be some what irronic that the USAF would be stuck with a advanced and expensive bomber, but it had to make the most of it, and with time the Boeing B-1A would be fined tuned into an effective long-range supersonic bomber.
Through its carer it would be demed that the requirement of the designs Mach 2.2+ speed capability was not really needed or efficiant.
In the 1980's intellegance again had shown that the Soviet / Warsaw Pact, had developed and had began to deploy a new advanced air defence system/network, which incorporated some new highly effective and efficiant fixed and self-propelled SAMs.
With this grave intellegance, SAC soon concluded that its Boeing B-1A would have to resort to flighing low-altitude penertration missions – a flight profile that the Boeing B-1A was not designed or built for, while its fuel thursty turbojets consume even more fuel.
After only two years of training and flying in its new attack profile of low-altitude penertration, structual fatige begins to be seen in maintanace.                                          After much delibiration and concern, the USAF begins to research a new bomber design, known internaly as the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB).                                          As a precaution and to extend the life of its expensive B-1A fleet, the USAF/SAC substatutes its weapons load of free-fall nuclear bombs and SRAM, with Boeing's own ALCM, till the arrival of the ATB, which would become known as the Northrop B-2A.


P.S. Does anyone want to have a go at a 'Boeing Model 733 / B-1A profile in SAC markings and weapons bay etc.....

M.A.D