B-45 Tornado
From the start, the introduction of the B-45 was hindered by a misunderstanding about the number of USAF pilots who were to be "checked out" in the aircraft at Muroc AFB by personnel of North American Aviation. In June 1948, delays in production made matters worse for the 47th Bombardment Wing, which was earmarked as first recipient of the new multi jet bombers. Late in the year, the pioneer wing's training problems were aggravated by shortages of several months' standing in ground handling equipment and special maintenance tools. Structural or mechanical defects in a number of the few available B-45s did not help.
Although available records do not disclose any serious consideration of canceling the entire B-45 production, the program apparently ran into trouble even before any of the aircraft became truly operational. Some B-45 records were destroyed; others provided a surprising amount of conflicting information. Throughout the years, Air Force historians in attempting to answer certain B-45 queries could only point out that early systems were acquired in many different ways and that variances in methods of documentation complicated matters. For instance, the date on which the B-45 reached an initial operational capability (IOC) could not be ascertained. Other historical data such as the B-45's first production delivery, total USAF testing hours, and the identification of the XB-45 initially destroyed, remained unclear. North American Aviation provided its testing hour total, but the figures did not agree with those obtained from Air Force sources. The most striking examples of the inadequacy of old records undoubtedly pertained to test data-not only on the B-45 bomber, but on other early aircraft as well. This was understandable to some degree because Air Force tests were accomplished at numerous bases and for a great variety of purposes. In any case, all dates and information supplied on the B-45 are based upon documentary evidence. Bits and pieces included in the B-45 coverage are provided in the belief that they may be significant to users.
As early as June 1948, at a meeting held in the office of General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force Chief of Staff since 30 April, doubts were expressed as to the B-45's value and its future utilization. It was decided (a decision evidently later rescinded) that no contract beyond the current one would be let, that production would go on as planned up to the 119th article, and that the funds already made available for a new contract would be used for another purpose. Obviously, the quantity of B-45s first ordered had been increased, but the contract amendment's date as well as other details are no longer known. A second contract (AC-18000) had been issued in February 1947, either on the 7th or 17th day of that month. This contract dealt with another version of the B-45, but the information also is sketchy. Reportedly, a third contract (W33-038-AC-21702) came into being in June 1948, when the Air Force as a whole showed scant enthusiasm for the aircraft, only to be canceled on an unknown later date.
One group would be equipped with the operational type, the initial 90 aircraft; the remaining aircraft would be placed in storage to cover the group's eventual losses. At the time, officials of the Tactical Air Command (TAC) were asked whether or not they liked the Northrop B-49 prototype, which had an empty weight of 88,000 pounds, almost twice that of the B-45. Shortly afterward, Gen. Muir S. Fairchild, USAF Vice Chief of Staff since 27 May, asked the Aircraft and Weapons Board to determine if the weight of the various types of aircraft earmarked for or already in production could be reduced. (The Aircraft and Weapons Board was established in August 1947. It made recommendations on problems subnutted by the Air Staff and the commands. Composed of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff and major air commanders, the board proved too cumbersome and in December 1948 was replaced by the USAF Board of Senior Officers which included the Vice Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel, and the Commanding General, Air Materiel Command. The dormant Aircraft and Weapons Board was discontinued in the fall of 1949. However, the establishment of the Air Council in April 1951 was accompanied by the formation of 4 additional boards: the Force Estimates Board; Budget Advisory Board; Military Construction Board; and a new USAF Aircraft and Weapons Board which replaced the Senior Officers Board. The reactivated Aircraft and Weapons Board lasted for over a decade.
Several conferences ensued, special attention being devoted to the B-45, with some board members suggesting that elimination of the co pilot position, of the AB/ARC 18 liaison set installed in that position, and of the B-45's tail bumper would take 700 pounds off the aircraft's empty weight. There were other suggestions, some of them equally haphazard. Col. William W. Momyer, who represented TAC at these conferences, discovered that the Air Staff labored under the false impression that TAC did not consider the B-45 suitable for bombardment operations, a conclusion probably based upon previous studies by the command on the aircraft's excessive take off distances. (Twenty years later, immediately after serving in Southeast Asia as Deputy Commander for Air Operations, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, and simultaneously as Commander, Seventh Air Force, General Momyer, now a full general, assumed command of Tactical Air Command.)
In the early fall of 1948, by which time 190 B-45s were tentatively scheduled for production, the program's future still remained uncertain. Headquarters USAF wanted to know if TAC needed a reconnaissance aircraft, and if so would a reconfigured B-45 be satisfactory? If this should be the case, all B-45s would be converted to the reconnaissance role. TAC's answers came promptly. Indeed the command needed a new reconnaissance aircraft, but a reconnaissance version of the B-45 would not fulfill its requirements. TAC believed the Air Force would accrue more benefits by equipping 2 groups with the B-45 in order to determine the tactics and limitations of jet bombers. The merits of TAC's recommendations became academic, as budgetary restrictions and other unexpected developments altered all planning.
The budgetary axe that slashed the fiscal year 1949 defense expenditures did not leave the B-45 program unscathed. According to plans, 5 light bomb groups and 3 light tactical reconnaissance squadrons were included in the Air Force's goal of 70 groups. The reduced Air Force program dictated by continued financial restrictions and, more specifically, by President Truman's budget for fiscal year 1950 brought into focus the Air Force's dilemma. The shrunken B-45 program called for only 1 light bomb group and 1 night tactical reconnaissance squadron, which meant that the procurement of the aircraft had to be scaled down or that a substantial number of the aircraft would have to be placed in storage upon acceptance from the factory. Neither solution was attractive, but the Aircraft and Weapons Board quickly decided to cancel 51 of the 190 aircraft on order. Over $100 million would be released for crucial programs, and sufficient B-45s would be left to equip 1 light bomb group, 1 tactical reconnaissance squadron, plus a much needed high speed tow target squadron. Moreover, there would still be extra B-45s to take care of attrition throughout the aircraft's first line life. The first line life of an aircraft cannot be predetermined, only predicted. As a rule, an aircraft remains "first line" as long as it is "operational;' "modern;' and "capable of being used to perform critical and essential Air Force missions." Conversely, an aircraft becomes "second line,' when its limitations for combat or other military use have been formally recognized. However, second line aircraft may be called for first line duty under certain circumstances in emergency, and in services for which first line aircraft are not available.
Five light bomb groups were included in the 70 group force planned by the Air Force. In reprogramming available forces to meet the 48-group composition and deployment imposed by current funding limitations, only 1 light bomb group was authorized. This group, the Air Force tentatively decided, would be allocated to the Far East Air Forces (FEAF) and would be equipped with B-45s. Specifically, the Air Force intended to inactivate Barksdale's 47th Group and to replace the B-26s of FEAF's 3d Light Bomb Group, at Yokota Air Base in Japan, with the B-45s of the defunct group. Maintenance personnel of the 47th also would be transferred to Yokota so that FEAF would benefit from the B-45 "know how" gained by the aircraft's first recipient. But even logical and simple plans could go astray. Available and in coming B-45s could not carry sufficient fuel to fly to Hawaii, and equipping the aircraft with additional fuel tanks, a probable feature of future B-45 models, was at the time impossible. B-45A-1s, equipped with J35 engines, had a ferry range of 2,120 miles and a take off weight of 86,341 pounds that included 5,800 gallons of internal fuel. Almost half of the fuel was contained in two 1,200 gallon bomb bay tanks and no additional fuel space was available. Incoming B-45-5s, equipped with J47 engines, had a similar take off weight and a negligible range increase of 30 nautical miles. Obviously General Fairchild's interest in weight reduction retained its validity, but there were no simple solutions. Ferry ranges were computed on the basis that the aircraft's wing tip tanks and bomb bay tanks were retained when empty. If an increase of the weight figure was desired by a using agency, a reliable rule of thumb up to 1,000 pounds, Air Materiel Command engineers pointed out, was that every extra pound of weight induced a range decrease of 0.025 nautical miles. A corresponding small increase in range could be achieved by weight reduction.
Of course, it might have been practical to move the B-45s to Japan by sea. If a minimum of 10 feet could have been removed from each of the aircraft's wings, a rather impractical expedient, 3 B-45s could be deck loaded on a Liberty or Victory ship, for a transport fee of approximately $4,000 per aircraft. The use of other sea transports might also have proved possible, but further investigation came to a halt. Early in 1949, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Materiel stated that the overseas deployment of B-45s was out of the question for the time being as well as the immediate future. To begin with, the B-45s were not truly operational. They had no fire control or bombing equipment, and a suitable bomb sight was yet to be developed for the aircraft. Structural weaknesses, such as cracked forgings, had been uncovered in some of the few B-45s already available. And until corrected, such deficiencies certainly precluded any deployment abroad. Still another impediment arose. As reported by Air Materiel Command (AMC), the new J47 engine due to equip most of the B-45s suffered from serious problems. The engine had to be inspected thoroughly after 7 1/2 hours of flying time; if found still serviceable, it could only be flown an additional 7 1/2 hours before requiring a complete overhaul. Lack of money prevented the purchase of sufficient spare engines to ensure that, if deployed overseas, the B-45s could be kept flying. AMC anticipated difficulties, even for those aircraft that remained in the U.S., not far from the depots where the engines had to be inspected and overhauled. By mid year, the home based B-45s were expected to need 900 spare engines, none of which would be available. The shortage was compounded by the fact that F-86 requirements for J47s had first priority. The 1 engine F-86 Sabres, also produced by North American, began entering operational service in 1949, but did not go overseas before December 1950. Little relief could be expected, AMC concluded, until jet engines could be used for almost 100 hours between overhauls. At best, this meant that no jet aircraft could be stationed out of the country for another year.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
