B-1B - the glory or just the story [i]

Was the B-1B damaged over Yugoslavia?

Introduction

As Operation Fierce Fury, or perhaps “Epstein’s Fury”, is unleashed against Iran, the United States is introducing the crème de la crème of its forces in an attempt to break Iranian defenses and overthrow the mullah regime. Besides the B-2, which was already used during the so-called 12-day war, the second heavy puncher, though not as glamorous as the B-2, the B-1B bomber, has allegedly attacked targets inside Iran.

There is no reason to believe that the United States is lying (surprisingly) about this. The aging bomber was indeed used, which, for some, offers hope for a quick resolution of the war. But a bomber is still just a bomber, and without a nuclear payload, it cannot, in reality, achieve much on its own. Considering the salesman mentality involved, everything related to the United States tends to be about 70 percent marketing and 30 percent reality.

This article will not focus on the B-1B’s actions in Iran, as it is simply too early for that, and there will be plenty of time to analyze them. Instead, it aims to shed light on a previous campaign, or, more precisely, an aggression, this time against a small country forty times smaller than Iran, equipped with outdated air defenses that nevertheless managed to inflict serious damage on the mighty NATO coalition, delivering a few painful stings despite the imbalance of power.

This is the story of the B-1B against Yugoslavia and of some lesser-known events during and after that campaign.

B-1B Lancer – strike first

What is a better way than to use the US airmen’s own words to describe their actions:

Captain Gerald Goodfellow
(as published in¹)

The first B-1B mission occurred on 2 April against the Novi Sad petroleum production facility at Pančevo, northeast of Belgrade. Although Operation Allied Force was originally limited to only “tactical” targets at the start of the campaign, it became clear that hitting such sites alone would not persuade President Milošević to fold. Instead, the target set was expanded to cover “strategic” installations such as the Novi Sad facility, which was literally helping to oil the Serbian war machine.

The combined load of 168 Mk 82 “slicks” dropped from the two bombers that were sortied had no trouble knocking out key sections of the plant. These Mk 82 bombs were lined up on an ammunition handling truck, waiting to be loaded into the weapons bay of the 77th BS Lancer parked in the background. The access ladder in the crew compartment was down, and the aircraft awaited the arrival of the four-man team who would fly the bomber over Western Europe and the Adriatic Sea, then on to its targets in Serbia and Kosovo (B-1B Systems Program Office).

B-1B bombload

However, after the bomb run, the weapons bay doors on one of the B-1Bs failed to close. The Lancer was subsequently targeted by a Serbian SAM and, through a combination of defensive maneuvers, chaff, and electronic countermeasures, defeated the missile. The weapon succeeded in forcing the bomber into the engagement zone of a second SAM; however, the crew also defeated it.

According to the pilot, Captain Gerald Goodfellow, your training kicks in at the first indication of a SAM launch. It feels very natural. You don’t really think about it until later, when the mission is completed. You take on an almost business-like attitude.

“You have to beat that missile. When I’m up there, my biggest worry isn’t about getting shot down, but about missing the target. As a whole, the crew is concentrating as one, putting those bombs on target.”

“Comment: Typical arrogant U.S. Air Force behavior. In reality, once illuminated by a fire-control radar, no matter how professional or mission-focused the individual or crew may be, the instinct for self-preservation inevitably takes over. Whatever the mission objective, the immediate priority becomes getting out of the danger zone as quickly as possible.”

The open weapons bay doors and the maneuvering of the aircraft caused Goodfellow’s Lancer to use more fuel than anticipated, leaving the bomber with insufficient fuel to return directly to Fairford. During the mission, the B-1B was also reportedly struck by lightning, which blew off a section of the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer, but the crew still managed to bring the aircraft home.

Goodfellow remembered that “we felt a huge relief at the completion of the mission. The SAMs came closer than we’d anticipated, and after thinking about it for a couple of days, we were glad to have survived.”

…

Important: “Lancer 85-0075 of the 77th BS sits under a partially cloudy Gloucestershire sky whilst being readied for another mission to Serbia. This aircraft left Fairford a mere 11 days after its arrival. The jet’s early departure, in contrast with some of the other aircraft deployed, may have been due to mechanical problems (B-1B Program Office).”

…

85-0075

General John Jumper

“The pair of B-1Bs came down south over the Adriatic Sea in formation with their ALE-50 towed decoys deployed, and we watched the radars in Montenegro track the bombers as they turned the corner around Macedonia and headed up into Kosovo. We watched the radars, in real time, hand off the targets to the SA-6s, which came upon full target track and fired their missiles. Those missiles took the ALE-50s off the back end of the B-1s just like they were designed to…”

It is clear that not many details of this mission are revealed in these citations, except praise for the professionalism of the American airmen and the quality of the equipment.

However, years later, in an audio interview that General Goodfellow gave to his nephew, some additional interesting details were revealed. He further explained known aspects of the mission but also disclosed something new.

The following are excerpts:

After the bomb run at the first target and the failure to close the bomb bay doors, his aircraft was caught in a missile-guiding radar beam. He observed the launch of the first missile and attempted evasive action. At one moment, his aircraft broke the sound barrier, reaching 1.6 Mach at an altitude of 20,000 feet (about 6,000 m). Through evasive maneuvers, he tried to position the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy between the plane and the missile.

AN/ALE-50

At one moment, the whole crew registered a loud explosion. The next thing they saw was a second missile that, after about 10 seconds, flew over them.

The evasive maneuvers and afterburner use caused much higher fuel consumption, so they had to refuel before returning to the UK base. During landing, lightning reportedly struck the horizontal stabilizer. At the moment of touchdown, the bomb bay doors suddenly closed.

What is interesting in this extended interview is the acknowledgment of an explosion in proximity, but proximity to what? Was it near the towed decoy, or near the airplane itself? If the crew heard the explosion inside an aircraft flying supersonically, with airflow noise, instrumentation sounds, and jet engines operating at high power, it suggests that the explosion was very close. The 3M9 missile’s proximity fuse is set to activate at approximately 10–20 meters from the target.

The description of the second missile that “flew over the airplane” may have a different meaning than the crew assumed. If the missile flew over the airplane, that could imply it was guided toward the aircraft. Otherwise, if it had been guided to the towed decoy, it would likely have flown over the decoy, which trails approximately one hundred meters behind.

Based on the missile’s technical performance and guidance method, it is possible that the first missile was guided toward the aircraft and that the warhead detonated behind it, between the towed decoy and the airplane, but closer to the aircraft itself. The crew heard the explosion, and some warhead fragments may have struck the horizontal stabilizer.

It is important to state that this kind of damage would be minimal and would not necessarily jeopardize aircraft functionality. After landing at Fairford, the aircraft was withdrawn from combat service for repairs and replaced by another airframe. It most likely did not conduct further combat missions against Yugoslavia, although it remains operational.

According to the crew, the aircraft was struck by lightning at about 200 feet (approximately 60 m) during landing, but was able to land safely. A routine inspection was performed immediately. The crew revealed the information about the lightning strike. Regarding the American bomber crew, they are airmen, not specialized technical investigators capable of immediately determining the precise cause of the damage. Such information would come from maintenance technicians or engineering analysis. Since then, the lightning explanation has remained the accepted narrative.

Boeing confirms that the majority of lightning strikes occur between 5,000 and 15,000 feet (1,524 to 4,572 meters). In the interview, Goodfellow stated that it was his first experience with a lightning strike on an aircraft.

Lighting effect and what may happen

It is notable that no public photos exist of the damaged stabilizer, even though bird strikes and hail damage on fighters and other aircraft are often documented. Additionally, there are no meteorological records confirming lightning in the Fairford area on that day, and Fairford is not known for frequent lightning activity. Around 03:00 GMT (04:00 local British time - BST), lightning was recorded near Gloucester, approximately 30 km northwest, outside the B‑1B’s flight path. Considering that the refinery was struck at 02:30 AM local time (01:30 BST) and the return flight to Fairford took roughly two hours at cruise speed, the aircraft would have landed around 03:30 BST, about half an hour before the lightning recorded 30 km away.

From the still available British Isles weather reports²:

“On the 2nd patchy bands of rain moved from the SW to NE across Ireland, Wales and England, becoming weaker as they moved N. In the Gloucester area there was a spectacular display of lightning around 0300 GMT from a line of thunderstorms that developed along a cold front. Cloud in Scotland cleared overnight to give a light frost in places by dawn, followed by warm conditions during the day except along the E coast where a cool sea kept temperatures low again. Away from the rain, England and Wales remained mainly cloudy. (Lusa 20C, Aboyne -1C, Prestatyn 14mm, Cromer 9.9h.)”

To further examine this, I conducted an analysis that included a review of the weather in the region during that week. Interestingly, UK weather stations maintained records regarding storms and lightning activity, and at the time when the Lancer landed, there was no recorded lightning in the area, but rather 30 km north-west. To be on the safe side, I also made several phone calls and, after some time and a few attempts, had a conversation regarding the accuracy of the weather reports. The person confirmed that their data was accurate but asked why I was interested in that particular area, noting that a large air force base is located there. Some time later, the data disappeared from their website, citing that the records had become obsolete.

It is also possible that the lightning explanation served to preserve morale among bomber crews. It would not have been encouraging to announce that a modern fourth-generation bomber on its first combat mission had been damaged by a second-generation missile. Additionally, the effectiveness of the AN/ALE-50 decoy system, which had been installed only shortly before deployment, could have come into question.

Another point of interest is that the aircraft was later reported to have returned to the United States due to “mechanical problems.” The question is: what kind of mechanical problems? A mechanical issue could include structural damage to stabilizers and control systems that could not be repaired by field maintenance units and required specialized tools or manufacturer support.

It is worth noting that aircraft are designed to withstand lightning strikes. Since most aircraft skin is aluminum, which conducts electricity well, lightning current typically flows along the exterior, a practical application of the Faraday cage principle. Lightning more commonly strikes vertical stabilizers or wing edges, although strikes on horizontal stabilizers are possible. Penetrating damage is not impossible, but statistically rare.

Perhaps it was lightning, but the kind that came from the ground.

To conclude with a probabilistic question: what is the likelihood that the only B-1B forced to abandon its mission due to unspecified “mechanical problems” was also the only one that reported a surface-to-air missile engagement?

For comparison, rumors persisted for years that, in addition to the downed F-117A over Serbian territory, another F-117A had been damaged during the campaign. For two decades, U.S. officials denied this until one of the pilots publicly acknowledged that the aircraft had indeed been damaged and withdrawn from service for the duration of the war.

We will stop here and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

So ended the first combat bomb drop by B-1B bombers.

This story is also covered in:

How aircraft are protected against lightning strikes

The following is about lightning protection: The highest probability of lightning attachment to an airplane occurs at the outer extremities, such as the wing tip, nose, or rudder. Lightning strikes occur most often during the climb and descent phases of flight at altitudes of 5,000 to 15,000 feet (1,524 to 4,572 meters). The probability of a lightning strike decreases significantly above 20,000 feet (6,096 meters).³

Seventy percent of all lightning strikes occur in the presence of rain. There is a strong relationship between temperatures around 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) and lightning strikes on airplanes. Most lightning strikes on airplanes occur at near-freezing temperatures.

Conditions that cause precipitation may also cause the storage of electrical energy in clouds. The availability of electrical energy is associated with precipitation and cloud formation. Most lightning strikes affecting airplanes occur during spring and summer.

Although 70 percent of lightning-strike events occur during precipitation, lightning can affect airplanes up to five miles away from the electrical center of the cloud. Approximately 42 percent of the lightning strikes reported by airline pilots were experienced with no thunderstorms reported in the immediate area.

During the initial stages of a lightning strike on an airplane, a glow may be seen on the nose or wing tips caused by ionization of the air surrounding the leading edges or sharp points on the airplane’s structure. This ionization is caused by an increase in electromagnetic field density at those locations.

In the next stage of the strike, a stepped leader may extend from the airplane into an ionized area, seeking the large amount of lightning energy in a nearby cloud. Stepped leaders (also referred to as “leaders”) refer to the path of ionized air containing a charge emanating from a charged airplane or cloud. With the airplane flying through the charged atmosphere, leaders propagate from the airplane’s extremities, where ionized areas have formed.

Once the leader from the airplane meets a leader from the cloud, a ground strike can continue, and the airplane becomes part of the event. At this point, passengers and crew may see a flash and hear a loud noise when lightning strikes the airplane. Significant events are rare because of the lightning protection engineered into the airplane and its sensitive electronic components.

After attachment, the airplane flies through the lightning event. As the strike pulses, the leader reattaches to the fuselage or other structures at different locations while the airplane is in the electric circuit between cloud regions of opposite polarity. Current travels through the airplane’s conductive exterior skin and structure and exits from another extremity, such as the tail, seeking the opposite polarity or ground. Pilots may occasionally report temporary flickering of lights or short-lived instrument interference.

Airplane components made of ferromagnetic material may become strongly magnetized when subjected to lightning currents. The large current passing from the lightning strike through the airplane structure can cause this magnetization.

While the electrical system in an airplane is designed to withstand lightning strikes, an unusually intense strike can damage components such as electrically controlled fuel valves, generators, power feeders, and electrical distribution systems.

Most of the external parts of legacy airplanes are metal structures of sufficient thickness to withstand a lightning strike. This metal assembly provides basic protection. The thickness of the metal surface is sufficient to protect the airplane’s internal spaces from a lightning strike. The metal skin also protects against the entry of electromagnetic energy into the airplane’s electrical wiring. While the metal skin does not prevent all electromagnetic energy from entering the electrical wiring, it can keep the energy at a satisfactory level.

By understanding nature and the effects of lightning strikes, Boeing designs and tests its commercial airplanes for lightning-strike protection to ensure protection throughout their service lives. Material selection, finish selection, installation, and the application of protective features are important methods of reducing lightning-strike damage.

Areas with the greatest likelihood of direct lightning attachment incorporate some type of lightning protection. Boeing performs testing to ensure the adequacy of lightning protection. Composite parts located in lightning-strike-prone areas must be equipped with appropriate lightning protection.

The large amount of data gathered from in-service airplanes constitutes an important source of lightning-strike protection information that Boeing uses to improve lightning-strike damage control and reduce significant lightning-strike damage, provided proper maintenance is performed.

Lightning protection on airplanes may include:

Wire bundle shields; ground straps; composite structure expanded foils; wire mesh; aluminum flame spray coating; embedded metallic wire; metallic picture frames; diverter strips; metallic foil liners; coated glass fabric; and bonded aluminum foil.

Conclusion

Something happened that night in April 1999, something that suggests a real possibility that a Serbian air defense unit equipped with the 2K12 Kub (SA-6) detected, tracked, and engaged a B-1B bomber. Damage to one of the aircraft’s structural components could explain its withdrawal after only 11 days.

The United States claimed that lightning caused the damage; while this is possible, it is relatively rare at very low altitudes, especially when lightning activity was only reported some distance away. According to British weather data, there was no lightning in the Fairford area at the time, particularly not during the aircraft’s landing. There was, however, strong lightning activity about 30 km away, and not at the time of landing.

For the sake of argument, one could suggest that the aircraft, during its descent, may have passed through a zone of electrical activity, which is also a valid consideration. Several possibilities exist, each with a certain degree of probability. This raises the question of whether the US explanation was simply a convenient cover story, especially given the long history of carefully managed information and disinformation in such contexts. Events like this often remain unclear for decades before the full truth emerges.

In any case, the available pieces appear to align, suggesting that B-1B 85-0075 may have been damaged and subsequently withdrawn from NATO operations due to mechanical issues that could not be repaired on site during the campaign against Yugoslavia.

---

[i] Edited by Piquet (EditPiquet@gmail.com)

1. Osprey’s B-1B Lancer Units in Combat

2. https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge/diary1999.html

3. Source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/4/

If you like the article (and many more articles regarding military subjects will come), you can buy me a coffee:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mmihajloviW