scw@locus.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) (08/20/86)
In article <1448@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >In article <257@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: >> >>It would have almost been possible if >>Jimmy Carter hadn't cancelled the program back in the 70's. Then the >>Air Force could have [..]would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's >>what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam >>happen, too). >> >>P.S.: ... I have a hard time not talking about military stuff >> when I get the chance, ... > >Tad, do you really [...] the estimate then in effect? And Well the inital batch came in almost exactly on budget, so Yes I'd say that they had the costs just about correct. >do you believ[...] ever have been fixed? Do you know how much Probably, most of the changes from the B1A to the B1B are to take advantage of newer technology (read STEALTH) and improved avionics (read $$$). >deception was used to "prove" that a B-52 with cruise missiles >could not serve instead of a B-1?[... The problem with the B52 (G & H) is that most of them are older that many of the crew members. In addition the airframes are nearing the end of their usefull life (Something on the order of 150,000 hours I believe). I do know that the earlier aircraft now have a filght limitation of 250 Kt (350 Kt in wartime) some 100 Kt slower than the speed allowed in the 60's. What that means it that even WWII vintage fighters now have a chance to intercept. And I thought that cruise missiles were the \Bete Noire/ of the Anti-'nuke' types. Although for the life of me I can't see why. > ...]Shut the mouth and open the >mind, Tad. You are being duped. If it's any comfort, you are >probably in the majority. Duped?? sorry chum, it think that you're the one being duped. Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (08/21/86)
In article <1448@oddjob.UUCP>, matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: > > Tad, do you really believe that the price of a "B-1A" 8 years ago > would have been anywhere near the estimate then in effect? And > do you believe that if the wretched things had been purchased, > that the bugs would ever have been fixed? Do you know how much > deception was used to "prove" that a B-52 with cruise missiles > could not serve instead of a B-1? Shut the mouth and open the > mind, Tad. You are being duped. If it's any comfort, you are > probably in the majority. > Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa > Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt The roles of the B-52 with cruise missiles and a B-1 are different though. The B-52 is to be used as a standoff launcher for the cruise missiles. The B-1 is a penetration bomber, designed to penetrate enemy defenses and directly bomb targets. Cruise missiles are great, they are small, reasonably inexpensive, and very accurate. But they do have a problem, they act too much like a target drone. They generally fly in a relatively straight line, and the navigation radar makes an excellent homing becan. True when they are over the ground they are quite low. But when they are launched from the B-52 they are at a rather high attitude. This is how they get part of their great range. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken !psuvax1!cmcl2!ciap!andromeda!argus!ken *** WARNING: NOT ken@bellcore.uucp *** bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet --- Please resend any mail between 10 Aug and 16 Aug: --- the mailer broke and we had billions and billions of --- bits scattered on the floor. Kirk: "What do you mean, 'if both survive' ?" T'Pow: "This combat is to the death"
GOT@PSUVMA.BITNET (08/24/86)
>Tad, do you really believe that the price of a "B-1A" 8 years ago >would have been anywhere near the estimate then in effect? And >do you believe that if the wretched things had been purchased, >that the bugs would ever have been fixed? Do you know how much >deception was used to "prove" that a B-52 with cruise missiles >could not serve instead of a B-1? Shut the mouth and open the >mind, Tad. You are being duped. If it's any comfort, you are >probably in the majority. And I suppose you know everything that goes on in the military! First of all, the bugs would have been worked out by now since active service of the aircraft is the only way to find the bugs. This has proven to be true with the F-14,F-15, and F-18. The F-15 was a hanger queen when it made its debut, but its a pretty damn good interceptor/fighter now. The B-52 will work just fine as a cruise missile carrier, but because of the cruise missiles limited range the B-52's can't hit all the desired targets. The B-1B on the other hand is far less detectable than the B-52 (1/100 the radar cross section - 1 sq. meter I beleive) and thus can penatrate further into its target area. As far as the amount of deception used to make us beleive this and that ... no, I don't know how much was used...why don't you tell us? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sunil Gupta | Bitnet: got@psuecl P enn | got@psuelc2 S tate | U niversity | UUCP : ihnp4!psuvax1![psuecl, psuecl2]!got E ngineering | : ihnp4!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!got C omputer | L ab | ARPA : got%psuecl.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa "I dares ya to step across this line! _______" - Bugs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) (08/28/86)
In article <757@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>, scw@locus.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) writes: > In article <1448@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: > >In article <257@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: > >> > >>It would have almost been possible if > >>Jimmy Carter hadn't cancelled the program back in the 70's. Then the > >>Air Force could have [..]would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's > >>what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam > >>happen, too). > >> > >>P.S.: ... I have a hard time not talking about military stuff > >> when I get the chance, ... > > > >Tad, do you really [...] the estimate then in effect? And > > Well the inital batch came in almost exactly on budget, so Yes and ahead of schecule by several months. > I'd say that they had the costs just about correct. > > >do you believ[...] ever have been fixed? Do you know how much > > Probably, most of the changes from the B1A to the B1B are to take advantage > of newer technology (read STEALTH) and improved avionics (read $$$). > > >deception was used to "prove" that a B-52 with cruise missiles > >could not serve instead of a B-1?[... > > The problem with the B52 (G & H) is that most of them are older that many > of the crew members. In addition the airframes are nearing the end of their > usefull life (Something on the order of 150,000 hours I believe). I do know > that the earlier aircraft now have a filght limitation of 250 Kt (350 Kt in > wartime) some 100 Kt slower than the speed allowed in the 60's. What that > means it that even WWII vintage fighters now have a chance to intercept. > > And I thought that cruise missiles were the \Bete Noire/ of the Anti-'nuke' > types. Although for the life of me I can't see why. > > > > ...]Shut the mouth and open the > >mind, Tad. You are being duped. If it's any comfort, you are > >probably in the majority. > > Duped?? sorry chum, it think that you're the one being duped. > Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 > UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU Excuse me, but I do have the mind open (mouth too :-). The designation B-52 is not arbitrary. 52 comes from 1952, the year the the bomber was accepted for service by the USAF. An interesting fact about the B-52 is that it was originally designed with propellers (you know, those "spinny" things that were real common on the front of WWII airplanes). It is also a textbook example of how not to build an aircraft if you don't want it to be brilliantly obvious to enemy radar. The B-52 went into service with the intent that it would be phased out by the mid 1960's. A change in tactics prevented that (with the demise of the B-58, and a couple of others that never got past prototype stages). Go to the next airshow at a USAF base that will have a B-52 present and look at it. You will notice that the skin along the sides of the fuselage is wrinkled from much fatigue of the airframe. You will also notice that the wheels on the tips of the wings come quite a bit closer to the ground (when there is no fuel in the wing tanks) then they did when the aircraft were new. What this adds up to are tired aircraft that are *way* past retirement age. As for cruise missiles, they are great, but ridiculously easy to shoot down once spotted. In other words, they would be almost useless against a target with good air defenses. Unfortunately, the term missile means something extremely fast and impossible to shoot down to most people. Well, most missiles are fast (on the order of 3,000 MPH or more), but in this case the word cruise is the one to stress, since these things fly at around 500 knots, or the same speed that modern fighters cruise at. Even if they were fast, think about this; We now have an artillery weapon called the Phalanx which the Navy uses to protect its ships. This weapon consistes of a multi barreled 20mm cannon in an agile turret, aimed by computer controlled radar. This weapon is capable of shooting down aircraft, helicopters, missiles, and even incoming artillery rounds. Yeah, cannon shells travelling at 2 or 3 thousand miles per hour. If we have such a weapon, do you think the Soviets don't or aren't developing one? I agree that military and intelligence don't often mix, but when it comes to weapons, any fool can see that 30 year old and outdated weapons just can't cut it. I sincerely hope that these never have to be used, but I certainly don't have enought faith in the general goodness of humanity to let this hope cloud my vision to the point of allowing defenses to fall far behind the ability of an aggressors offense. It's just plain stupid. Unfortunately, peace has to be bought with blood, because if you want it, you have to protect it from those who would take it away, and words by themselves just don't cut it in the real world of fanatical types who would gladly have wars. (by the way, have you ever read about the Soviet Union and its goals? If not, I'll just tell you one thing about their philosophy -- "The end justifies the means always." Think about that...it's damn scary) -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 flames to: /dev/your_ear