andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) (05/26/91)
From: andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: > Certain elements may say as much about it >as they like, but the fact that the B1's appear to have not appeared >in the gulf *at all*, I think, IMHO, says plenty. By using the B52 instead >of the B1, I think we are being told which is the more capable aircraft - >and not on the drawing board, but in reality. Hang on a second. That isn't fair to the B-1. There is a very simple and straight forward reason why the B-1 did not participate in the gulf war in a tactical role: Currently, and until the B-2 fully enters service, the B-1 is the United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key component of their nuclear triad. As such, it carries the most up-to-date electronics (mission electronics that is, like ECM and radar suppression) of any American bomber. Because of these two facts, the pentagon did not want any B-1s anywhere near a combat zone; they can't afford to reduce their ready bomber force, and they certainly can't afford for the wreckage of a destroyed bomber get into enemy hands. -- Andrew F. Cowie at TVC Enterprises, Toronto, Canada. neat.ai.toronto.edu!tvcent!andrew -or- andrew@tvcent.uucp
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/29/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) writes: > Currently, and until the B-2 fully enters service, the B-1 is the >United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key component >of their nuclear triad. As such, it carries the most up-to-date electronics >(mission electronics that is, like ECM and radar suppression) of any >American bomber. Because of these two facts, the pentagon did not want any >B-1s anywhere near a combat zone; they can't afford to reduce their ready >bomber force, and they certainly can't afford for the wreckage of a destroyed >bomber get into enemy hands. Would this same logic not alos apply to the B-52 during the Viet Nam War? This did not, however, prevent B-52's from being used there... Frank Crary
roskos@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ed) (05/29/91)
From: roskos@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ed) > There is a ... reason why the B-1 did not participate in the gulf > war ... it carries the most up-to-date electronics I could very well be wrong, but I remember seeing somewhere that the reason the B-1s didn't fly in the Gulf was that they are not fitted for convention weapons. In addition, I think the engines were being replaced around the time. Does anyone know for sure on these points? [The answer the last time this question rolled around was that B-1s had not yet been certified for conventional bombs, and they were grounded for engine-related reasons. In event of nuclear war they were still mission-capable, but they weren't being flown unnecessarily until the engines were corrected. The B-52s are nearing end-of-life anyway. -- CDR]
sasrns@mcnc.org (Neal Smith) (05/30/91)
From: unx.sas.com!sasrns@mcnc.org (Neal Smith) All right, let's get this one rolling! I also believe that the B-1 can't drop conventional bombs from its bombbay. The flow of air over the aircraft prevents the bombs from falling out. I heard this from an Air Force MAINT officer who worked with the B-1 for awhile. Neal Smith
fenwick@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Fenwick) (05/31/91)
From: pipercub!fenwick@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Fenwick) andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) writes: >wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: >>[Duane says that using the B52 instead of the B1 during DS says something >> about capability] >[Andrew argues that the B-1 is our primary penetration bomber until the > B-2 is deployed, and, as such couldn't be sent without weaking the > nuclear triad.] Actually, you're both right. The B-1B is the current primary penetration bomber, and, should the Soviets or Chinese attack by nuclear means, would be sent against them. However, even if the B-2 had been in place at the start of DS, the B-1B couldn't have gone. The fleet was (is?) grounded after two in-flight engine failures; the crew are not trained, and the aircraft not equipped for conventional attack; and, there are serious questions about the effectiveness of its ECM systems. Despite these problems, the AF has promised that the B-1B fleet (all 96!) are available in case of attack. Steve Fenwick -- fenwick@clipper.ingr.com Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, California 94303
tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) (05/31/91)
From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > Would this same logic not alos apply to the B-52 during the Viet Nam War? This > did not, however, prevent B-52's from being used there... I must have missed the original question. In any case, one of the reasons the B-1's were not deployed to the gulf was because they were grounded at the time with engine problems. Another is not being able to afford losses; The B-52 in vietnam case is not comparable due to differing numbers; We had 744 B-52s and the prospect of building more of them. We currently have 97 B-1s left, and we will never build another. If the B-2 doesn't work or is too expensive, we're stuck with 97 B-1s as our only heavy bomber. -- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil (05/31/91)
From: boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil [21 lines quoting 3 people deleted. --CDR] That's not what I've read (we're talking unclassified open sources here). Everything that's been published says the B1 sat this war out because 1) it's not mission capable. The so-called "most up-to-date electronics" don't work for shit. 2) the planes are configured for nukes and not for steel ordnance. Big mistake on Air Force's part. 3) The B1 is not based overseas. That means a support facility would have had to be relocated (to where?? all the airfields within 1,000 miles of Kuwait were already overloaded) or fly from the states (maybe Dyess AFB, Texas?? Big refueling problem). If the Air Force could have gotten the B1 intgo the war, you better believe it would have been there. Politically the B1 was a black eye for the AF. But You really have to hand it to the AF. Over all they did a great job. Along the same lines. I heard that US Army pilots flew a lot of A-10 sorties. That fact hasn't made much news. Brian boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil
jcoughli@vela.acs.oakland.edu (John Coughlin) (06/01/91)
From: jcoughli@vela.acs.oakland.edu (John Coughlin) [ 14 lines of quotes deleted, AND excessive signature hacked down to size. --CDR] I happened to be watching C-Span late one night about three weeks ago and there were two Air Force (generals?) addressing a committee about the merits of stealth technology (I can't remember their names). Their discussion went off on a tangent at one point, at which time one of the generals stated that the B-1 was not used in the gulf simply because the B-52's (in particular, the G model) could accomplish the job just as well as the B-1. In addition, the B-1, while being equipped to drop conventional bombs, is a better nuclear bomber than the B-52, and thus, the rational was that the B-1's should be left "back home" to continue their nuclear role. From the way in which these two fellows were speaking, it sounded quite unlikely that the B-1 was not included in the Gulf war time effort due to either its lack of ability, its cost, or its sophistication. As for the conventional ability of the B-1(B), it can carry the following: INTERNAL EXTERNAL MK 82 84 14 MK 84 24 14 Supposedly, the B-1b has been considered for "maritime surveilance". It is interesting to note that, although it does not currently have the correct pylons or computer interfacing, the weapon systems are compatible with the Harpoon anti-ship missle... This information, (quoted from an article by Mike Spick) is rather dated, so it might have changed. -- John Coughlin Oakland University Rochester Michigan jcoughli@vela.acs.oakland.edu jjcoughlin@argo.acs.oakland.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/01/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) >>...they can't afford to reduce their ready >>bomber force, and they certainly can't afford for the wreckage of a destroyed >>bomber get into enemy hands. > >Would this same logic not alos apply to the B-52 during the Viet Nam War?... Only if applied much more cautiously. Remember that there were half a dozen different versions of the B-52, several of which were built in numbers comparable to the entire B-1 production run. Only the older ones, carrying poorer equipment and already considered obsolete for nuclear duty, saw combat in Vietnam. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
tuttle@world.std.com (Michael VanNorman) (06/03/91)
From: tuttle@world.std.com (Michael VanNorman) boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil writes: >2) the planes are configured for nukes and not for steel ordnance. > Big mistake on Air Force's part. Not the Air Force, CONGRESS. The media is very good at blaming the military for decisions that are made by Congress. Congress didn't want to spend the money required to make the B-1 capable of delivering conventional weapons, and it ended up nuke-only. [All discussions on Procurement Politics to talk.politics.military.procurement.us.airforce.b1 or email, please. --CDR ]
Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/04/91)
From: Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) The B-52 had been around for quite a while before it was used in VN. (I don't think the B-52H's were used in Kuwait, since they're doing the same basic job as the B-1B's.) The model most commonly-used there was not the H model (and I don't think the G, either), but D's and E's modified to carry a bigger convential payload. The B-52 has hung around for a long time, partly because of a large number of different versions over the years, and upgrading of existing airframes. There are B-52's and there are B-52's. When one version got upgraded avionics or engines, it didn't follow that other versions got them, too. A fellow I worked with about 15 years ago had spent most of his Air Force career working around B-52 simulators...which were all analog. At the time, were somewhat impressed with the PDP-11/45-controlled Falcon 20 simulator we worked with. :}
Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson) (06/11/91)
From: Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson) >The model most commonly-used there was not the H model (and I don't >think the G, either), but D's and E's modified to carry a bigger >convential payload. Nope. ALL the -D and earlier models have been retired and have now been either scrapped or are mouldering in the SW deserts. The -H models were used in the conventional role (even though they weren't modified for it) and the -G models were kept in reserve along with the B-1s for nuclear war. -- Scott J. Origin: The Ozark Connection/Fayetteville, AR * (1:391/1020.0)