fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/25/91)
From: fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) apctrc!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) writes: >But please don't tell me about B-2 cruises mearliy chasing thru the >Russian countryside looking for targets of oportunity. I don't recall >the B-52's over Iraq doing so, and Russia in a B-2 has to be a less >safe place then Iraq in a B-52. (Since no B-52's were shot down, I >feel safe in saying this.) There are a few things to consider about the B-2 supposed advantage over cruise missiles. In theory, the B-2 could overfly the Soviet Union, during a nuclear war, searching for and destroying MOBILE missiles. These missiles could not be targeted by a ballistic or cruise missile, since their location is not known in advance. However there are several problems with this, which I hope someone out there may be able to clarify. First, I had heard that the B-2's ability to find such targets quickly and easily depended on new, specially developed sensors (passive and stealthy I would assume) that could detect mobile missiles 50 to 100 miles away. This, combined with their low observability design would permit them to search for targets. But, as I recall, these sensors do not, as yet, exist. They are still under development. If this is the case, why does the USAF want the aircraft in production as soon as possible? Why not wait on the sensor technology? Second, according to Aviation Week, finding Scud (SS-1B-mod) mobile missiles in a flat, good visability desert required constant or near constant Combat Air Partols of F-15E's. These aircraft would IMMEDIATELY attack a launcher as soon as it was detected. (apparently the time required for a TR-1/E-8/ whatever to report a target, the F-15's to fly out and hit the target, was long enough that the launcher could move away.) In addition to the F-15's numerous supporting aircraft were used to detect the launchers. With all this effort, and the total air supperiority required to do it safely, All of the launchers were not destroied. Most survived for several weeks. Given this experience in the dificulty of finding and killing mobile missile launchers, has there been any rethinking of the B-2's purpose and its ability to accomplish its mission? Frank Crary
wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (05/30/91)
From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >not, as yet, exist. They are still under development. If this is the >case, why does the USAF want the aircraft in production as soon as >possible? Why not wait on the sensor technology? Easy. The longer you wait to produce it, the more expensive it gets, inflation and all. Second, the longer you wait, the more waffling that congress will do on whether or not to fund it. >this experience in the dificulty of finding and killing mobile missile >launchers, has there been any rethinking of the B-2's purpose and its >ability to accomplish its mission? It might be a moot point, since congress seems reluctant to fund the B2. I hereby put in a vote to bring the first available B2 to the USAF museum..... Duane