waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) (01/19/91)
From: waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) Someone(I don't remember who...didn't save the article) asked why B-52s are doing all the carpet bombing instead of B-1s. Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month ago(anybody remember exactly? I just kinda sighed & shook my head), and I haven't heard of them being re-activated. Even if they were, I don't think I'd trust them too far "...if *I* was a jenrul..." Craig Waylan AFROTC Det 220 '92(maybe)
yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) (01/21/91)
From: yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) writes: >Someone(I don't remember who...didn't save the article) asked why B-52s >are doing all the carpet bombing instead of B-1s. > >Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say >supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month >ago. . . According to a recent Nova episode it was said that B-1s are grounded until some crucial piece of software is delivered. Right now they are gathering dust in their hangars. Seems that even with the extra billions of dollars spent on software procurement for the military, there is no change in the quality of the code. -- yun@wam.umd.edu zwy0c@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov (code 926) yun@eng.umd.edu zwy0c@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov 5 hrs 10' 39" W 39 deg 2' 9.7" N A milihelen is the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (01/22/91)
From: jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) In article <1991Jan21.033124.29056@cbnews.att.com> yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) writes: }From: yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) }waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) writes: } }}Someone(I don't remember who...didn't save the article) asked why B-52s }}are doing all the carpet bombing instead of B-1s. }} }}Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say }}supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month }}ago. . . } }According to a recent Nova episode it was said that B-1s are grounded }until some crucial piece of software is delivered. Right now they are }gathering dust in their hangars. Seems that even with the extra }billions of dollars spent on software procurement for the military, }there is no change in the quality of the code. Not correct. Yes, there are problems with the software for the ECM. No, that has not prevented the aircraft from flying. Yes, that would reduce the aircraft's effectiveness in penetrating the Soviet air defenses. But the lack of software for the ECM system is not going cause the Air Force to put the planes in hangars and let them collect dust. Recently though, the B-1s were grounded to due a couple recent engine failures. I don't know their current status. -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (01/23/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) > waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) writes: > > Someone(I don't remember who...didn't save the article) asked why B-52s > > are doing all the carpet bombing instead of B-1s. > > Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say > > supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month > > ago. . . > According to a recent Nova episode it was said that B-1s are grounded > until some crucial piece of software is delivered. Right now they are > gathering dust in their hangars. Can you provide more details on this? I would assume that any episode of Nova that is shown in the USA is at the very least several months out of date. There were early development problems with the B-1's, and some of the electronic warfare systems are still having development problems, but the B-1 is an operational system. They are not sitting in hangers, I have recent (2 month old) photos of 24 B-1's lined up at Dyess AFB in Texas, with several being preped for missions. As of about 1 month ago, the fleet of B-1's were grounded for an engine fire problem. Rather than risking planes that cost $100-million each, they have been grounded. If there is any need for the B-1's, you can be sure that they will fly with the current problems. I would be very surprised if SAC does not have B-1's that are ready for scramble. The most likely reason that B-1's are not flying in the gulf is that we have two missions (US strategic defence, and bombing Iraq), and two planes that are available for that mission (B-1, B-52). Since the B-1 is best suited for US strategic defense, and the B-52 is not, and the B-1's capabilities are not needed in the Gulf, and the B-52's are based near Iraq, it is no surprise that only B-52's are being used in Iraq. This is a case of matching the plane to the mission. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
gwishon@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Gordon D. Wishon) (01/24/91)
From: gwishon@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Gordon D. Wishon) waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) writes: >Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say >supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month >ago(anybody remember exactly? I just kinda sighed & shook my head), and >I haven't heard of them being re-activated. Even if they were, I don't think >I'd trust them too far "...if *I* was a jenrul..." >From the 21 Jan 91 Air Force Times: _B-1Bs remain idle until part is fixed_ By Joby Warrick Times staff writer The Air Force's B-1B Lancer bomber fleet, grounded since Dec. 19, will remain idle indefinitely while crews replace an engine part that failed during sep- arate mishaps over Texas and Colorado, officials said. The grounding was ordered after an engine fire forced a B-1B crew to make an emergency landing Dec. 19 during a training mission at Dyess AFB, Texas. The 97-plane fleet had been grounded briefly six weeks earlier after another B-1B dropped an engine over a pasture in southeastern Colorado. No one was hurt in either incident. Although the B-1B fleet is grounded for routine training missions, the planes still would fly in the event of a national emergency, said Strategic Air Command spokesman Capt. Harry Edwards. <text deleted> ...investigators believe both incidents started with tiny cracks on an engine blade. The cracks worsened until parts of the blade sliced through a retain- er ring designed to protect the engine from such mishaps. <The article goes on to say stronger versions of the retainer ring are being shipped to the fleet, and that no B-1Bs would be permitted to fly until the problem is corrected. And finally,> The fleet was grounded three times in 1989, once for fuel-tank problems, once for escape-hatch failure, and once after a crash at Dyess in November. <end article> -- Gordon D. Wishon Air Force Institute of Technology / Wright State University gwishon@blackbird.afit.af.mil / gwishon@thor.wright.edu
tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) (01/25/91)
From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) > From: waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Legion) > Someone(I don't remember who...didn't save the article) asked why B-52s are > doing all the carpet bombing instead of B-1s. > Well, B-1s ARE supposedly capable of doing the conventional mission. I say > supposedly because as I recall, they got grounded (again) about a month > ago(anybody remember exactly? I just kinda sighed & shook my head), and I > haven't heard of them being re-activated. >From AW&ST - 24-Dec-90, page 11. "The US Air Force has grounded its fleet of 97 B1-Bs after two of the bombers experienced catastrophic engine failures within three months. The latest incident occurred on Dec 14 when a B-1B from Dyess AFB, Tex., was practicing landing approaches. On the 11th approach, crew members heard a loud bang and the No. 8 engine caught fire, forcing them to make an emergency landing." Yes, you read that right, the No. 8 engine. AW&ST acknowledged that error in the 14-Jan-91 issue. --