allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (06/26/89)
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU I've been following the controversy in the press over whether the B2 is worth its price tag for some time now. My general impression is that it probably won't be. The missions quoted for it by Air Force spokesmen seem to fall into two classes. One is hitting hardened C3I centers. The other is going after mobile missile launchers. From the accounts that filter through the press, it looks like the first mission can be done adequately by cruise or ballistic missiles. The suggestion seems to be that the second requires satellites surviving ASAT weapons to provide guidance and this is unlikely to work out well enough to make the B2 truly effective at the mission. So what does the B2 do for deterence that our other resources don't that is important enough to justify the half-billion plus price per plane? I've heard arguments that in a vague way say it updates the third leg of the triad without convincing me that the triad is being looked at beyond the level of belief that it's important to have the magic number of three ways to strike at the USSR because its been that way for a long time. I also remember a disturbing account in a Jack Anderson column that said the B2, while being nearly undetectable by modern radar with very short wavelengths, would be quite visible to old 50's and 60's vintage Soviet radar with much longer wavelengths, presumably kept in service and not scrapped. If this is the case, Stealth strikes me as a waste of money with the added tendency to build overconfidence among strategic planners. My last worry is that in a crisis situation, assuming that the B2 can penetrate Soviet airspace successfully, it would have a destabilizing effect by adding its special targets, whatever they turn out to be, to the Soviets' use-em-or-lose-em list, particulary if discovered within or near Soviet airspace early in the confrontation, before massed exchanges of missiles. So my question for all who know more about this than me but are still free to discuss it is: What missions will the B2 get that it can perform well which will enhance deterrence and our security? And is the stealth the most cost effective way of performing those missions? Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
mmm@apple.com (06/28/89)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu) questions the cost-efectiveness of Stealth. Consider this: What if it's a fake? Here's the scenario: Get a bunch of bright boys together to speculate on some wild ideas for a bomber. Build a mock-up that has some external features which suggest those ideas. Pretend to keep it a big secret. One day, you roll the mock-up out of the hanger so everyone can get a good look. Then roll it back in and lock the door. When people ask if it's flying, first you say no. After a while you start answering "I can't talk about that." Maybe a year later you crash an old airplane into the ground somewhere on a military reservation and report a B-2 has crashed. Soviet agents in Southern California go nuts trying to take a picture of a B-2 in flight. This would be an incredibly cost-effective weapon. For a few thousand dollars you can tie up millions of dollars worth of KGB agents and MoD researchers. Hopefully, your mock-up contains details (like no vertical stabilizers) which won't work, so the wasted MoD money doesn't result in a real weapon. In fact, the production of sham weapons is so cost-effective that it would be a big mistake if our DoD doesn't practice this technique now and then. (Can you say "Pershing 2"? ...)
pierson@cimnet.dec.com (06/28/89)
From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes (in part...)... >I also remember a disturbing account in a Jack Anderson column that >said the B2, while being nearly undetectable by modern radar with very >short wavelengths, would be quite visible to old 50's and 60's vintage >Soviet radar with much longer wavelengths, presumably kept in service >and not scrapped. If this is the case, Stealth strikes me as a waste of >money with the added tendency to build overconfidence among strategic >planners. Nature of the business, nobody who knows can say. FWIW, it has been reported one of the '40s/50s Wings (XB49?) was hard to see on _our_ radar of that vintage, especially from certain angles. B2, presumably improves on that. This seems a reasonable presumption, given the change from metal construction to composite... thanks dave pierson Digital Equipment Corporation |The opinions are my own, 600 Nickerson Rd |The facts as true as I can manage. Marlboro, Mass 01742
willey@arrakis.nevada.edu (James P. Willey) (11/24/89)
From: James P. Willey <willey@arrakis.nevada.edu>
I was digging through some photographs of an air show at Nellis A.F.B.
taken a few years ago when stealth was just becoming widely known in the
public. I thought some of you might enjoy this one.
Its a picture of the wheel blocks setup without any visible trace of
a plane. In front of this is a sign reading:
B-00 STEALTH
PURPOSE YES
SPEED SPEED OF SIGHT
CEILING OVER OUR HEADS
RANGE THERE AND BACK
ARMAMENT FOUR SURPRISE BOMBS
TWO SNEAKY MISSILES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Willey willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU
Disclaimer: I'm unemployed, so my employer IS responsible for my opinions.
Chemicals. What do they mean? How have they touched your life? Mommy,
are these green pork chops still good? A few short weeks ago the answer
would have been an unfortunate no. But today green meat is...
[WKRP in Cincinnati]