jeb@eisx.UUCP (Jim Beckman) (09/17/84)
> > From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) >Subject: B-58 > >The B-58 went the way of the B-70 for essentially the same reason, ICBM's. >By the time the plane reached its target, the war would have been over and >done with for an hour! Given that the above makes a lot a sense, can someone explain to me why the hell our government is spending billions upon billions of our tax dollars to build the B1? Jim Beckman AT&T-ISL, South Plainfield, NJ eisx!jeb
stevel@haddock.UUCP (10/01/84)
#R:uokvax:-120000400:haddock:9800006:000:1575 haddock!stevel Sep 29 22:00:00 1984 > >The B-58 went the way of the B-70 for essentially the same reason, ICBM's. > >By the time the plane reached its target, the war would have been over and > >done with for an hour! > > Given that the above makes a lot a sense, can someone explain to me > why the hell our government is spending billions upon billions of > our tax dollars to build the B1? The original statement makes sense only in that the B-58 and the B-70 went out of service for the same reason. Niether could effectively deliver and bombs to thier targets. They were built to fly long distances at high altitudes. Better defenses made it unlikely that any of the planes could make it to thier targets. Because of the low weight wing construction, to fly farther, they could not take the G loading that terain hugging flying involves. The B-52, with a wing strengthening modification, could fly low and has been doing so. The B-1 is built to be able to fly extremly low and should be able to penetrate defenses by flying below detection level. I belive that the B-1 is too big to do the job. What is really needed is many smaller planes that have smaller radar profiles and more manuverability. The new stealth project is turning out to be an even larger plane than the B-1. The fault is mainly with the Air Force for not writing requirment that allow the manufacturer to build a decent plane. The F-20 has shown what can be done if you don't have the Air Force giving unrealistic specs. PS if anybody in the northeast reads this please send me mail. I am not sure my news is flowing out. Thanks.
emks@uokvax.UUCP (10/01/84)
/***** uokvax:net.aviation / eisx!jeb / 5:51 am Sep 20, 1984 */ > > From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) >Subject: B-58 > >The B-58 went the way of the B-70 for essentially the same reason, ICBM's. >By the time the plane reached its target, the war would have been over and >done with for an hour! Given that the above makes a lot a sense, can someone explain to me why the hell our government is spending billions upon billions of our tax dollars to build the B1? Jim Beckman AT&T-ISL, South Plainfield, NJ eisx!jeb /* ---------- */ We're making the B-1B strategic bomber initiative to counter today's threat environment; I think even you'll concede that today's concept of warfare is somewhat changed from the days of the B-58 or the B-70. Further discussion on this topic should be directed to net.politics or some other appropriate place. Let's talk about aviation here. kurt
jc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) (10/10/84)
In a sense the B-1 is being built to get the last word in. Some people are like that. In fact, manned bombers may be a good idea. We can probably build a bomber today that can survive long enough to deliver its load and it has people in command, not computers. Once an ICBM is launched the only thing you can do is try to shoot it out of the sky. On the other hand, you can always reason with a guy who's flying an airplane. While the war may have been over for an hour by some standards, the "evening's not over 'til the fat lady sings!" The B-1, or any manned bomber for that matter, is a very forceful deterrent. John Cornelius Western Scientific