wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (09/26/84)
> 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 That's right: today there are even more ICBMs and even better air defenses, both high- and low-altitude, than when the B-58 and B-70 were around. In other words, today there is even LESS reason to build the B-1 than there was to build those other failures. I can't think of a better place to discuss the need for, capabilities of, or any other aspect of past, present, or future aircraft than in net.aviation. Political types don't necessarily know anything about planes; we do, and many of us know the B-1's a loser. Besides, it's not quite proper to call a halt to a discussion after you've just given yourself the last word, even if that last word does include fancy euphemisms like "strategic bomber initiative" (what's THAT, I wonder?) and "threat environment." Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (09/30/84)
*Flame on* Oh come off it!! The reason the B-58 was scrapped is because it was a nightmare to fly and keep in one piece, not because of a demphasis of bombers because of ICBM's. Just to inform you of a few minor differences of bombers and planes: 1) Bombers are recallable, if you make a mistake, you have a 2nd chance. 2) Bombers are retargetable in mid-flight. Once you set the targets into an ICBM at launch, you cant change it, even if you find out there is a more important target you want to hit. 3) Bombers can provide assesment of the attack and can provide intelligence info along the way as well. 4) Most of the megatonage is in the bomber force. All the biggies go into bombers, ICBM's are for counterforce strikes. 5) Bombers provide a way to communicate intent to the enemy. If you scramble a wing of bombers, the Russians can see you do it, and realize you are ticked off. If you launch ICBM's, the russians will see them too, and will probably react in a very unpleasant way. Of course, these trivial differences I'm sure wont change your minds, but some of us who work in the National Defense business do regard them as fairly important. With regards to Soviet Air Defenses, you are right, things are massively developed. But the B-1B has 1/150th the radar cross section of a B-52, tho its physically a little bigger, and lots bigger in payload. They can do really neat things when you have a low RCS like this. For example, there is a little black box that will take the radar reflection of the plane and project it onto the ground. Can you figure what this means if you shoot a radar guided missile at it. The B-1 is an extremely capable and agile aircraft, and will serve a VERY important role in our deterrent forces. And dont you forget, those Russian Bozo's took a long long time in shooting down that airliner over Soviet airspace (both times). Can you imagine what their performance would be under a full scale bomber attack? Sure the defenses are hairy, but you gotta use them if they are to be effective. You are right tho, there are a few politicians like Mondale who doesnt know diddly squat about strategic doctrine. At least the Reagan administration properly sees the importance of keeping alive the triad. *flame off* Oh by the way, I have never worked for Rockwell or a contractor for any of the B-1 subsystems. I have worked on nuclear weapons design and laser modeling, but not having to do with bomber programs of any sort. I work for NASA currently, on computer networks. I feel I am fairly objective on this issue, and I am a member of a professional Electronic Warfare organization (I'm an Old Crow), and keep abreast of developments in the field. Milo
knutson@ut-ngp.UUCP (Jim Knutson) (10/01/84)
>Political types don't necessarily know anything about >planes; we do, and many of us know the B-1's a loser. I don't think that anyone of us can call the B-1 a loser just because we are pilots, read net.aviation or just dream of flying. Unless we have first hand experience with the aircraft, then let's leave that judgement upto the people who really know. Also, don't knock the B-1 if you don't believe in the bomber program (actually part of the triad). It's only one of many bombers. Now for specifics. How can you knock the development of a new bomber to replace the aging B-52 fleet. We are not talking of just nuclear delivery. If we were, I would say let the B-52s be modern day Kamikaze mahines and forget the B-1. The B-1 offers the ability to deliver more punch with a higher chance of survival. What more do you want? Besides, this is a capitalist country and we all know that unless we keep buying and selling this country will fall apart (:-).