Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit From: wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Yet more on the B-1B and F-20 Message-ID: <3209@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 16:03:21 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.3209 Posted: Tue Oct 2 16:03:21 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 20:07:55 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 25 The problem with the B-1B isn't the Air Force's specs, it's the plane's mission. There just isn't any way to build a manned penetrating bomber that's survivable and carries a reasonable load, at anything like a reasonable cost (and the current $1 billion per plane isn't reasonable, even though the plane can't perform its mission). Fortunately, there's no need for one, since the current B-52s can carry cruise missiles to within range of their targets without penetrating, and the ALCMs are a lot cheaper and stealthier than any manned bomber is going to be for a LONG time. Not that I think cruise missiles are such a great idea; their small size and interchangeable nuclear/HE warhead makes arms control very difficult (and remember, many of those in the defense establishment who thought that MIRVs were a similarly great idea now regret their deployment for that very reason), but the ALCM-armed B-52 performs essentially the same mission as the B-1B for a lot less money. As for the F-20 being such a great example of what the aerospace industry can do when not hampered by government specs, then how come they haven't sold a single one? Sorry, defense contractors are not like other companies, struggling along despite government interference, they're leeches selling death to the generals, with the taxpayers footing the bill. Northrop can go down the tubes without any sympathy from me. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ