Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: More on B-1 vs B-52 Message-ID: <2409@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 01:06:11 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2409 Posted: Mon Oct 8 01:06:11 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 07:27:15 EDT References: <3213@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 25 Sigh....Doesnt anyone read the specs? The B-1B while intended to be used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic. Also, you'd be surprised to see what ECM can do these days. As for the Air Force wanting a new toy, all I can say is that I was raised near a place called Castle Air Force Base. Its the place where the 93rd SAC Bomb wing lives. They do all B-52G&H training there. They have lost several aircraft and crews in the past years. Thats because the things are literally falling apart. You ever been in a B-52 cockpit? There is no TERCOM in there, where you fly at treetop level, you do it not a computer. When you do this for 3 hrs, under constant attack, you tend to get a little frazzled. With the B-1, you push a button. The B-52 takes an eternity to come from alert status to go airborne, those planes would be destroyed by SLBM fire. The B-1 takes off in much less time. Go read the specs for yourself before spouting off malarchy like that. There are BIG differences between the B-1 and B-52. Some people get their defense information from AW&ST and trade journals. Other get theirs from the National Enquirer and Mondale Campaign flyers. Down deep I do believe information is valuable. But a little info is worse than none at all... Milo