Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!knutson
From: knutson@ut-ngp.UUCP (Jim Knutson)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: B-58, et. al.
Message-ID: <995@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 15:24:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.995
Posted: Mon Oct  1 15:24:05 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 07:29:04 EDT
References: <3188@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 18

>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 (:-).