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: More on B-1 vs B-52 Message-ID: <3213@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 10:32:48 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.3213 Posted: Thu Oct 4 10:32:48 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 05:31:09 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 25 > ... 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. Even if one doesn't "believe in bombers" -- that is, even if you don't think the triad is such a great idea -- one can still recognize that not all bombers are identical. For instance, some are more destabilizing of the strategic situation, some are more expensive than others, some are less survivable, some are unproven "pigs-in-a-poke". The B-1B is all of these. > 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. The B-1B is designed to penetrate Soviet airspace. The B-52 can stand off outside Soviet air defenses and release its cruise missiles. You tell me which crew has a better chance of surviving -- the crew that has to get through the flak in a large, slow (the B-1B is flown at subsonic speeds when at low alititude) plane, or the crew that never gets near the flak belts? Of course, the B-1B could just stand off and fire ALCMs, too, but then it just duplicates the B-52's mission, so there's no reason to build it. The Air Force wants a new toy, and too bad about the cost, or the crews that don't make it back. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ