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 (:-).