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