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: Yet more on the B-1B and F-20
Message-ID: <3209@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 16:03:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.3209
Posted: Tue Oct  2 16:03:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 20:07:55 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 25

The problem with the B-1B isn't the Air Force's specs, it's the plane's
mission.  There just isn't any way to build a manned penetrating
bomber that's survivable and carries a reasonable load, at anything 
like a reasonable cost (and the current $1 billion per plane isn't
reasonable, even though the plane can't perform its mission).
Fortunately, there's no need for one, since the current B-52s can
carry cruise missiles to within range of their targets without
penetrating, and the ALCMs are a lot cheaper and stealthier than 
any manned bomber is going to be for a LONG time.  Not that I think
cruise missiles are such a great idea;  their small size and
interchangeable nuclear/HE warhead makes arms control very difficult
(and remember, many of those in the defense establishment who thought that
MIRVs were a similarly great idea now regret their deployment for that
very reason), but the ALCM-armed B-52 performs essentially the same
mission as the B-1B for a lot less money.

As for the F-20 being such a great example of what the aerospace
industry can do when not hampered by government specs, then how come
they haven't sold a single one?  Sorry, defense contractors are not
like other companies, struggling along despite government
interference, they're leeches selling death to the generals, with the
taxpayers footing the bill.  Northrop can go down the tubes without
any sympathy from me.

	Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ