Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: More on B-1 vs B-52
Message-ID: <2409@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 01:06:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2409
Posted: Mon Oct  8 01:06:11 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 07:27:15 EDT
References: <3213@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 25

Sigh....Doesnt anyone read the specs?  The B-1B while intended to be
used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic.  Also, you'd be 
surprised to see what ECM can do these days.  As for the Air Force
wanting a new toy, all I can say is that I was raised near
a place called Castle Air Force Base.  Its the place where the 93rd
SAC Bomb wing lives.  They do all B-52G&H training there.  They have
lost several aircraft and crews in the past years.  Thats because
the things are literally falling apart.  You ever been in a B-52 
cockpit?  There is no TERCOM in there, where you fly at treetop
level, you do it not a computer.  When you do this for 3 hrs,
under constant attack, you tend to get a little frazzled.  With the
B-1, you push a button.  The B-52 takes an eternity to come from
alert status to go airborne, those planes would be destroyed by SLBM
fire.  The B-1 takes off in much less time.  Go read the specs for
yourself before spouting off malarchy like that.  There are BIG
differences between the B-1 and B-52.  Some people get their
defense information from AW&ST and trade journals.  Other get
theirs from the National Enquirer and Mondale Campaign flyers.
Down deep I do believe information is valuable.  But a little info
is worse than none at all...



					Milo