Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: steve%revolver@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Why are the B-1, B-2, etc. needed?
Message-ID: <8883@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Aug 89 03:57:47 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 68
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: steve%revolver@gatech.edu

I have seen so much posting from radical liberal groups which insist that
none of the new bombers coming off the line during the last few years are
needed, that I feel compelled to ask some serious, challenging questions.

The B-52 has been the mainstay of the Air Force fleet for decades now.  We've
probably all heard the joke: "Join the Air Force and fly the plane your father
flew," at least once.  Since my knowledge of weapons is miniscule, and because
my purpose here is to get some factual information, please forgive any
naivete you might perceive in my questions.

(1) I am told that the B-52 has been upgraded continuously with respect to
    avionics and electronic warfare capability since its inception - true or
    false?  How do these improvements compare with the electronic capabilities
    of the B-1B, stealth, etc?  Are there specific electronics in the B-1B
    and stealth (if these facts are even known to the public) that can NOT be
    placed in the B-52?

(2) All the major services are habitually favoring new equipment over old
    or less fancy equipment, regardless of whether such new features actually
    make the soldiers/flyer's job easier.  With this in mind, is the B-52
    still usable?  Is the airframe itself so worn that it will have to be
    replaced anyway, regardless of what new planes are coming online?  How
    much life have they left in them?

(3) If the B-52 is such a big radar target compared to the B-1B and Stealth
    can it still be usefully employed as a cruise missile launching platform?
    What are the real benefits of having a bomber that can penetrate radar
    and drop BOMBS on specific targets over launching cruise missiles from a
    greater distance away?  In terms of usable payload, can you drop more
    bombs than launch the equivalent number of cruise missiles?

[mod.note: A couple of comments here.  Yes, a plane can carry more
explosive payload in bombs than in missiles; with the missiles, you
have to carry the extra weight of the airframe, guidance, engine,
and fuel, which aren't necessary in bombs.  However, that's the trivial
answer: cruise missile can be launched further from the target, so
you don't need as much fuel; also, the launching craft is less likely to
encounter enemy forces, so perhaps other areas, such as electronics, can
be decreased.

Of course, manned bombers can react to changes in the target environment 
in ways missile cannot.  They're more resistant to certain forms of 
countermeasures, such as jamming.  They can report immediately on the
effectiveness of the strike.

However, I suggest an even better reason to maintained a manned,
over-the-target bombing force: redundancy.  If we place all our confidence
on cruise missiles, and the enemy finds a way to effectively counter them,
we have zero capability.   This is the basis of the Triad itself, and is
sound military planning.  - Bill ]

	I don't want this to become an arms control discussion, which is not
allowed here in any event.  Assume that we've made the decision to keep the
3rd element of the triad, and that you are being asked to specify the bomber
system that will do the job for the smallest number of dollars.  Make the
argument that the B-52 can or can not do the job even if retro-fitted with
new electronics/cruise missiles, etc.  Please be as specific as possible, and
remember that no answers is better (to me) than the wrong answer.


  **************************** DISCLAIMER *******************************
    The preceding opinions or statements are solely those of the author    
    and should not be interpreted to represent the beliefs of any other    
    person, institution, government agency, or business entity.