Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ames!pacbell!att!cbnews!military
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Stealth bomber
Message-ID: <7736@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Jun 89 03:44:51 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 43
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU



I've been following the controversy in the press over whether the B2 is
worth its price tag for some time now.  My general impression is that it
probably won't be.  The missions quoted for it by Air Force spokesmen seem
to fall into two classes.  One is hitting hardened C3I centers.  The other
is going after mobile missile launchers.  From the accounts that filter
through the press, it looks like the first mission can be done adequately
by cruise or ballistic missiles.  The suggestion seems to be that the
second requires satellites surviving ASAT weapons to provide guidance and
this is unlikely to work out well enough to make the B2 truly effective at
the mission.
So what does the B2 do for deterence that our other resources don't that
is important enough to justify the half-billion plus price per plane?
I've heard arguments that in a vague way say it updates the third leg
of the triad without convincing me that the triad is being looked at
beyond the level of belief that it's important to have the magic number
of three ways to strike at the USSR because its been that way for a long
time.
I also remember a disturbing account in a Jack Anderson column that
said the B2, while being nearly undetectable by modern radar with very
short wavelengths, would be quite visible to old 50's and 60's vintage
Soviet radar with much longer wavelengths, presumably kept in service
and not scrapped.  If this is the case, Stealth strikes me as a waste of
money with the added tendency to build overconfidence among strategic
planners.
My last worry is that in a crisis situation, assuming that the B2 can
penetrate Soviet airspace successfully, it would have a destabilizing
effect by adding its special targets, whatever they turn out to be, to
the Soviets' use-em-or-lose-em list, particulary if discovered within
or near Soviet airspace early in the confrontation, before massed
exchanges of missiles.
So my question for all who know more about this than me but are still free
to discuss it is:  What missions will the B2 get that it can
perform well which will enhance deterrence and our security?
And is the stealth the most cost effective way of performing those
missions?

Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)