Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: How Many B-2's Are Enough ???
Message-ID: <8347@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Jul 89 02:02:21 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com
With the imminent first flight (crash?) of the B-2 and the equally
challenging flight through Congress, I wonder whether the full procurement
of stealth bombers makes strategic sense.  Wouldn't most of the goals
of stealth be achieved by simply completing perhaps 5 or 10 such planes?

Scenario #1:  Soviet Union spends billions building an air defense radar
system capable of dealing with stealth.  By only building 5 or 10 planes,
we achieve the effect of the entire procurement.

Scenario #2:  Soviet Union chooses to ignore the stealth threat, due to
the small number of aircraft.  This seems like a big win (for us, U.S.)
because we then have absolute stealth.  In a combative engagement, we have
5 or 10 planes to use as a "wild card" for ultra-critical missions, such as
seeding biological weapons in the SU, dropping spies or spy supplies, 
assassinating political and military leaders, etc etc.  Some of
these missions might occur prior to war, or against nations other than SU.

What must be avoided is scenario #3:  Soviet Union builds a super air
defense system to deal with stealth while we build an entire fleet of these
things.  Then, we end up stuck with a bomber fleet severly performance-
limited by design constraints which no longer deliver powerful advantage.