Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military From: sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: How Many B-2's Are Enough ??? Message-ID: <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 19 Jul 89 03:21:46 GMT References: <8347@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: No, it isn't really. Lines: 70 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Jeff K Medcalf >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. Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec- tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead, put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites, and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10. >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. Dropping biological weapons could be done by missile much more easily and with less cost. Spies and their supplies, I would assume, have routes in and out which give them some cover and legitimacy (a record of shipment is better than something just arriving). Assinating leaders is not as easy as it sounds when you're dealing with moving people and big aircraft. We learned that in Libya. As for using B-2 against non-Soviet nations, that is simple: few if any could build, or afford, a counter, and a small percentage of the fleet could have results all out of proportion to size. >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. So then the Soviets build Stealth of their own and we must spend billions on a defense.... In any case, I doubt the fleet would consist of more than 100 aircraft. These aircraft would probably be less limited than you think. They still would carry a good bombload a long distance and tie up a disproportionate share of Soviet assets. There are some missions that are now or soon will be impossible with anything but the B-2, such as actual penetration of Soviet airspace. I also notice that a 747 costs about $174 million. Even if the B-2's run at around $500 million each, I question whether that is too high of a cost differential. Does anybody know the costs of a B-17 and a DC-3? Or a B-52 and a 707? Try comparing in those terms, and I am willing to bet that B-2 is not much, if any, above the ratio of cost of previous bombers and transports. A final note: in WWII the Germans neutralized their own fleet to hopefully prevent the loss of the ships. A weapon is meant to be used. The US could not, in the event of a war, say that the B-2 is too expensive too risk. The trick is in tayloring capabilities to missions, and letting the B-2s do what nothing else can. -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP In my hotel womb Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"