Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How Many B-2's Are Enough ???
Message-ID: <8570@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jul 89 02:55:21 GMT
References: <8347@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8447@cbnews.ATT.COM> <8480@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <8480@cbnews.ATT.COM>, jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
> fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
> > A B-2 strike like the one done by F-111s in Libya might have been a lot 
> > more effective: the defenders might have had *no* warning, rather than 
> > the few minutes that they had back then.  Reduced AA activity would have
> > made for simpler entry and exit and much easier targeting problems.
> 
> (Incidentally, if you insert carriage returns at the end of each line it 
> makes it easier to edit.)

I do.  (The news editor isn't set for wraparound mode.  Wonder what
happens after I send it?)

> You forget that one of the F-111's was shot down by a SAM.  This isn't
> so bad - a few millions down the toilet and a couple of pointlessly dead 
> pilots.  But just imagine the glee of the Libyans had they shot down a
> B-2.  Could the Air Force afford to take a chance on this?

Unless the Libyans were firing volleys of SAMs blindly...the B-2 would
likely not have given the SAM radars a target to launch on.  Little or
no warning on inbound raiders, either.

> Besides the Libyan strike could have been adequately carried out by sea
> launched missiles.  There was no need to risk Americans.

Missiles aren't the cure-all that some wish they were.  Certainly they
are less flexible than aircraft:  Hard to call back, retarget, ...
These considerations seem to dictate the use of aircraft for a while
longer on purely tactical and strategic grounds.