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.