Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdahl!amdcad!military From: jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Why are the B-1, B-2, etc. needed? Message-ID: <26783@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 16 Aug 89 06:15:12 GMT References: <8883@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM Organization: No, it isn't really. Lines: 56 Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com From: jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) >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. It is good that you asked. Most people would have simply made a judgement without asking. >(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? I am sure that there are some electronics in these aircraft that cannot be put in the B-52, although these are of course classified. The reason may not be space so much as compatability with other systems. >(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? The B-52G and H are still somewhat usable, however, they will not be so for long. The B-52 tool dies are mostly gone, so many of the parts needed for replacement must be handcrafted, which is VERY expensive. Some parts cannot be replaced, and must be fixed with make-do. I would estimate that the B-52 fleet will need to be completely retired, regardless of upgrades, by 1997. > 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. The B-52 cannot do this for more than 10 years. By then, the airframes will be overstressed, impossible to repair or more expensive to repair than replace, and also easy prey to new (and old) Soviet missiles. The B-1 has problems in its electronics, but these are being worked out. The B-2 has one major problem: it costs $530 million per copy. Perhaps the best bet is a combination of modified 747's as cruise missile platforms (that's a lot of missiles), a large fleet of B-1's with the teething problems fixed and some B-2's for the stickiest penetration missions. In addition, I think a new bomber needs to be developed to handle the low-end missions, especially the conventional ones, that would be cheaper than the B-1 and B-2 and at the same time could do the job if the air defenses were not on a par with Soviet homeland.