Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: louis@asterix.drev.dnd.ca (Louis Demers) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Bat Plane Bux Message-ID: <13142@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 15 Jan 90 01:34:43 GMT References: <13082@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: DREV, Defence Research Est. Valcartier Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: louis@asterix.drev.dnd.ca (Louis Demers) berman-andrew@YALE.ARPA (Andrew P. Berman) writes: >From: "Andrew P. Berman" >I've seen the comparison between the cost of a B-2 and the cost of >a 747 before. Each time I see it, it bothers me. A 747 >gets used thousands of hours a year. I can't believe that >there is any possible war scenario in which the entire fleet of >B-2 bombers would get more than a couple of hundred hours of use, total. >A 747 generates income for it's owners, a B-2 does not. The point >is that one is built for economic purposes, one is built for military >purposes. The real question, I think, is, are those couple of >hundred hours of usage worth the continued investment in the B-2? Only on technical grounds, I don't think the comparison is complete, while 747 technology is not as sophisticated ad B-2's, it works and is (I would guess) much more reliable and that should put a damper on the notion that, if it is less advanced it should be less expensive. What they have shown so far is that it flyes, not that it works. -- | Louis Demers | DREV, Defence Research Establishment,Valcartier | | louis@asterix.drev.dnd.ca | POBox 8800, Courcelette,Quebec, CANADA, G0A 1R0 | | (131.132.48.2) | Office: (418) 844-4424 fax (418) 844-4511 | +---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+