Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jkubicky@tybalt.caltech.edu (Joseph J. Kubicky)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-52, B-1, B-2, and F-14 in Des. Storm
Message-ID: <1991Jan27.100905.23010@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 27 Jan 91 10:09:05 GMT
References: <1991Jan21.033250.29291@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan22.013317.17132@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jkubicky@tybalt.caltech.edu (Joseph J. Kubicky)
jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes:


>The B-2 is a *prototype*. I believe we have 2 that are currently flyable.
>They have not been completely tested. I believe that the electronic
>systems are not complete in number 1 or 2. I assume that the B-2 is
>more stealthy than the F-117. Whether or not that would make it more
>suitable for the missions in Iraq is questionable. The B-2, after all,
>was designed to carry nukes, not Mk-82s. 

Outside of its stealthiness, the B-2 is nothing real special.  Most of the
avionics and innards are 10-15 years old becuase when the project was
started it was decided that it would be built with off-the-shelf components.
Northrop has begun a real big program to update the internals, especially
that cockpit, which I believe they are doing by themselves (most of the
other stuff farmed out).

						Jay Kubicky

`