Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: johna%gold.gvg.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (John Abt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B2 vs. F117A Message-ID: <1991Feb21.024637.8746@cbnews.att.com> Date: 21 Feb 91 02:46:37 GMT References: <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: John Abt In article <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: >From: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) >In article <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes: >>Having seen the cost for the F117A, I have to wonder: what's >>the point of the B2? At ~$40M / F117A vs. ~ $600M / B2, you get 15 >>F117A / 1 B2. This is worse if the B2 end up (as is likely) at >>~$1000M. What can 1 B2 do that 15 F117A's can't, especially with >>respect to dropping nuclear weapons? >...However, I can't see much point in building a single airplane that >costs as much as a whole aircraft carrier used to. (What do they >say, a billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it once did? :-) This thread reminds me of a great 60 Minutes quote a few years back where someone compared the lethality of a Bradly Fighting Vehicle with 2000 Chrysler Cordovas each equipped with a 50 caliber machine gun. Of course the military has, in the past, tended towards large high-tech projects, sometimes with questionable cost effectivity. The recent cancelation of the Navy stealth is a significant event in that it signals that the trend may have reversed itself - finally. The hard data provided by the current conflict will go a long way to factor in some reality - where it is needed. John Abt