Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B2 vs. F117A Message-ID: <1991Feb26.011655.5357@cbnews.att.com> Date: 26 Feb 91 01:16:55 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 43 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mary Shafer I wrote: >Alan Carroll asked why buy all those expensive B-2s when you could >buy more F-117s. >Why did we buy so many B-52s when we could have bought F-111s? Obviously, I misspoke here, since the B-52 production run ended in 62, before the F-111 flew. I should have written something like: Why did we keep our B-52s once we got F-111s? or Why did we get F-111s when we could have bought more cheap B-52s? >What can B-52s do that F-111s can't? (Hint: Diego Garcia) What can F-111s do that B-52s can't? (Hint: terrain following) >How big a payload does a B-52 carry, compared to an F-111? >The F-117 is really a replacement for the F-111 and the B-2 is a >replacement for the B-52, so think of it in this way. A number of people called me on the error, but not one seemed to understand that "little" bombers (F-111, F117) and "big" bombers (B-52, B-2) each have their own role and that we need both types of aircraft. The Gulf War has certainly made this clear--think of how difficult it would be to carpet bomb with F-111s and F-117s. You'd need an incredible number of sorties. Of course the B-52 isn't suitable for delivering the smart ordnance that the F-111 and F-117 deliver. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com