Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B2 vs. F117A Message-ID: <1991Feb28.051210.8528@cbnews.att.com> Date: 28 Feb 91 05:12:10 GMT References: <1991Feb26.011655.5357@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Mary Shafer >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. However, it's not entirely clear that the B-52 replacement needs to be as expensive as the B-2. A recent issue of AvLeak points out that the Gulf War has punched a hole in the B-2's official justification that you could fire a Scud through. :-) The B-2's big job in a nuclear war is supposed to be locating and destroying mobile missiles. In other words... in small numbers, far from home, without air superiority, against the most sophisticated opponents available, in forested or snow-covered terrain, it is supposed to do what has so far proved impossibly difficult in Iraq. Oh really? I actually agree with Mary that a new big bomber is needed. But it needs to be something that the US can afford in substantial numbers, so that it can be risked in combat in something less than an all-out nuclear war. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry