Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: IO80914%MAINE.BITNET@VM1.gatech.edu (Sloth) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: They're not old, just middle aged (was: B2 vs. F117A) Message-ID: <1991Feb27.020049.20010@cbnews.att.com> Date: 27 Feb 91 02:00:49 GMT References: <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: University of Maine System Lines: 29 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Sloth > Alan Hepburn >> Mary Shafer >>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. >Actually, I don't think we will ever see a replacement for the ole BUFF. >Congress should declare the B-52 an endangered species and make it >a felony for anyone to damage or destroy one. :-) Don't laugh. An article from JDW stated that, "it is now estimated that with continued modifications the plane can remain on active duty until 2035, 80 years after the first B-52 was delivered to the Air Force." Why not keep them another 45 years? Given the advances in munitions guidance & delivery, saturation bombing may become obsolete in a few decades (if it's not already). There's no reason to waste money on a new heavy bomber when we already have a perfectly capable one that will most likely outlive the mission it was designed for. ]:-)> ---> Malcolm Fuller Email: io00672@maine.bitnet Surveying Engineering Department malcolmf@mecan1.bitnet University of Maine Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietam Servitutem