Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: wku_unix!kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mark A. Kinney) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B52 Replacement Message-ID: <1991Mar6.034840.20736@cbnews.att.com> Date: 6 Mar 91 03:48:40 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 20 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mark A. Kinney This is in response to Del Armstrong's post about heavy bombers. Seeing how well the cruise missiles used in the Gulf War are *supposed* to have worked, I think that the stand-off bomber concept (B-1B) has been somewhat justified. This, however, is only useful for hitting hardened targets. What if you need to maul an infantry unit? There is some precedent for the "cargo- hauler-as-bomber" concept. The Argentines loaded up some of their C-130's with bombs during the Falkland Islands War, and failed to hit any British ships if I remember correctly (I *know* that it any were hit, none sank). Earlier, British Vulcan bomber raids failed in cratering the Stanley airfield. This may not seem to be a good record, but both times targets suited to cruise m missiles with appropriate warheads were attacked. It would work a lot better on\a a spread-out ground unit. Either way, it seems you would get the same results. If anyone out there knows better, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Mark Kinney kinney@wku.edu