Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Where was the B-1 ?????
Message-ID: <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Mar 91 01:28:39 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU

	Do any of you have any ideas why the B-1 bomber wasn't use ??

	I read somewhere (LA Times or Time magazine) that SAC didn't want
	to release the B-1 bomber, because they needed them just in case
	of a nuclear war....The reporter contended that the reason why they
	were not used, is because of the Air Force brass didn't/does not
	have much confidence in them and to lose another one due to
	mechanical failure would put a dim light on the high-tech air
	superiority we're suppose to have.

	Your thoughts ????
	send them to: davidl@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

[mod.note: A couple of weeks ago, it was stated here that the B-1 was not
yet qualified for conventional ordnance.  Further, they were grounded with
engine problems at the start of the war.  Anything else ? - Bill ]

	Also, I agree with Mary and Henry that a new heavy bomber should
	be developed solely on the lines of conventional warfare and
	only tactical nuke level...... But of course, there are no plans
	in the works....Another DoD lack of planning ? Or Congress ?

	Interesting question eh ?