Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Where was the B-1 ?????
Message-ID: <1991Mar12.224939.25557@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 12 Mar 91 22:49:39 GMT
References: <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>
>[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 ]

ABC had a clip about the B-1 the other evening. Apparently, while it can haul
more than a B-52, the bombs collide with each other before hitting the ground.
Not quite a desirable characteristic.

>	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 ?

We can only afford one new bomber system per decade. All of our
"eggs" have been put into the B-1/B-2 basket, with the B-2 now being sold on
its (allegedly) conventional as well as nuclear strike capabilities. 

About the "best" near-term solution for conventional strike would be to 1) Get
the B-1B working and 2) Reopen the production lines for a B-1C (the C being
both an improved model B-1 and for conventional). The C version would have to
have some sorta gizmos to make it SALT/START complient...


     Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to 
                introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors. 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --