Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2 vs. F117A
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.015621.19910@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 01:56:21 GMT
References: <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
In article <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com>, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu
   (Daniel Mocsny) writes;
 
> The technology should exist to build an RPV that could stay aloft
> for days. Build it like a sailplane with a 40:1 glide ratio. [...]

   It does -- such a vehicle has been flying for several years.  Boeing
built one that was featured on an Aviation Week cover a few years ago.  I
don't recall the exact dimensions, but it was quite large with a
wingspan comparable to that of a DC-9.  Endurance was on the order of a
week, at altitudes above 50,000 feet.  Power was by supercharged piston
engine.  The mission for these aircraft is long duration surveilance and
atmospheric study.

   The problem with 'em as attack aircraft is that they have a very slow
flight speed and limited payload.  Even if we launched a large number of
them, they'd be easy to shoot down with AAA.  There'd also be plenty of
opportunity for the enemy to protect assets from attack.  

   A more reasonable approach would be to build a large number of
terrain hugging, jet powered, autonomous attack aircraft.  They're
called cruise missiles, and we just used a whole bunch of 'em in the
Gulf.

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    stevenp@decwrl.dec.com