Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: apctrc!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-22 vs F-23 3rd Part Message-ID: <1991May23.062841.17315@amd.com> Date: 22 May 91 15:57:43 GMT References: <1991May22.035236.28510@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Amoco Production Company Lines: 33 Approved: military@amd.com From: apctrc!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) Carlo Kopp ... >The only problem the B-2 has at >this time are grandstanding politicians to whom stealth is dangerous >black magic and who stand to gain political points by killing the >project. I Write .. Uhh, that is hardly established fact. In fact., many of us think that the best way to spend the 30 BILLION it will take to finish building the 75 planes that the current plans call for is to not build them, and spend it instead on new planes for the Navy (which has a great need) or spend it on SDI (which congress keeps cutting) or spend it on air-lift (re: Desert Weirdness) or spend it on re-establishing an industrial base. If you want to bomb someone, use cruise missiles. At 1 million per copy, you can buy 300 per B-2. That 30 BILION should buy 30,000 cruise missiles, and we have no shortage of platforms to launch them from. But please don't tell me about B-2 cruises mearliy chasing thru the Russian countryside looking for targets of oportunity. I don't recall the B-52's over Iraq doing so, and Russia in a B-2 has to be a less safe place then Iraq in a B-52. (Since no B-52's were shot down, I feel safe in saying this.) -Randy [Double .signature deleted. --CDR]