Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com>
Date: 26 May 91 03:14:44 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: TVC Enterprises
Lines: 27
Approved: military@amd.com


From: andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie)


wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>                             Certain elements may say as much about it
>as they like, but the fact that the B1's appear to have not appeared
>in the gulf *at all*, I think, IMHO, says plenty.  By using the B52 instead
>of the B1, I think we are being told which is the more capable aircraft -
>and not on the drawing board, but in reality.

	Hang on a second. That isn't fair to the B-1. There is a very simple
and straight forward reason why the B-1 did not participate in the gulf war
in a tactical role:

	Currently, and until the B-2 fully enters service, the B-1 is the
United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key component
of their nuclear triad. As such, it carries the most up-to-date electronics
(mission electronics that is, like ECM and radar suppression) of any
American bomber. Because of these two facts, the pentagon did not want any
B-1s anywhere near a combat zone; they can't afford to reduce their ready
bomber force, and they certainly can't afford for the wreckage of a destroyed
bomber get into enemy hands.

--
Andrew F. Cowie at TVC Enterprises, Toronto, Canada.
neat.ai.toronto.edu!tvcent!andrew -or- andrew@tvcent.uucp