Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991May31.061344.13496@amd.com>
Date: 29 May 91 06:22:09 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 18
Approved: military@amd.com


From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)


andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) writes:
>	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.

Would this same logic not alos apply to the B-52 during the Viet Nam War? This
did not, however, prevent B-52's from being used there...

Frank Crary