Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: roskos@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ed)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991May31.061401.13560@amd.com>
Date: 29 May 91 07:48:18 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 19
Approved: military@amd.com


From: roskos@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ed)


> There is a ... reason why the B-1 did not participate in the gulf
> war ... it carries the most up-to-date electronics

I could very well be wrong, but I remember seeing somewhere that the
reason the B-1s didn't fly in the Gulf was that they are not fitted
for convention weapons.  In addition, I think the engines were being
replaced around the time.  Does anyone know for sure on these points?

	[The answer the last time this question rolled around was
	 that B-1s had not yet been certified for conventional bombs,
	 and they were grounded for engine-related reasons.  In
	 event of nuclear war they were still mission-capable, but
	 they weren't being flown unnecessarily until the engines
	 were corrected.  The B-52s are nearing end-of-life anyway.
	 -- CDR]