Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: pipercub!fenwick@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Fenwick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.013205.28761@amd.com>
Date: 30 May 91 22:41:13 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 31
Approved: military@amd.com


From: pipercub!fenwick@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Fenwick)


andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) writes:
>wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>>[Duane says that using the B52 instead of the B1 during DS says something
>> about capability]
>[Andrew argues that the B-1 is our primary penetration bomber until the
> B-2 is deployed, and, as such couldn't be sent without weaking the
> nuclear triad.]

Actually, you're both right.  The B-1B is the current primary penetration
bomber, and, should the Soviets or Chinese attack by nuclear means,
would be sent against them.

However, even if the B-2 had been in place at the start of DS,
the B-1B couldn't have gone.  The fleet was (is?) grounded after
two in-flight engine failures; the crew are not trained, and the
aircraft not equipped for conventional attack; and, there are
serious questions about the effectiveness of its ECM systems.

Despite these problems, the AF has promised that the B-1B fleet
(all 96!) are available in case of attack.

Steve Fenwick

-- 
fenwick@clipper.ingr.com
Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, California  94303