Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.013225.28817@amd.com>
Date: 31 May 91 12:23:20 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com> <1991May31.061344.13496@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 20
Approved: military@amd.com


From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)


fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 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...

I must have missed the original question. In any case, one of the reasons the
B-1's were not deployed to the gulf was because they were grounded at the time
with engine problems. Another is not being able to afford losses; The B-52 in
vietnam case is not comparable due to differing numbers; We had 744 B-52s and
the prospect of building more of them. We currently have 97 B-1s left, and we
will never build another. If the B-2 doesn't work or is too expensive, we're
stuck with 97 B-1s as our only heavy bomber.

-- 
Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@vos.stratus.com
Marlboro, Mass.		Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.