Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1 in gulf
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.013240.28872@amd.com>
Date: 31 May 91 12:34:08 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> <1991May29.011147.7070@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: US Army Foreign Science & Technology Center
Lines: 28
Approved: military@amd.com


From: boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil


[21 lines quoting 3 people deleted. --CDR]

That's not what I've read (we're talking unclassified open sources here).
Everything that's been published says the B1 sat this war out because

1) it's not mission capable.    The so-called "most up-to-date electronics"
   don't work for shit.
2) the planes are configured for nukes and not for steel ordnance.
   Big mistake on Air Force's part.
3) The B1 is not based overseas.   That means a support facility would have
   had to be relocated (to where??  all the airfields within 1,000 miles of
   Kuwait were already overloaded) or fly from the states (maybe Dyess AFB, Texas??
   Big refueling problem).

If the Air Force could have gotten the B1 intgo the war, you better
believe it would have been there.   Politically the B1 was a black
eye for the AF.  But You really have to hand it to the AF.
Over all they did a great job.

Along the same lines.   I heard that US Army pilots flew a lot of
A-10 sorties.  That fact hasn't made much news.

Brian
boyter@fstc-chville.army.mil