Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B-1 Message-ID: <1991Jun4.040303.9273@amd.com> Date: 2 Jun 91 01:03:01 GMT References: <1991Jun1.013131.28649@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 70 Approved: military@amd.com From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (Loyd M. Enochs) writes: > In Vol 7 issue 34, Andrew Cowie made several points concerning the > no-show by the B1 in the Gulf. He made the point that "the B-1 is the > United States' primary penatration bomber, and as such is a key > component of their nuclear triad Exactly. The B-1 is currently nuclear only. The mission was to free Kuwait, not blow it to bits. > That may well be true... however, published reports in the New York > Times, as well as information broadcast by ABC news stated that the > *ENTIRE* B-1 fleet was grounded for engine problems. You have to be careful with the word grounded. There were a few engine problems during the summer and fall. SAC did not want to lose any B-1s over what might be a minor problem common to all B-1s. The B-1 was on active duty the entire time, with at least 2 aircraft on alert in Abaline, TX, at all times during the 'grounding'. I visited Dyess last fall, and I have pictures of this. If the cold war suddenly heated up, the B-1 would have been ungrounded and used as planned. Training missions were curtailed, though. > Additionally, the B-1 has _never been certified_ for conventional munitions! This is true. There is no reason to spend money working on outfitting the B-1 for conventional bombing when the US currently has 200+ B-52 that are perfectly able to carry iron bombs. When the B-2 comes on line, the B-1 will not be needed as the primary nuclear bomber. The B-1 is planned to be outfitted at that time to carry non-nuclear bombs. Once the B-1 is up to speed as a conventional bomber, the B-52 can be retired. > The B-1 has had a very poor history of reliability - so much so that > SAC has been searching for years to find an answer. Depends on where you get your information and how you crunch the numbers. The B-1 has a very good record of completing missions that are assigned to it, something over 98% if memory serves me (based on what the tour guide at Dyess told me). This is the fact that the USAF recites whenever someone attacks the B-1 program. The B-1 has had some teething problems. Some of the capabilitys that the plane was supposed to have turned out to be slightly ahead of what can be produced at that time. The electronic warfare systems are being upgraded. This is not too surprising when you consider that the B-1 is a very large and complex plane which is supposed to perform a mission that many doubt is even possible to perform. Much noise was made in the media about the fuel tank leaks in the B-1B. But the B-1B was not the only plane to ever have fuel tank leaks. Most planes have prototypes and early production runs to work out the bugs, but the B-1B was built on a fast track schedule without prototypes (no, the B-1A does not really count as a prototype for the B-1B). When the XB-70 had fuel tank leak problems there was only one or two planes to fix, while there were a lot more B-1Bs by the time the problem was solved. If you get a chance, get out to an airshow this summer and look for the B-1. It is truely amazing--it is huge, yet looks small from a distance. It hauls more than the B-52, yet performs like a fighter. And when you look up the word 'sexy' in the dictionary, you will find a picture of the B-1. Too bad SAC doesn't have a demonstration team like the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds! -- John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john