Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (Loyd Enochs) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: B-1 Message-ID: <1991Jun5.064815.26162@amd.com> Date: 4 Jun 91 19:42:00 GMT Article-I.D.: amd.1991Jun5.064815.26162 Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 49 Approved: military@amd.com From: "Loyd Enochs" In Volume 7 : Issue 38, John A. Weeks III sez: >You have to be careful with the word grounded....If the cold war >suddenly heated up, the B-1 would have been ungrounded and used as >planned. Training missions were curtailed, though. Sorry for the confusion. We mean the same thing. >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). That's probably true, but the B-1's mission has been curtailed due to... >..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. Sounds like a problem to me! If the aircraft does not have all the capability it "was supposed to have", then it is not fully mission capable in terms of the reason it was purchased. If, in order to raise the effectiveness numbers, the AF has lowered mission standards or removed mission requirements, then the numbers are being "crunched" untruthfully. I agree: the B-1 was a fast-track project. I agree: no prototypes existed. But avionics upgrades are a given for any recent airframe (as the state of the art expands) and not an excuse for significant downtime. Besides, by the time a new aircraft model has been completely deployed to field units (i.e., production run completed), 6 years after the first delivery of the aircraft to an operational unit, I would have expected a much more robust and mature aircraft than we got. Here are some numbers the 96th Bombardment Wing crunched. For Feb 1989 (four years after Dyess got it's first B-1) Dyess had a Fully Mission Capable rate of zero and scheduled flights were canceled because of maintenance 13.7% of the time. The mission capability rate was 38.8% and the total Non-Mission Capable rate was 55.6% for Feb 89. As a taxpayer, I don't think I got my money's worth. Agreed - it is a *beautiful* bird and if any of you have a chance to get "up close and personal" with one, DON'T BLOW THE CHANCE! Loyd M. Enochs (ex-USAF) - Dynamics Research Corporation - Andover, MA Munitions Maintenance, 74-80 - Computer Programmer/Analyst,80-87