Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Air Superiority B-52
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.021302.29468@amd.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 23:39:00 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 20
Approved: military@amd.com


From: Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson)


>then, you'd place some rotary launchers in the fusalage
>(sp?).  If you went as extreme as a 747 frame, you could carry QUITE 
>few Phoenix missiles inside.

It doesn't matter what you hang in it or on it, the "super bomber"
concept DOESN'T WORK. They tried this in WWII and they got HOSED. While
they didn't have missles, they did have a parity of armament (everybody
had machine guns). It boils down to the fact that a fighter can jam AND
dodge missles, while a bomber can only jam.  If the missle can find a
way through the jamming, the fighter still has a chance, while the
bomber is simply out of luck. Also, if the fighter (or more likely LOTS
of fighters all at once) get through the missle screen the bomber is
again totally defenseless. A VERY expensive target.

See ya!
Scott J.