Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Are Stealth Bombers "Really" Invisib - (nf)
Message-ID: <29200144@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 22:30:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200144
Posted: Fri Sep  7 22:30:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 07:28:05 EDT
References: <683@ihuxj.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:ihuxj:-68300:uiucdcs:29200144:000:1097
Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner    Sep  7 21:30:00 1984

#R:ihuxj:-68300:uiucdcs:29200144:000:1097
uiucdcs!renner    Sep  7 21:30:00 1984

>  Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra) writes:
>
>  Hello, the other night while watching "Late Night America" on local
>  PBS station, Chan. 11 Chicago, the guest made an interesting statement.
>  She claimed that the "Stealth Bomber" (B-1?) was only "invisible" to
>  Short Wave (SW) Radar and that Long Wave (LW) Radar would be more than
>  capable of detecting these "so called" wonder weapons that the President
>  intends to use as replacements for the B-52's currently being utilized.

The B-1 does not use the so-called "stealth" technology.  The term
"Stealth Bomber" comes from Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign, when
certain details about radar-detection-avoidance technology were somehow
leaked to the press.  The idea was that instead of building B-1s, we
should just use the old B-52s for another 8 or 10 years until the
stealth bombers were ready.

I don't know if the stealth bomber idea will ever work, and I can't say
if the B-1 bomber is worth building.  But it wasn't Reagan's idea to
replace the B-52s with the "so-called wonder weapons."

Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner