Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emks
From: emks@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: More on B-1 vs B-52
Message-ID: <1200005@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 10:55:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.1200005
Posted: Wed Oct 17 10:55:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Oct-84 01:24:10 EDT
References: <3213@rabbit.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:rabbit:-321300:uokvax:1200005:000:803
Nf-From: uokvax!emks    Oct 17 09:55:00 1984

[*bug*]

Referring to the B-52 "falling apart":
/***** uokvax:net.aviation / rabbit!wolit /  7:56 am  Oct 11, 1984 */
Not according to the USAF, who plan to keep the B-52 around for quite
a few more years.
/* ---------- */

I've worked with the B-52/Missile Section at Okla City ALC (USAF) for the
past year or so.  Don't be fooled.  B-52's fall apart alot.  The Air Force
(Air Staff, et al.) would *love* to replace its inventory of B-52s with
something easier to maintain.  Currently, Boeing has a strongarm hold on
the airframe and a lot of the electronics.  (Wichita isn't even a nice place
to *visit*!)

Keeping the B-52 around for "quite a few more years" is only because there
isn't much choice.  Of course, you could unilaterally disarm... (Ha!)

(Don't flame, it was a joke, okay??!)

		kurt