Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!dave@questar.questar.mn.org
From: dave@questar.questar.mn.org (David Becker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: B-2 worth it?
Message-ID: <3279@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 89 05:03:03 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Questar Data Systems; St. Paul, MN
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



In the quality vs quantity argument is stealth worth it?

The reports I've heard say the AF want 130 odd B-2's at $500M a piece.
That comes in around $65,000,000,000.  Can someone say if this
'quality' is better $65B worth of conventional air strength.

Tom Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ has a scenario where the stealth
fighters fly mostly undetected behind enemy lines to elimanate the
Warsaw pact air strength, and basically save the west from communists.

Does the B-2 bomber provide more capability than say buying $65B of
B-52's and F-15's?  The B-52's could fly out of some base in Texas and
carpet bomb Warsaw formations under protection of all those fighters.
The B-2's could fly a similar mission without detection.  

Would some quality B-2's outperform the conventional air power the
same $$$ could buy?
-- 
David Becker 
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
db@kolonel.MN.ORG