[MilCom] Re: B-1 bomber crashes at base in Middle East/B-52

[Duane Mantick]

Interesting. A reply of mine got stomped as "spam" and
never made it.  I wrote:

That's very interesting!  Wonder why that was not more
widely publicized?  Clearly the PR I've been getting
is off-base!!!

And I know what you mean about that psychological
effect you mentioned further down.  Having seen a B1-B
do the Dayton Airshow a number of years back, I can
tell you that seeing a big bird like that come blazing
in where you don't hear it coming (as compared to the
BUFF, anyway) and then thundering past you and
manuevering out of the "zone" like a fighter plane
could be QUITE intimidating.

Sounds like I need to find some new sources of
information - obviously what I've been looking at may
be rather off-base......

Duane


--- Declared_Hostile <Declared_Hostile at marktwain.net>
wrote:

> Last message bounced so I'll try again.
> 
> 
> Duane Mantick wrote:
>  > The Lancer really has not had a particularly
> visible
>  > role in much of anything and most of the public I
>  > doubt even remembers what it is!
>  >
>  > As for simply grounding them - that's a lot
> easier to
>  > do when mission requirements are minimal as they
> seem
>  > to be for the B-1B.
> 
> It has a very visible role and nor are the mission
> requirements minimal.
> 
> The B-1B has been indispensable in Iraq and
> Afghanistan.  They carry a 
> very heavy bomb load, get to the target area very
> fast and can loiter 
> for a very long time.  The USAF named it "Most
> Valuable Plane" of 
> Operation Iraqi Freedom where they  dropped nearly
> 40 percent of the 
> total tonnage during the first six months of  the
> war. In Operation 
> Allied Force they delivered more than 20 percent of
> the total ordnance 
> while flying less than 2 percent of the combat
> sorties.  In Afghanistan 
> and Iraq they've even used it to deter enemy
> activity and conduct 
> psychological operations by sending them over the
> bad guys at high speed 
> and a few hundred feet above the ground at full
> power as a show of 
> force.  It's quite an ear shattering thunderous
> display and sends the 
> bad guys scurrying for cover and likely requires the
> changing of their 
> pantaloons.
> 
> 
> 
> Duane Mantick wrote:
>  > Wish we could pony up the $$$$ for about another
> 100
>  > B-2's.........for that matter, if we know what's
>  > shortfalls on the B-1B's, restart production for
> an
>  > updated "B-1C" model.........
>  >
> 
> There is a plan for a next generation bomber, the
> B-3.  There have been 
> a couple of different proposals as to what
> capabilities the B-3 should 
> have and what the performance requirements should
> be.
> 
> B-1s and B2s are slated to be around until 2037 and
> B-52s until 2045. 
> B-52s flying in 2045 sorta boggles the mind when you
> consider they first 
> flew in 1952.
> 
> 
> So it is going to be a while before the current
> bombers retire and the 
> B-3 comes online although there have been some
> things said recently that 
> could lead one to believe that the research on a B-3
> may be farther 
> along than what is generally thought.
> 
> Oh and I haven't heard any B-2s out and about since
> the crash on Guam. 
> They're apparently not technically grounded but
> they're not taking any 
> chances flying them until they find out the cause of
> the crash.
> 
> DH
>
______________________________________________________________
> MilCom mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milcom
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:MilCom at mailman.qth.net
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com