On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:58:02 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
. com...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
Why would you drag around a few "silver bullet" aircraft to
remote wars against countries that are unlikely to offer anything
able to match a late production F-16? If the commander of such
an expeditionary force does not really need the full F/A-22
capability, and the probability is that he (or she) will not, then
that commander will be very reluctant to burden the already
strained logistics pipeline with the particular maintenance
requirements of a handful of unique fighters. The F/A-22 may
become what the B-1 is today -- a weapon commanders prefer
to leave at home, because the cost of taking it with you outweighs
the advantage. Politics aside, of course; I suspect that quite
a few generals in history have been told "We paid for this
weapon -- use it".

Emmanuel,

I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of the B-1 in
today's Air Force. Your statement above is 180 degrees off from the
current thinking of today's combatant commanders. In fact during OEF
and OIF it was at the top of the list of platforms asked for by them.
Today's Bone is vastly improved from the dark days of the early 90's.

Emmanuel would have been correct in what he wrote two years ago, but the
bone has lit up.

Our ability to fly long distances, loiter for hours on end, react
rapidly to emerging targets, and carry large combat loads is matched by
no other airframe in the USAF. So much so that congress is giving us
money and ordering us to return Bones to service, while talking about
retiring further BUFF's.

Getting the Bone to work is a major setback for any F/A-22.


Well you can hope. It might not help the prospects of an FB-22
(though I doubt it) but I don't see the B-1 filling an air to air role
anytime soon. Do you?