B-2 question

"Pooh Bear" wrote
Billy Preston wrote:

The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.

As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.

It worked.

Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?

They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow. You can't fake it, you have
to build the real thing. Then the Soviets had to spend more money to defend
against it (more concrete, and deeper holes to put the defense forces).

Billy Preston wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote
Billy Preston wrote:

The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.

As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.

It worked.

Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?

They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow. You can't fake it, you have
to build the real thing. Then the Soviets had to spend more money to defend
against it (more concrete, and deeper holes to put the defense forces).

Yes, many cruise missiles had to be built to prove the point too !

At the time I had a g/f who thought the cruise missiles were a 'bad thing'. I,
for my part, was 'agnostic' re nuclear weapons, as in : MAD seemed to work.

I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat of use of certain weapons in
essence caused the CCCP to dismantle itself.

It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough to think it through in
advance - but was that the case ?

Was it simply pure luck ?


Graham

Billy Preston wrote:

They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow.

After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote
Billy Preston wrote:

They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow.

After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!

I'm sorry to say I am old enough to remember his flight :-)

I think Flight Sim 2000 had a Mathias Adventure as one of
the games...

Billy Preston wrote:

After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!

I'm sorry to say I am old enough to remember his flight :-)

Around 1993-94 I saw an interview with a *former* Russian (Soviet) Air Force
general who claimed Mathias Rust caused more Air Defense modifications (which
was *very* expensive) than both the B-1B and B-2.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Billy Preston wrote:

"hobo" wrote

The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
to build zero. No more will be built because they are too expensive to
build and operate.


Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
bankrupt the Soviets policy.

Mathias Rust had more impact than ray-gun Reagan.

Cheers

--mike

21 was the number that wouldn't
bankrupt us.

Having worked on the B-2A for 10 years now, I can say it fulfilled
its designed roll, but technology has caught-up with other bombers.

The B-2 was the only plane that could drop the big bridge in Serbia.
It did that with 4 JDAM's hitting the bridge at the same instant. The
B-1 and B-52 didn't have them. Now that they do, the supremacy
of the B-2 is merely stealth. With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
an option we can do without. Even C-17's can perform the role of
most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
sometimes outside the theater.

The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.

"Mike Dargan" wrote

Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
bankrupt the Soviets policy.

Mathias Rust had more impact than ray-gun Reagan.

Bzzt! Bufdrvr already beat you to that comment :-)

In article ,
BUFDRVR wrote:

Around 1993-94 I saw an interview with a *former* Russian (Soviet) Air Force
general who claimed Mathias Rust caused more Air Defense modifications (which
was *very* expensive) than both the B-1B and B-2.

Of course they changed their operational procedures, but I
wonder what they did which cost money? They saw and
intercepted him and must have been aware that sometimes
aircraft fly at low altitudes so why would that incident
get them to improve low altitude coverage?
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

Pooh Bear wrote in message ...
hobo wrote:

The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
to build zero.

Defence contractors need an assurance that they'll get loadsa money for
their efforts.

For the government, they need to see some hardware in return.


Graham


Ought to be interesting to see if any of the projected "B-3" concepts
actually get built:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...personic-2.jpg

As far as black projects go I've heard that each TR-3B ASTRA costs 3
billion!! So, the thought of building yet another manned bomber that
doesn't leave the atmosphere would seem ridiculous and obsolete.
Aerospace defense platforms are the future, leave the atmosphere to
the UCAVs...

Rob

Urban Fredriksson wrote:

They saw and intercepted him

I'm not sure this is a documented fact. I've seen interviews where it was
claimed Rust's landing in Red Square was not a surprise, but I've read other
publications claiming that he was tracked, at best, intermittently across
Eastern Europe, Ukraine and finally Russia.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"