oracle
08-01-2001, 10:35 AM
Much-Maligned B-1 Bomber Proves Hard to Kill (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/national/01BOMB.html)
By JAMES DAO
ARNER ROBINS, Ga. — For most of its relatively short and often bumbling life, the B-1 has been the strategic bomber even the Pentagon has loved to hate.
Even before the last B-1 rolled off the assembly line in 1988, the Air Force had determined that the plane was vulnerable to Soviet air defenses. A 1991 study found it could not fly in snow because it had no effective de-icing equipment. Engine problems sidelined it during the Persian Gulf war. And in 1999, the Pentagon delayed using B-1's over Yugoslavia until enemy defenses had been suppressed by aging B-52's and other aircraft.
"It's a 20-year-old system," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said in recent testimony before the House. "It's not stealthy. It's designed for the cold war. It has been headed towards expensive obsolescence."
But for all the B-1's shortcomings, the Bush administration, in its effort to identify savings in the $329 billion Pentagon budget, is finding it difficult to kill.
In June, the Pentagon proposed mothballing about a third of the 93- plane B-1 force. Immediately, members of Congress, businessmen and Air National Guard officers from states with B-1 bases began furiously organizing against the move. Thanks to their efforts, the House Armed Services Committee is expected to approve a Republican amendment prohibiting cuts to the B-1 force in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
Whether or not the amendment survives, the battle over the B-1 has become more than a budget fight. It has emerged as the first major test of Mr. Rumsfeld's ability to bring sweeping changes to the military, as President Bush pledged in last year's campaign.
Many military experts had viewed the B-1 — which was originally intended to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union — as the kind of cold- war weapon Mr. Bush had envisioned for early retirement. But now, those experts are framing the question differently: If Mr. Rumsfeld cannot replace the B-1, what can he replace?
"Congress is saying, if you think retiring B-1's is difficult, wait until you try to cut an Army division or carrier battle group," said Michael G. Vickers, director of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
The Pentagon has justified the cuts by saying it needs to spend $1.5 billion over the next six years to make essential upgrades to the B-1 force. Those proposed upgrades include modernizing computers and refitting the planes to carry cruise missiles, a move that helped prolong the life of the B-52's, a bomber the B- 1 was supposed to replace. By retiring 33 B-1's, the Air Force could save enough money to pay for the improvements to the remaining 60 aircraft, officials said.
...
Click here to read more (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/national/01BOMB.html)
By JAMES DAO
ARNER ROBINS, Ga. — For most of its relatively short and often bumbling life, the B-1 has been the strategic bomber even the Pentagon has loved to hate.
Even before the last B-1 rolled off the assembly line in 1988, the Air Force had determined that the plane was vulnerable to Soviet air defenses. A 1991 study found it could not fly in snow because it had no effective de-icing equipment. Engine problems sidelined it during the Persian Gulf war. And in 1999, the Pentagon delayed using B-1's over Yugoslavia until enemy defenses had been suppressed by aging B-52's and other aircraft.
"It's a 20-year-old system," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said in recent testimony before the House. "It's not stealthy. It's designed for the cold war. It has been headed towards expensive obsolescence."
But for all the B-1's shortcomings, the Bush administration, in its effort to identify savings in the $329 billion Pentagon budget, is finding it difficult to kill.
In June, the Pentagon proposed mothballing about a third of the 93- plane B-1 force. Immediately, members of Congress, businessmen and Air National Guard officers from states with B-1 bases began furiously organizing against the move. Thanks to their efforts, the House Armed Services Committee is expected to approve a Republican amendment prohibiting cuts to the B-1 force in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
Whether or not the amendment survives, the battle over the B-1 has become more than a budget fight. It has emerged as the first major test of Mr. Rumsfeld's ability to bring sweeping changes to the military, as President Bush pledged in last year's campaign.
Many military experts had viewed the B-1 — which was originally intended to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union — as the kind of cold- war weapon Mr. Bush had envisioned for early retirement. But now, those experts are framing the question differently: If Mr. Rumsfeld cannot replace the B-1, what can he replace?
"Congress is saying, if you think retiring B-1's is difficult, wait until you try to cut an Army division or carrier battle group," said Michael G. Vickers, director of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
The Pentagon has justified the cuts by saying it needs to spend $1.5 billion over the next six years to make essential upgrades to the B-1 force. Those proposed upgrades include modernizing computers and refitting the planes to carry cruise missiles, a move that helped prolong the life of the B-52's, a bomber the B- 1 was supposed to replace. By retiring 33 B-1's, the Air Force could save enough money to pay for the improvements to the remaining 60 aircraft, officials said.
...
Click here to read more (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/national/01BOMB.html)