B-1 v. B-52: the Strategic Factors

Both sides in the debate agree that the B-l is the hottest bomber ever flown. But is it worth its $102 million price tag? Can it reach targets deep within the Soviet Union if there is a nuclear war? These questions are especially important because, according to present strategy, close to 60% of the U.S. nuclear megatonnage will be carried by manned bombers, the rest by missiles based on land and aboard submarines. Concedes Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, a B-l backer: "Considerable logic can be mustered for either side of the argument."

One of the main considerations is the vast Soviet air defense network, largest in the world. Some 6,000 radar installations stretch from Murmansk to Vladivostok for early detection of a U.S. attack. The Soviet force of 5,000 interceptor aircraft includes 200 formidable MiG-25s, known as Foxbats, which have a top speed of 1,800 m.p.h. and a maximum altitude of close to 80,000 ft. In addition, the Soviets have about 12,000 surface-to-air missiles--low-level SA-3s and SA-6s and high-level SA-2s and SA-5s--at more than 1,000 sites.

But the Soviets have a serious weakness: they have developed only a very crude "lookdown" radar, capable of spotting low-flying planes or missiles only over water. The U.S. has such radar in its Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes. The Soviets, however, have not yet figured out how to distinguish an airplane or missile from ground clutter. Before they solve this problem and deploy look-down radar (which may not happen until the 1980s), U.S. bombers will be able to penetrate Soviet borders.

The B-l has a better chance than the B-52 of getting through Russian defenses. For one thing, it offers a smaller target for existing radar. It is only two-thirds the size of the B-52 (see chart). It can also fly faster and lower (600 m.p.h. at about 70 or 80 ft. above the ground). The B-l also is equipped with the most advanced black-box gear, which sends out electronic signals to counteract enemy warning systems. But critics maintain that when the Soviets develop new defensive weapons, including look-down radar and radar picket planes, like the AWACS, the B-l will become obsolete.

The B-52 at present also can penetrate Soviet air defenses, but not as well. The B-52s were first designed for high-altitude flight. But the most modern models--built in 1959-62--have been modernized with guidance equipment that enables them to fly only 200 ft. above the ground at a speed of 400 m.p.h.

Moreover, in the face of improved Soviet air defenses, the B-52 can be used as a "standoff' bomber as opposed to a "penetration" bomber. The standoff bomber's mission is to deliver cruise missiles to within range of its targets. It would stop short of Russian borders and fire salvos of missiles to overwhelm Soviet defenses. According to Defense Secretary Harold Brown, all major targets in the U.S.S.R. are within range of cruise missiles fired in this manner.

Cruise missiles essentially amount to updated versions of the Nazis' World War II buzz bombs: small, pilotless jet planes that can be launched from land, ships or planes. The Air Force's cruise missiles fly at 550 m.p.h. about 50 ft. above the ground. That enables them to slip under the Soviets' line-of-sight radar to deliver 200-kiloton nuclear warheads with astounding accuracy--within 100 ft. of their targets. One version, the ALCM-A (for air-launched cruise missile), has a range of 750 miles. A second version, the ALCM-B, has extra fuel tanks that extend its range to about 1,700 miles.*

B-52s have a decided advantage over Bls in carrying cruise missiles. Pentagon plans call for stowing eight ALCM-A or ALCM-B missiles aboard each modified B-52. In addition, twelve ALCM-B missiles would be attached to the B-52's wings. Though the B-l's bomb bay can accommodate 24 of the shorter-range ALCM-As, it is too small for the ALCM-Bs; nor can the B-l carry any variety of cruise missile on its wings.

Neither the Army nor the Navy is particularly upset about the B-l's demise, because it eases the budgetary squeeze and opens the prospect of more funds for their own pet weapons systems. But the Air Force seems genuinely devastated. There is, of course, an understandable institutional bias in favor of manned bombers. But beyond that, many Air Force officers argue that the B-52 is simply too old, too prone to metal fatigue, too primitive in its avionics systems and electronic countermeasures to fulfill its assigned role as the third leg of the U.S. strategic triad.

B-52 proponents give their plane a clear edge in cost effectiveness and contend that it can hold its own--or better --in terms of offensive capability. They point out that both planes will be able to penetrate Soviet defenses well into the 1980s. But even among B-52 proponents, there is some concern whether the old bird can remain aloft for another couple of decades.

* The Navy's submarine-launched version of the cruise, the Tomahawk, is 21 ft. long, can carry 200-kiloton nukes at speeds up to 550 m.p.h. and has a range of 2,000 miles.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.