Is it just me or does anyone ascribe Particular
weight to the this phrase:
B-2 Stealth bombers!
...accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.
Now didn't the original
specification call the the new bomb to be carried by B-2's And
the old, definately un-
Does this, rather subtle, re-focus of tasking to Only
the B-2's signal anything? To anyone else?
If I am not mistaken, a B-52 can carry more heavy ordinance than a B-2.
And if the bombs you're packin' weigh upwards of 30,000 lbs each, wouldn't you
use the planes that can carry more of them?
Unless, the target of your mission is already equipped with highly sophisticated (ie.: Russian) anti-aircraft radar.
In which case, you'd be more likely to sacrifice "throw-weight" for an aircraft with a better "penetration-capability", right?
I truly hope that this is nothing more than more "saber-rattling" in the name of diplomacy; but if so, these are some very expensive "sabers"
being rattled (consider the program cost of optimizing a weapon for one plane over another).
And historically, the military doesn't like to pay for toys they don't get to use.
As to the arguement that Iran is "safe" as long as it remains "under the jurisdiction" of Russia:
Consider how easily a "Quid Pro Quo" agreement involving Iran for Georgia could be brokered.
That additional $116 Billion
in supposedly "fake" bonds smuggled into Italy last August? Could that have been just the bribe somene from
Moscow had been waiting for to "seal the Deal"?
We shall see.
[edit on 6-10-2009 by Bhadhidar]