Date: 1982-07-22
Speaker: ROBERT W. DANIEL (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have debated this issue many times in the past and I suspect we will probably have debates on it again in the future. Last November. Dr. DeLauer wrote a very detailed letter to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the other body explaining the rationale for the B1/advanced technology bomber (ATB) approach to modernizing our strategic bomber force. I would like to review some of the key points Dr. DeLauer brings out in this letter. To be an effective deterrent a manned bomber must be able to accomplish three basic parts of the manned bomber mission. take off and base escape prior to being struck. with particular concern toward a surprise attack. navigate and fly safely the long range to its targets. and. penetrate any defenses required to reach its targest. As the Soviets deploy increasing numbers of warheads (which can be used for barrage attack). and develop more effective forward air defenses. the B52s ability to accomplish all three parts of its mission in sufficient numbers to be an effective and credible deterrent will become increasingly questionable in the last half of the 1980s. In addition. the cost of the B52s operation and maintenance is rising dramatically as its age increases. In contrast to this. the B1B and the ATB can accomplish all three parts of the bomber mission effectively and will be able to do so for many years to come. The combined BIB/ATB program will represent a force that will cause the Soviets to begin to improve their air defense now and to continue to Inmprove them throughout the rest of the century. The heavy investment this will require will provide the United States with significant leverage and restrict the Sovits ability to upgrade their offensive forces. In contrast to this. an ATB only program allows the Soviets to delay the improvements to their air defenses and gives them many years to work exclusively on ways to counter the ATB technology. Finally. the combined program allows the option of deciding to buy more or less of either the B1B or ATB at middecade depending on the progress made and the cost of each program. Now. as to the issue to the ability of manned bombers to penetrate Soviet air defenses. Many people who are uninformed with the facts and technical details of air defense often imagine air defense as as wall or barrier that is or is not broken at given times. This conception is misleading. Air defense in todays world is done in depth and consists of varying degrees of defense depending on the importance of the target and timing of the attack. Thus. there is no magic moment when a given type of bomber cannot "penetrate." What occurs is that the probability of air defenses being effective over a range of desired targets gradually increases over time as defenses are improved. These improvements. however. can be offset through the introduction of new equipment and tactics in the attacking force. The low radar cross section of the B1B (which is less than one onehundreth that of the B52) and its stateoftheart electronics will allow it to penetrate to needed targets well into the 1990s. The improvements that the ATB will offer in these areas promise to allow similar effectiveness to be maintained well into the next century. By combining these two programs. we maintain the important deterrent capability of manned bombers. that is. reliability. survivability. recallability. endurance. and the ability to hit mobile targets. well into the future for essentially the same cost that would be incurred if we continued to operate older obsolete systems. The gentleman from California in a "Dear Colleague" letter has asserted. and I quote: No arguments can be made in favor of the BlB bomber program on either military or fiscal grounds * * *. While I will agree the B1 program is indeed costly. I would disagree with the gentleman that no arguments can be made in its favor. I believe the military arguments favoring the B1 are compelling and I urge you to reject this amendment.