Editing 78-05-B3 (section)

= B-1 Bomber =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
It has been several months since the President announced his decision to halt
production of the B-1 bomber. I've found around the country there is an uneasiness
about our entire defense posture, and the cancellation of the B-1 is symbolic of that
uneasiness. Yet, we've been given very little information about the plane and
only the administrations explanation that it was too expensive and we could easily
find less costly substitutes.

Perhaps we weren't told more about the B-1 because the arguments supporting its
cancellation don't stand up. We are told the B-1 had a price tag of $100 million
and it was vulnerable to the Soviet air defense system. Well, no one can look
with pleasure on a $100 million aircraft being knocked down by anti-aircraft
fire. First we should know that $100 million price tag is figured in 1986
dollars on the basis of continued inflation. The real price tag is about $65
million--still a tidy sum.

It was pointed out that the air-launched cruise missile could be made for $1
million and launched by re-fitted B-52's, F-11's or even 747's from outside the
Soviet perimeter. Now this is true--as far as it goes. But the 747 modified
costs more than the B-1 and (with its size) is very vulnerable. The B-52 can
only carry half the payload of the B-1 even though its almost twice as big
and the modification required is quite expensive-especially when you consider
you need two B-52's to substitute for a single B-1. The B-1 incidentally
travels twice as fast as the B-52 and being so much smaller is less vulnerable
because of its reduced radar image. It shows up on a radar screen about the
size of a fighter plane.

The F1-11 would have to be stretched and fitted with the same engines designed
for the B-1. It would carry less than the B-52 . It would not be as good as
the B-1---just cheaper.

The B-1 was in production and already flying, a war plane so far advanced beyond
anything we have that the world would be years trying to match it, yet we can't
start producing cruise missiles till 1981, if then. There have been four successive
failures in the tests so far.

The cruise missiles are limited in range, so many Soviet targets would be out
of reach. To extend the range it must be launched from planes flying at great
heights which increases vulnerability to Soviet ground-to-air missiles. The
B-1 is designed to go in low beneath radar, penetrating the enemy air defense
system before launching the cruise missiles.

If the President has learned that the Soviets have a new defense system which
makes the B-1 less useful he should tell us. It won't be a surprise to the
Soviets. If not, then we know the Soviets will have to spend more than the B-1's
cost to develop defense against it and what's wrong with that? 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/03/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-103]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>