Funny, because that was my original point..that they were cutting the fleet by 1/3 and your argument was that Rumsfeld was trying to get rid of them. What a circular argument.....when wrong...change the subject. The reason the cut the B-1 fleet by 1/3 is because:
1. Cutting the fleet by a third gave them enough parts to fix and maintain the remainder after the bugets were slashed and many less were built than initially planned.
2. Their mission had changed and the cold war was over by then (not when Kerry voted against them though). Instead of long range nuclear bombers to attack Russia, they had been transformed to conventional weapon use.
3. Cutting them by 1/3 allowed a smaller support infrastructure and consolidated where they were based...that was what all the outcry was really about....folks did not want to lose bases and jobs in their areas.

Glad you have vivid memories of those magazine articles....must have been a boring couple of decades for you...no wonder you are so bitter. Suprised those articles did not give you some perspective on those of us who were living that life. Guess it is sorta like reading Excellence, but never driving a Porsche...but I digress... Once again, you prove my point that early on there were problems...subsequently sorted out...note that the dates you cited are prior to Rumsfelds current position as SecDef. As far as crashes from bird strikes and failures..you once again demonstrate your ignorance...they happen every day with high performance aircraft. (did you think the B-1 had some sort of "bird magnet ?") I have personnally launched a few (as a maintainer) that did not return...none were B-1s.

Keep reading...eventually you will prove all my arguments. whether you realize it or not. Thanks!

The more you post the more I can tell your field of expertise is certainly isn't aviation. What exactly is your field of expertise if you don't mind my asking?

The statistics show that its possible to design aircraft that can reliably withstand bird strikes.

There is a reason why aircraft failure due to bird strikes, even among high speed, low altitude fighters is very low. Its the same reason why the military and FAA possess cannons that can shoot dead birds and gelatin blobs at aircraft for testing purposes.

FYI, out of the thousands of bird strikes that occur every year few ever result in crashes and in those cases have always always boiled down to windsheild penetration injuring the pilot, engine failure from ingestion and damage to control surfaces.

To put these events into perspective there have been only about a dozen jet aircraft brought down by birds in the last 50 years.

Strangely enough the B1 is the first and only aircraft to ever have a bird penetrate the fuselage and rupture its hydraulic system leading to a loss of control, fire and deadly crash. Thats not a good testamonial for an aircraft that is likely to take hostile fire.

Like I said, its an obsolete lemon and thats the reason why its going the way of the dodo.

HaHaHaHa, give it up and play with your toy planes!
Quote from "The Combat Edge, Apr 2000" Official publication of the Air Combat Command, USAF:
Of course this is only a 5 year period, not 50 and USAF aircraft only...it does not include Navy, Marine, or commercial aircraft..Or that of any other nation in the world.

Nice spin there dude. Lets see how well my memory has served me.

Dozens of lives in a five year period? Did you know that the one bird related military aircraft crash that occured in 1995 killed 25 people?

Here is the breakdown of the detailed military statistics that I found on line.

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/Bash/stats.html

Year - Number of Military Aircraft Destroyed - Number of Fatalities
1973 2 0
1974 2 1
1975 2 0
1979 1 0
1980 1 0
1981 1 1
1982 2 1
1984 1 0
1985 1 0
1986 2 1
1987 2 5
1989 1 0
1990 1 0
1991 1 0
1992 2 1
1993 2 0
1994 2 0
1995 1 24
1998 1 0
1999 1 1
2000 1 0
2001 2 0
2002 1 0
2003 3 0

Hmm, if not for 95 you wouldn't even have been able to claim a dozen lives in 30 years. Oh well, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinoin.

Keep in mind that these numbers also includes the military's prop aircraft and I specifically referred to jet aircraft due to their greater problems with bird ingestion. Not too bad for pulling something out of my memory from over a decade ago I must say. Now on to the civilian side of things . . .

http://www.birdstrike.org/risk/birdrisk.htm

You can quote air command magazine all you want, I prefer the exact stats of the organizations in charge of aircraft safety. Then again I talk about lost jet aircraft and you rebut me with lives and dollars. Why am I not suprised at the change of subject.

After the above exchange I can see why you are keeping your profession to yourself. Keep trying though, I always enjoy the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

I could always get back into the toy plane and helicopter thing but that would cost thousands of dollars that is better spent on my porsche.

I prefer vehicles that I can sit in anyways.

Once again...even using your own statistics...you are wrong. about 3 times as many crashes in 30 years in the AF alone as you cited in 50 years worldwide! Not even counting commercial aircraft, other services, and other countries. And yes, I know you would prefer to use statistics from organizations that did not exist at the time as well as birdstrike.com??? which doesn't even jive with the other statistics you posted. Give it up. By the way...didn't you say
Now only one death since '59???
You can't have it both ways!

Ok...I give up....I confess that the class you took in college taught you far more about the military than my worldwide service for 26 years. You even know more about aircraft that I worked on than I did. God...how did they ever fly? Good thing the Soviets didn't know how incompetent we were! Damn, no wonder Kerry was so intent upon discrediting us when he got back from his 3 months duty! Incompetent and baby-killers!

What branch, what specialty? Are you an A&P mechanic? An engineer?

What kind of work did you do on military aircraft?

Since I am just a lowly engineer I guess a guy who has done everything from push buttons in bunkers to 'work on' planes is bound to know more than me on the subject. ;)

Like I said.."I give up" I was just a stupid GI and could not possibly be as educated as you or know near as much as you about my profession. Perhaps you should consider working in the profession as well since you are so expert in it. Should be lucrative.