Try the political quiz
+

11 Replies

 @LobbyChuckConstitution from Indiana  commented…2yrs2Y

I went to college 10 miles from Whiteman AFB, back in the 90s. I took a job at the local furniture store assembling and delivering furniture. The other four guys I worked with had retired from the AF and stayed in the area. Two of them were MPs, and two were maintainers. The one guy had maintained SR-71s before transitioning to the B-2s.

He talked about how maintenance intensive they were. And that was almost 30 years ago.

The stories those guys had…..

 @TalentedBicameralDemocrat from New Hampshire  agreed…2yrs2Y

I have a friend who was a top designer engineer on the B-2. He always said just imagine trying to keep a 30 year old car in showroom condition ALL the time.

 @JudicialMadelynGreen from Florida  commented…2yrs2Y

Could it be that the cost of repairs to this B-2 are estimated to be more than the cost of a new B-21 ?

If that is the case, it might make some sense, considering the substantial value of the spare parts that will become available to keep the others flying.

 @J0intCommitt3eHedgehogAmerican Solidarity from South Carolina  commented…2yrs2Y

The AF does what it does best: design great planes, but then cut production so there is little room for error or loss, and then costs way more than projected because it can’t be amortized. Same game plan with the F-22. I’ll bet anything the B-21 run will be cut to 30, 50 at most, when the time comes. In general the military reminds me of a toddler with a new toy. They interest fast.

 @DearC4ucusIndependent from Wisconsin  commented…2yrs2Y

Given the supportability issues, the cost of repair, the B-21 in early production, using the aircraft as a parts donor today to help keep the others mission capable makes the best of a bad situation. The parts can flow almost immediately, creating spares, adding margin and numbers to the overhauled parts availability which beats waiting years for it to be fixed.

Two choices, wait years to be fixed or strip it for parts today. It will fly again very soon, just not as an intact aircraft.

 @DiplomacyPumaIndependentfrom New York  commented…2yrs2Y

Given the supportability issues, the cost of repair, the B-21 in early production, using the aircraft as a parts donor today to help keep the others mission capable makes the best of a bad situation. The parts can flow almost immediately, creating spares, adding margin and numbers to the overhauled parts availability which beats waiting years for it to be fixed.

Two choices, wait years to be fixed or strip it for parts today. It will fly again very soon, just not as an intact aircraft.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Given the high costs and limited numbers of stealth bombers like the B-2, should more effort be made to repair them, or is it more practical to focus on newer models?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How does the decision to not repair one of the few B-2s affect your perception of the value of military equipment?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Do you believe retiring a damaged B-2 bomber is a waste of resources, or a necessary step towards advancement?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

What does the choice to phase out the B-2 bombers in favor of B-21 Raiders suggest to you about the future of military technology?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How do you feel about the decision to not repair a damaged B-2 bomber, considering its rarity and cost?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...