4 ms·
The products are 'out of warranty' and effectively antiques. The article states how much it would cost to get the tooling back to make more of the planes and y
by Theodores 8y ago
The products are 'out of warranty' and effectively antiques.
The article states how much it would cost to get the tooling back to make more of the planes and you would be looking at spending billions to make replacements.
There is no 'series production' going on and therefore that means that 'maintenance' is more like 'restoration' with these dubious machines.
I wonder if it would make more sense and provide as much utility if the Air Force just settled for a fleet of classic concept cars. It wasn't as if the Air Force was of any use whatsoever on that day seventeen years ago when action stations was actually needed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bradleyjg 8y agoThe whole project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. It’s up there in the procurement hall of shame with the B1, B2, and LCS.
- carbocation 8y agoThe topic is the F-22. Are you thinking of the F-35?
- bradleyjg 8y agoNo the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its, admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in that respect.
- claydavisss 8y agoA deterrent is "used" just by being deployed. The point of deterrence is to demonstrate that you have the capability, not necessarily putting it to use in combat. Deterrence is a peacetime activity intended to preserve and extend peacetime as long as possible. One could argue that the fact that no two major powers have engaged in direct combat since ww2 is an existence proof of the power of deterrence.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 8y agoThe B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years. Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven. Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service. You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on the tin.
- bradleyjg 8y agoThat’s revisionist history. Its intended role was nuclear strikes deep in the heart of the Soviet Union. It has certainly not been used to great effect or otherwise for that. Likewise, we will never go to conventional war with those “geopolitical rivals”. Instead we go to war with countries like Syria and sub-national actors like ISIS neither of which have similar tech entering service, to put it mildly.
- mulmen 8y agoThe B-2 was always a long range bomber capable of deploying both nuclear and conventional weapons. It needed to have the capability to reach and bomb Russia but that was never the only intended role. It was also the first plane to drop JDAMs which are useful regardless of the tech level of the enemy. It’s a long range bomber that was designed to fly long distances and drop bombs that entered service and flew long distances and dropped bombs. No part of that history is “revised”. Furthermore, maintaining military parity with geopolitical rivals is why we do not engage in conventional warfare with them. The MAD doctrine has proven to be effective for decades. I’m happy to hear reasoned criticism of American foreign policy but the B-2 and F-22 are both performing exactly the jobs they were designed for. Both as combat vehicles and as deterrents.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 8y ago> It wasn't as if the Air Force was of any use whatsoever on that day seventeen years ago when action stations was actually needed. It’s deeply insulting both as an American and as a thinking human being to say the USAF did nothing on 9/11.