Comments on: A $550 million Air Force bomber so good it will never be used http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: BS101 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1115213 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:48:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1115213 Bombers? That’s WWII thinking.

We need a Death Star… :D

]]>
By: Erzherzog http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1114710 Sat, 31 Oct 2015 22:16:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1114710 The $ 550 Million Air Force Bomber is another BOONDOGGLE by the
military strategic staff and the Procurement System to furter out than any other failed/overrun project so far…..upper military is dominated by the personal defense contract interest peddlers and not by their actual needs.
Any and all suggested savings by oner military is close to a calculated $ 30 Billion deferred every time by the special interest…case in point is the disastrous controls over the Vet med. system where so far only ONE has been comfortable relieved from his job1
When is CONGRESS getting their hand’s of our forces and let them do the job they are well prepared to do ….. so billions could get back into their budget without any need to get more for something they just don’t want…
like the new already ineffective class of the medium support vessels that are unable to operate in close ……..on and on…!
I am truly concerned since I do have a grandson at West Point and he loves to serve. For his sake fix the military procurement and we would not need another dime to add to the defense budget now.

]]>
By: randydutton http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1114268 Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:46:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1114268 Forget designing against missiles. New high energy weapons will take the aircraft out.

]]>
By: mac1066bill http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1114138 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:45:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1114138 Expensive plane as a deterrent?!?!? nuts.

Sounds like, given the level of Russian Air defense, that they couldn’t develop anything effective, and safe for crews. Ie…better to use the B-52’s and take the losses…
The idea of buying weapons to not use them is flawed. Unless you just pretend to develop them. But that will have a rude and nasty result when someone finally calls your bluff.

]]>
By: mike23662002 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1113849 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:39:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1113849 Total waste of money. The nuclear deterrent is in place. I would think a cruise missile platform inserted into an aircraft carrier would work better . But a new ship with 50 or less quickly re loadable missiles is a good idea. Why risk a crew of experienced air men that take years to train? So if the weapons are non nuclear why not build a few sub like ships and sink them close to targets. Way cheaper then bombers lol

]]>
By: chuco1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1113494 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:17:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1113494 We need a new line of cluster bombs to kill more ground troops and a warthog replacement to strafe . I don’t see why we are not taking out the 3 mile long lines of ISIS Toyota trucks I see on the news. More stupid thinking by pentagon officers hoping for a job in the defense industry after retirement.

]]>
By: thranx1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1113161 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 03:06:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1113161 Lessee…for the 42 billion the 21 B-2’s cost, we could have bought off most if not all of our “enemies”. Without a single U.S. soldier dying in the process. Not to mention saving all those operations and maintenance costs.

But hey, why be practical when you can be cool?

]]>
By: jackdanielsesq http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1112933 Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:52:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1112933 These must be the same USG morons who allowed muslims into America, ergo 9/11
Its time we built a decent wall, tossed Barry and his illegal aliens out
America’s real enemy …. 535 clowns + I Criminal-in-Charge
Impeach the lot for treason, fraud

]]>
By: MaskOfZero http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1112912 Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:54:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1112912 This article is biased and wrong.

Clickbait.

]]>
By: MaskOfZero http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/22/a-550-million-air-force-bomber-so-good-it-will-never-be-used/#comment-1112911 Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:53:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44216#comment-1112911 (and their willingness to use that capability)

]]>