B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%.

B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Rusty1961 -> B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 5:08:46 PM)
https://warisboring.com/less-than-20-of-b-1-lancers-are-operation-due-to-neglect-from-the-air-force/ Another issue is the high tempo of operations in the post 9/11 period. The heavy strategic bomber became a close air support favorite in the skies over Afghanistan, with its ability to dash to support troops in contact, stay aloft for hours on end, and drop bombs with precision. Good job using a Strategic nuclear bomber in the tactical role. Nice. A number of issues are likely involved. The B-1B fleet is reportedly not receiving the “resources and attention necessary” to keep the fleet going. That's funny, I wonder what project is absorbing said resources? Hmmmm....

HansBolter -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 5:11:39 PM)
Wait just a darn minute! Isn't there a HR against using strategic bombers for tactical missions? We all know this is never done in RL.

Canoerebel -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 5:32:15 PM)
It's helpful to have ongoing discussions about the dreadful military/industrial complex initiated by a Forumite without an ax to grind since this is likely to accomplish something meaningful.

Rusty1961 -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 5:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel It's helpful to have ongoing discussions about the dreadful military/industrial complex initiated by a Forumite without an ax to grind since this is likely to accomplish something meaningful. Yet here you, contributing none-the-less.

mind_messing -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 7:25:51 PM)
Vote Rusty for SecDef

rustysi -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 11:01:26 PM)
quote: Isn't there a HR against using strategic bombers for tactical missions? I HR the He$$ outta 'em.[:D]

rustysi -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/3/2019 11:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Vote Rusty for SecDef Now that's a good suggestion, seeing as we don't currently have one.[;)]

geofflambert -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/4/2019 1:29:42 AM)
I'm not on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so I can't vote.

Fishbed -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/4/2019 10:37:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Vote Rusty for SecDef Arguably, in terms of budget policy, we already know that the moment he's sworn in he will fire all the women from the military. I am pretty sure that sort of savings could buy you a couple more F-35s. Oh No. Wait.

Bearcat2 -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/5/2019 9:30:30 PM)
"The fast-moving, low-level bomber was once the pride of the USAF but now problems are beginning to manifest as the Air Force neglects them in favor of newer airframe and projects." Being former military, I am shocked that the Air Force is neglecting older equipment in favor of newer airframes and projects, thought that only happened in the Army, Navy and Marines.

DD696 -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/5/2019 9:45:38 PM)
Good Lord!! For some nitwit to say that the Marines are crap, are fighting words. Present yourself, Rusty1961.

geofflambert -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/6/2019 2:34:05 AM)
We're still using B-52s for tactical missions and Slim Pickens is not available for those. I have not heard his opinion on the B1-B.

BBfanboy -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/6/2019 4:19:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert We're still using B-52s for tactical missions and Slim Pickens is not available for those. I have not heard his opinion on the B1-B. I don't think you will hear anything from Slim Pickens; he made the most impressive scene exit in show biz history but there is a reason no one tried to duplicate it.

Klahn -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/7/2019 7:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 https://warisboring.com/less-than-20-of-b-1-lancers-are-operation-due-to-neglect-from-the-air-force/ Another issue is the high tempo of operations in the post 9/11 period. The heavy strategic bomber became a close air support favorite in the skies over Afghanistan, with its ability to dash to support troops in contact, stay aloft for hours on end, and drop bombs with precision. Good job using a Strategic nuclear bomber in the tactical role. Nice. A number of issues are likely involved. The B-1B fleet is reportedly not receiving the “resources and attention necessary” to keep the fleet going. That's funny, I wonder what project is absorbing said resources? Hmmmm.... The B-1B isn't a strategic nuclear bomber. It's a former strategic nuclear bomber. It doesn't have the capability to carry nukes anymore. What else are they going to use it for?

Rusty1961 -> RE: B-1B Lancer operational status: X<20%. (7/7/2019 2:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klahn quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 https://warisboring.com/less-than-20-of-b-1-lancers-are-operation-due-to-neglect-from-the-air-force/ Another issue is the high tempo of operations in the post 9/11 period. The heavy strategic bomber became a close air support favorite in the skies over Afghanistan, with its ability to dash to support troops in contact, stay aloft for hours on end, and drop bombs with precision. Good job using a Strategic nuclear bomber in the tactical role. Nice. A number of issues are likely involved. The B-1B fleet is reportedly not receiving the “resources and attention necessary” to keep the fleet going. That's funny, I wonder what project is absorbing said resources? Hmmmm.... The B-1B isn't a strategic nuclear bomber. It's a former strategic nuclear bomber. It doesn't have the capability to carry nukes anymore. What else are they going to use it for? Can it take Cruise missiles?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625