Skip to comments.
Why the B-2 is Still a Hanger Queen
Strategy Page ^
| 4/28/06
Posted on 04/28/2006 4:58:14 AM PDT by snowrip
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
1
posted on
04/28/2006 4:58:15 AM PDT
by
snowrip
To: snowrip
2
posted on
04/28/2006 5:00:00 AM PDT
by
Constitution Day
(Comicalness Don't Win No Medals)
To: snowrip
The term "hangar queen" reminds me of the late 70's, when you had to keep an aircraft in the hangar to scavange for parts to fix the rest, compliments of Mr. Jimmah carter........
3
posted on
04/28/2006 5:02:49 AM PDT
by
joe fonebone
(When did being white, christian and conservative become a criminal offense?)
To: snowrip
I had the chance to see one of these in the sky, once. They can only be described as "eerie".
4
posted on
04/28/2006 5:07:02 AM PDT
by
Psycho_Bunny
(ISLAM: The Other Psychosis)
To: snowrip
The aircraft is not a hangar queen in the classic sense -- where any/all of the avionics, hydraulics, powerplant, electronics are down. It really gets down to optimizing the 'sortie maintenance' procedures. The USAF is doing that/ working on that.
The guys that work on the B-2 KNOW it is an honor to do so, and they bust their butts on every detail, including readiness.
While this article is factual, I think it slams the B-2 too harshly. The B-2 is incredibly effective leading edge technology. We've got some learning to do still.
5
posted on
04/28/2006 5:09:59 AM PDT
by
Blueflag
(Res ipsa loquitor)
To: joe fonebone
The term "hangar queen" reminds me of the late 70's, when you had to keep an aircraft in the hangar to scavange for parts to fix the rest... Technically, those were 'can birds' (short for cannibalization), although hangar queens usually were the major donors. And let's not forget that the 'hollow force' of the late 70s existed with the (usual) complicity of the top brass, who had gotten where they were by being enthusiastic about the program -- whatever the program might be.
6
posted on
04/28/2006 5:13:20 AM PDT
by
Grut
To: Blueflag
The B-2 is incredibly effective leading edge technology. We've got some learning to do still.
Yeah. It is valuable operation experience for a technology that is far beyond what anyone else has fielded. Future systems will benifi from it.
7
posted on
04/28/2006 5:13:28 AM PDT
by
TalonDJ
To: snowrip
Why the B-2 is Still a Hanger QueenSimple...I was on their assembly line. Next question?
8
posted on
04/28/2006 5:15:59 AM PDT
by
BikerGold
(Reliously Uncoorect...Reliously UUUUUUncorrect)
To: Psycho_Bunny
"I had the chance to see one of these in the sky, once. They can only be described as "eerie"."
True! Saw one at an airshow and even at low altitude you could almost not hear it! It seemed impossible that that big of a machine could just hang in the air like that with such little engine noise. My first thought was thats "spooky"
9
posted on
04/28/2006 5:19:55 AM PDT
by
Syntyr
(Food for the NSA Line Eater -> "terrorist" "bomb" "plot" "kill" "overthrow" "coup de tas")
To: snowrip
Wanna play, got to pay! High tech gadgets don't come cheap. If they did everyone would have'em, right?
10
posted on
04/28/2006 5:26:58 AM PDT
by
mr_hammer
(They have eyes, but do not see . . .)
To: Psycho_Bunny
I had the chance to see one of these in the sky, once. They can only be described as "eerie".
Thats a fact. I saw one do a fly over at the Frederick, MD air show. Its the closest thing Ive ever seen to a UFO. When its coming at you, all youll see is thin black line and you won't hear a thing until its directly overhead.
11
posted on
04/28/2006 5:27:10 AM PDT
by
ElTianti
To: Grut
yeah........I remember only being able to fly 2 weeks out of the month, because you ran out of money to buy fuel for the aircraft...........
12
posted on
04/28/2006 5:29:34 AM PDT
by
joe fonebone
(When did being white, christian and conservative become a criminal offense?)
To: snowrip
I'm thinking that if I paid $2 billion for a single aircraft, I would spend as much time as possible making sure everything was 100% operational. This ain't like parking your old Buick and turning over the engine once a month.
13
posted on
04/28/2006 5:31:37 AM PDT
by
EricT.
(CA conservatives only serve to inflate the number of electoral votes won by the Dems.)
To: Constitution Day
14
posted on
04/28/2006 5:32:02 AM PDT
by
globalheater
(There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
To: Psycho_Bunny
It truly is leading-edge technology, even more impressive when you consider how long ago it was designed. 'Course, that was when we were painting the Rooskis as being 10 ft tall, when in reality they were only 5'6".
15
posted on
04/28/2006 5:33:32 AM PDT
by
tgusa
(Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .....)
To: snowrip
16
posted on
04/28/2006 5:35:22 AM PDT
by
globalheater
(There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
To: Grut
I recall a new rule came out in about '82 to reduce the number of "hanger queens", by limiting their stay in the hanger to 120 day. This meant that every 119 days an new aircraft would come in and take its place and a big 'parts party' would be had to move parts from one aircraft to another.
Did not change anything, just doubled the work. Should have asked the maintainer what they though but...naugh...a general would have not gotten promoted!
17
posted on
04/28/2006 5:37:08 AM PDT
by
truemiester
(If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
To: joe fonebone
I lived in an apartment complex that would scavenge one apartment to fix another... it had a whole section devoted to welfare recipients and was owned by a bank.
Bizzaro-world.
18
posted on
04/28/2006 5:38:10 AM PDT
by
johnny7
(“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
To: globalheater
19
posted on
04/28/2006 5:42:28 AM PDT
by
Constitution Day
(Comicalness Don't Win No Medals)
To: Psycho_Bunny
"They can only be described as 'eerie."
That's why they call it the B-2 "Spirit". But "Spooky Black Flying Ghost" would be more appropriate. :-)
20
posted on
04/28/2006 5:44:35 AM PDT
by
manwiththehands
("'Rule of law'? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want AMNESTY, muchacho!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-165 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson