Discussion about this post

User's avatar
kipling2448's avatar

This is a gross oversimplification of how the B-2 bomber issue was handled in Congress. I know. I was there. I was the military legislative assistant to another member of the House Armed Services Committee, a member who supported the B-2 program. I remember very well Kasich’s role. No question, he was a vocal opponent of the program, and his arguments bordered on ludricous. The B-2 was shelved, however, rightly or wrongly, because it was exhorbantly expensive (as would be the F-22 fighter issue, production of which was limited for cost and threat assessment reasons). The Cold War had ended, and the need for a new stealthy heavy bomber was seriously debated, with the future of the B-1 in question and the knowledge of the B-52’s advanced age well known. These were not simple debates. More B-2s would have been great, but defense budgets were declining as a result of the Cold War’s end and the Soviet Union’s demise, and legitimate questions were raised about the B-2’s efficacy. Finally, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the defense appropriations committees of the House and Senate also had input. Kasich was simply not that influential.

Expand full comment
Neil Hansen's avatar

I don’t think we have ever exported a strategic nuclear bomber (or any stealth aircraft prior to the F-35) so the chances of us sending B-2’s to Israel, Japan, or Australia were slim to none regardless of how many were in our inventory.

Also, the maintenance required on B-2’s is extensive and expensive.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts