[Jonty30]

How did America make so many classic planes during WWII and the 1950’s but can’t seem to make a good plane now?

[Pearls Before Swine]

This is sounding like Windows 10.

[Flick Lives]

Pentagon and America’s aerospace industry are uniting to build a big, expensive, high-tech stealth bomber.

Committee designed bomber. What could go wrong?

[DesertRhino]

And without reform, this same corrupt procurement system is about to build us a bomber. Get ready for the F-35 on steroids.

[Wolfie]

Just keep throwing money down the rathole, please, I’m long in Defense stocks.

[RJS1950]

The B-2 was the result of 1990s bomber generals with 1940s brains. It was the wrong plane at the wrong time.

The F-35 was the result of 2000s fighter generals with 1940s brains. It was the wrong plane at the wrong time.

Neither was well thought out. One came from SAC generals who came from bombers and after TAC took over and SAC was eliminated the fighter generals wanted their piece of the pie.

[Timber Rattler]

They can’t build a modern fighter anymore. What makes them think they can build a bomber?

[StormEye]

"When costs spiraled upward, the Pentagon canceled B-2 production in 1992."

When costs "spiral upward" for welfare programs the Democrats and their Republican collaborators just keep adding more money to the program. These welfare programs never seen to get canceled. They can't even cancel funds for Planned Parenthood. When was the last time a welfare program was canceled and not replaced with something else?

[T-Bird45]

Seems to be an article that’s based in real journalism, surprising for the source, in my mind at least. The one fact that’s being danced around is they know the system is broken but was able to be worked around/thru at Lockheed’s skunk works to develop the U-2 and SR-71. This success needs to be repeated right now. Who’s going to be this generation’s Kelly Johnson?

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that every generation of generals (20 years or so) that the wheel turns from specialized planes to multi use, platform planes. By that I mean that the Air Force cycles between the specialized role air frame (such as ground attack (A10 Warthog) and air superiority (F22 Raptor) and bombing (B52 / B1) etc) and decides to go with the multi-role airframe to do all of the above (F-35).

A lot of the multi-role attitude stems from the fight over budget dollars.

[Don Corleone]

As always...”Follow the Money”.

[Squantos]

Missile Truck Concept ....use stealth drones on point to sparkle the targets and in the ever changing environment of electronic warfare use “less expensive countermeasures Triple Ejector Rack (TER) or Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) hung pods” for Bomber defenses. Stand off delivery IMHO versus gravity bomb over the target idea / plan A

Spend the really big bucks for stealth fighter interceptors and drones.... kill the enemy radar and bring in the neon bombers per se....

My opinion...just my opinion.

[BitWielder1]

Maybe they should not try to over-design a "perfect" plane for all occasions.
What packs more punch, one plane for 2 bil, 10 planes for 200 mil each, or 100 planes for 20 mil each?
You can still design all you want and get the benefit of mass production of whatever tech you come up with.
You could also make more variations, do you want distance, speed, load capacity or stealth. A single plane can't have all. But you can pick a plane that fits the next mission.

[Jim from C-Town]

I do not understand the military, except that they are a government agency hellbent on spending every cent they get and padding their cronies pockets.

The most effective bomber we have had in the last half century was the B-52. They are still in service today. Instead of redesigning the wheel, why not update and manufacture a new series of B-52 bombers?

Boeing doesn't entirely scrap effective aircraft every time they design a new jet for civilian markets they bring out an updated version of the 737, 747(until recently) and so on. Why should the military contractors do any differently.

When has the last B-52 been shot out of the sky by a belligerent, any one, Bueller, Bueller...

I am hesitant to accept the fact that an updated version of the B-52 or even B-2 would be less effective than a designed from scratch product.

Besides the would better spend their money on unmanned aircraft and non nuclear ICBM and missal technology. These could have more capabilities and less chance of losing operators to combat. There is no reason to believe that hundreds of unmanned aircraft can be produced and deployed with significantly less cost than even ONE newly designed manned platform. Add to that the added bonus of less pilot death and we may be looking at the wrong direction for our military.

[Paladin2]

Just make RODS from GOD.

[Professional Engineer]

The lessons of the F-111 have been forgotten.

[Dr. Thorne]

The F-35 performing aerobatics.

[wjr123]

I don’t know that any of you folks have any idea of what’s going on. The F-35 — good or bad — is an entirely new concept that depends upon software to function. Think of a pilot sitting in mid air with a (largely) unobstructed spherical view. Now think of a group of aircraft that are interconnected with each aircraft being exactly aware of the conditions within the sphere.

Now, get over the knife fighting concept of air to air combat. It’s as dead as the utility of a P-47. Anything that impinges upon the observed sphere is dead at a distance. Weapons are not like the 60’s — they work with a vengeance now.

Now add killer UAVs to the mix. The control sphere sends the AI out to the fringe to kill everything in an extended sphere.

This is a bitch to do and it has not been without real problems but it will change things in ways that we cannot imagine now.

[JoeFromSidney]

Regardless of the merits of the F-35, it and the new bomber will have totally different missions. Trying to link them, as this article does, is nothing but misleading propaganda. The bomber should be criticized on its merits, or lack thereof, without regard to the merits, or lack thereof, of the F-35.