Support Free Republic.
Please Contribute Today!
We can do this!!
Less than $2.1k to go!!
Posted on 03/03/2015 3:43:50 PM PST by lbryce
The U.S. Air Force's secret program to develop as many as 100 next-generation bombers that can stealthily strike any target in the world has some experts calling the $550 million per plane price tag laughable.
*SNIP*
Another critic compared the initiative to the costly B-2 program, which was eventually slashed, and said the cost estimate is "as close to meaningless numbers can be."
*SNIP*
The Post reported that the Air Force intends on the plane taking its first stealth flight in the mid-2020s. .
"I think the long-range strike bomber is absolutely essential to keep our deterrent edge as we go into the next 25 years," Hagel told reporters after addressing a group of several hundred airmen at this B-2 stealth bomber base in western Missouri.
The Pentagon says it also needs to modernize the two other elements of the strategic nuclear force: the Navy's fleet of Ohio-class strategic submarines and the Air Force's Minuteman 3 land-based nuclear missiles. The combined cost would exceed $300 billion, by current estimates.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
BTW:Laughable is not merely reserved for the surreal budget this program is proposing but also applies to the Pentagon overall as well as the entire administration and its tragic mendaciously laughable historical legacy.
The B-2 bomber was $1bn each, and that was 25 years ago wasn’t it? So isn’t $550 million for a new bomber a good deal?
I think war is coming. So whatever they are going to do, they’d better get on with it.
The cost per unit went up because they drastically cut the number of planes ordered. Just like the F-22.
Wasn’t it because the cost to develop each unit was much higher than originally estimated and so were forced to cut down on the number of units the budget allowed for?
Wasn’t it because the cost to develop each unit was much higher than originally estimated and so were forced to cut down on the number of units the budget allowed for?
Money would be better spent on Cruise missile type drone and smaller surface cruising part sub part ship to carry them, and anti-satellite satellites. The next major war will require air superiority of a different sort, something more like orbital range superiority.
Next: the Navy says new Battleship to cost a trillion. Film at 12.
And the we will hire a guy name Maginot to build us a wall.
Laughable - I prefer the word Risible. Sounds more educated or something. You know, like erudite.
And it will border Canada and all emplacements fixed facing north.
We already have deployed robo-kaze drones - many shapes, sizes and missions. Shhhhh....
Thank you...that makes sense.
The cost to develop is the same whether they build one or a thousand.
The cost per plane is the price to build each copy plus a portion of the development cost (development cost divided by number produced).
The more they build, the cheaper they are per unit.
Just build more Warhogs and tank busting bombs. That’s sufficient for taking out ISIS.
I’d rather have 50,000 super-smart drones carrying a one-pound bomb each, semi-autonomous, solar-powered, and capable of targeting and recognizing an individual person.
Better yet, 250,000 drones the size of a butterfly capable of the above and carrying a one ounce bomb, that flies into the target’s ear.
What about the B-1B?
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.