So we are building new stealth bombers

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Interestingly, at the same time we are talking about cutting back on public transportation funding, a giant new $80 billion contract with Northop has been struck to build lots of brand new stealth bombers.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-air-force-contract-stealth-bomber-20151027-story.html

Surprised? Apparently everyone is. The entire program was black and is only now coming to light. Also coming to light is the question: do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?
 
Travis said:
do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?
Click to expand...

Of course not. We probably need like $800 billion worth of new bombers. I am guessing that the current per-bomber cost estimates will be at least quadrupled, and the project will take at least twice as long as anticipated, resulting in a product that does much less than what is currently envisioned.
 
Travis said:
Interestingly, at the same time we are talking about cutting back on public transportation funding, a giant new $80 billion contract with Northop has been struck to build lots of brand new stealth bombers.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-air-force-contract-stealth-bomber-20151027-story.html

Surprised? Apparently everyone is. The entire program was black and is only now coming to light. Also coming to light is the question: do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?
Click to expand...

80 billion dollars would probably be just enough to buy the landing gear on these new bombers.

It is too bad that we spent vastly more than that to gid rid of Saddam Hussien. If we had even half of that money that was flushed down the toilet, then the USA would be so much better off.
 
The important thing is that Iraq is peaceful and free, and Dubya's legacy is assured.
 
Travis said:
Interestingly, at the same time we are talking about cutting back on public transportation funding, a giant new $80 billion contract with Northop has been struck to build lots of brand new stealth bombers.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-air-force-contract-stealth-bomber-20151027-story.html

Surprised? Apparently everyone is. The entire program was black and is only now coming to light. Also coming to light is the question: do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?
Click to expand...

The entire program is black and people don't like it? Racist anyone?
 
Travis said:
do we really need $80 billion worth of snazzy new stealth bombers?
Click to expand...

Yes. The B52 is a 60 year old design, the B2 is too expensive to operate for most missions, and stealth is basically a requirement for all new military aircraft now.
 
Russia is selling cutting-edge air defense systems to Iran.

Bombers that can penetrate those defenses are a critical component of the current agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program. That is, Iran promises not to develop nuclear weapons, and the world retains the option of halting such development by force if Iran reneges on that promise.

China is expanding its sphere of military influence in southeast Asia. This includes modern air defense systems. The ability to counter this expansion if China becomes belligerent is one of the guarantors to world peace. South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan (among many others) rely in large part on US military capability to safeguard their sovereignty and trade routes against Chinese expansionism.

In cases such as these, it is the diplomat's job to find peaceful solutions that benefit all parties. It is the military's job to prepare for the other thing. These new bombers are, simply put, the military doing its job, and rightly so. We should all welcome the diplomatic solutions. We should not take the existence of a diplomatic solution in the present as a reason to stop the military for preparing for future eventualities.

The US military had been planning for war with Japan, for fifty years before Pearl Harbor. For most of that time, the plans were not needed. But when they were needed, they were already mature, and the capability was ripe. This was exactly as it should have been. The same principles apply today.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
80 billion dollars would probably be just enough to buy the landing gear on these new bombers.

<snip>
Click to expand...

They're talking about a billion dollars per plane or so. Yeah, it'll probably run over that, and probably by a fair amount.

But seeing as how they are about to launch a new aircraft carrier that is over 1,000 ft. long, has two nuclear power plants on it, can carry over 90 modern combat aircraft, and engage in 160 sorties per day for a month at a time, all for around $13 billion ... $1 billion for a stealth bomber sounds like a pretty substantial price tag.

The B-2 cost $730 million a copy in 1997 dollars. So $1 billion is in the same ballpark.

The real question is how badly we need to spend $80 to $100 billion on a huge new fleet of stealth bombers. Have threats that require more and newer stealth bombers ( above the ones we already have) increased that much in the twenty years or so since Congress decided we didn't, and the twenty or so we already had was enough?

Or is this just the defense industry keeping itself employed?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Yes. The B52 is a 60 year old design, the B2 is too expensive to operate for most missions, and stealth is basically a requirement for all new military aircraft now.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Russia is selling cutting-edge air defense systems to Iran.
Click to expand...

So what are we replacing - one that is too old (B-52), or one that is too expensive (B-2)?

Are Iran's new missiles any threat to the B-2 fleet, especially with drones, F-22 and F-35 in the mix? Is there any hope at all that our current procurement process can result in something cheaper to operate than a B-2?
 
crescent said:
Of course not. We probably need like $800 billion worth of new bombers. I am guessing that the current per-bomber cost estimates will be at least quadrupled, and the project will take at least twice as long as anticipated, resulting in a product that does much less than what is currently envisioned.
Click to expand...

I see you are well versed in defence industry contracts.
 
If we weren't faced with a crumbling infrastructure down here on Earth I'd probably be a little happier about those shiny new bombers
 
twinstead said:
If we weren't faced with a crumbling infrastructure down here on Earth I'd probably be a little happier about those shiny new bombers
Click to expand...


Be realistic. How many bridges can you possibly repair with a measly $80 to $100 billion? Isn't that money far better spent making toys you can let sit on the tarmac somewhere until they obsolesce, soaking up all those nice maintenance tax dollars?

It isn't like construction workers need jobs.
 
theprestige said:
Russia is selling cutting-edge air defense systems to Iran.

Bombers that can penetrate those defenses are a critical component of the current agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program. That is, Iran promises not to develop nuclear weapons, and the world retains the option of halting such development by force if Iran reneges on that promise.

China is expanding its sphere of military influence in southeast Asia. This includes modern air defense systems. The ability to counter this expansion if China becomes belligerent is one of the guarantors to world peace. South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan (among many others) rely in large part on US military capability to safeguard their sovereignty and trade routes against Chinese expansionism.

In cases such as these, it is the diplomat's job to find peaceful solutions that benefit all parties. It is the military's job to prepare for the other thing. These new bombers are, simply put, the military doing its job, and rightly so. We should all welcome the diplomatic solutions. We should not take the existence of a diplomatic solution in the present as a reason to stop the military for preparing for future eventualities.

The US military had been planning for war with Japan, for fifty years before Pearl Harbor. For most of that time, the plans were not needed. But when they were needed, they were already mature, and the capability was ripe. This was exactly as it should have been. The same principles apply today.
Click to expand...

Russia also sold Syria "state-of-the-art" anti-air systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

Which didn't prevent the IAF from entering, striking, and destroying their target, w/o losses.

When it comes to small arms, Russia and the former Soviet bloc turns out a good product. The farther up the evolutionary ladder of weapons technology you go their designs are progressively less effective than comparable western designs - at this point, Russia is at least a couple of generations behind U.S. designs.
 
I wonder if we'll gift the old, useless stealth bombers to a nice middle-eastern country so they can use them against us in a few years.

I hear Dubai is in the market.
 
quadraginta said:
They're talking about a billion dollars per plane or so. Yeah, it'll probably run over that, and probably by a fair amount.
Click to expand...
Hopefully not.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/long-range-strike-bomber-northrop-grumman/index.html
Engineering and development costs are estimated at $21.4 billion (in 2010 dollars) over the entire life of the program.

The second part of the contract covers the costs that go into building each of 100 aircraft projected as part of the program.

According to the estimates outlined in the contract, each long-range bomber will cost $511 million (in 2010 dollars), meeting the $550 million threshold set by the Pentagon.

Based on current independent estimates, the Air Force projects the cost of the program to be approximately a third of the previous B-2 stealth aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
quadraginta said:
The real question is how badly we need to spend $80 to $100 billion on a huge new fleet of stealth bombers. Have threats that require more and newer stealth bombers ( above the ones we already have) increased that much in the twenty years or so since Congress decided we didn't, and the twenty or so we already had was enough?
Click to expand...
What evidence would convince you that this is a necessary improvement in capability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom