America’s Next Great Boondoggle—Er, Bomber—Is on Its Way

[Purveyor]

AMERICA’S NEXT GREAT warplane has a name. Well, it’s more of a designation than a name: The B-21, also known as the “Long Range Strike Bomber,” which is really more of a description than a name.

Whatever you call it, the Air Force released the first rendering of the plane, which looks a lot like the bomber that preceded it, the iconic B-2. If you believe the military, it’s the plane that “will allow the Air Force to operate in tomorrow’s high end threat environment,” by bombing anyone it pleases and land safely back on American soil. That makes you wonder what the B-2 is for.

The Air Force and Northrop have kept quiet about the new bomber’s abilities, though the B-21 almost certainly will build on the B-2’s qualifications: A range of nearly 7,000 miles, a 20-ton payload, a max speed of about 600 mph, and the ability to carry conventional or nuclear weapons.

The B-21 (the designation refers to the plane’s status as the first new bomber of the 21st century) will be built by Northrop Grumman, which beat a joint proposal from Boeing and Lockheed Martin in October. The contract is worth about $80 billion, and the Air Force plans to pay no more than $511 million per plane, according to Reuters. (Boeing and Lockheed protested the decision, were dismissed by the GAO, and announced today they’ll stop complaining about it.)

The B-21 closely resembles the B-2 bomber (also a Northrop Grumman joint), but the Air Force says it definitely absolutely seriously will not follow the same path to service. Development of the B-2 began during the Carter administration; the stealth bomber was designed with the needs of the Cold War in mind. Years into development, the Air Force requested a design change to make the aircraft capable at low as well as high altitudes, prompting a serious redesign. Delays and cost increases piled up, and by the time that futuristic plane had completed R&D and testing, the Air Force had to revise its order from 132 aircraft to just 21—which it bought at $2 billion a pop. “What we must not do is repeat what happened with our last manned bomber,” then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in 2009.

more...

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/americas-next-great-boondoggle-er-bomber-way/

[Kelvin Mace]

1. We can't pay for people's education,

can't repair our roads, bridges and schools, or feed the hungry or house the homeless

But goddamn it, we can ALWAYS find cash for another machine of mass death.

[Purveyor]

3. And these fucking things cost a 'billion dollars' a pop!!! eom

[hibbing]

2. Well the Republican president will rebuild our military

Since, you know, their budget keeps getting slashed year after year. And Marco must mention a 700 ship Navy every 10 minutes.

Peace

[-none]

4. Another reason not to elect a Conservatives of any stripe.

"POWER TO THE PEOPLE!" for a change.

[newthinking]

5. I hope that was sarcasm... Truth is the military budget has continued to grow

No, the Military Has Not Withered Away Under Obama

https://mises.org/library/no-military-has-not-withered-away-under-obama

And it’s not surprising that total military spending is never mentioned. Because, if it were, it would quickly become apparent that military spending is in fact near historic highs, and above the levels of spending that occurred under Ronald Reagan during his own Cold War buildup.

[hibbing]

6. Yes it was, sorry....peace

[newthinking]

7. One never knows ;)

lots of confusing info gets put out.
Peace to you too Hibbing!

[unhappycamper]

8. The B-2 cost $2,400,000,000 (billion) + a $600,000,000 glass cockpit upgrade.

One of our B-2s crashed and burned in the Phillipines (I think) because of moisture in wing sensors.

Does anyone think the replacement bomber will cost less?

[Gumboot]

9. Lots of 767 freighters sitting idle in the desert right now...

... Coud be converted at a fraction of the B21's bloated price.

But why do we even need bombers any more, in the age of drones & guided missiles?