Air Force To Scam More Money For New Bomber

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

(This space reserved for a legally correct snark dump.) It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: The last strategic bomber the Air Force built was the $2.1 billion dollar B-2. I wonder how much this new wonder is gonna cost... :(



Schwartz: Air Force needs new long-range bomber
By John Reed - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 14, 2010 16:24:25 EDT

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz made the case Tuesday for his service acquiring a new long-range bomber and increasing cooperation with the Navy, insisting that such steps are key to the Air Force’s ability to find and destroy 21st-century threats.


And this Bloomberg writer is dyslexic:

U.S. Air Force to Start Developing First New Bomber Since Northrop's B-2
By Gopal Ratnam - Tue Sep 14 22:06:17 GMT 2010

The U.S. Air Force expects to start working on a new bomber in the next budget, the first such warplane since Northrop Grumman Corp.’s B-2 Spirit was developed almost three decades ago.

“It’s my conviction that the nation benefits from a long- range strike capability,” General Norton Schwartz, chief of staff for the Air Force, said today at the annual Air & Space Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

The service plans to keep using its B-2, B-1 and B-52 bombers while working on a “new platform,” Schwartz said. The program could initially produce a “modest” aircraft that eventually would incorporate more-advanced capabilities, Schwartz said.

Adding a new bomber would sharpen the competition for Pentagon dollars as Defense Secretary Robert Gates moves to slow a “gusher” of spending since 2001, capping annual growth at the inflation rate. The bat-wing-shaped B-2, which went into development in 1981, costs about $1.2 billion each.

Such expenses have helped spur upgrades to current models decades after they began flying. Boeing Co.’s first B-52 entered service in 1954, and the B-1, developed by a company now owned by Boeing, became operational in the mid-1980s.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2

The cost of each aircraft averaged US$737 million in 1997 dollars.<3> Total procurement costs averaged US$929 million per aircraft, which includes spare parts, equipment, retrofitting, and software support.<3> The total program cost, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged US$2.1 billion per aircraft (in 1997 dollars).<3>

[zipplewrath]

1. The sad reality

We do need a "new" long range bomber. Unfortunately we need a "new" one because the last 2 (the B-1B and the B-2) are crap and the B-52 is stupid old. But knowing the Pentagon, they'll build "another" B-2 instead of building a modern B-52. The Soviet Union is gone, we aren't going to attack China with Stealth bombers. The primary design constraints for a new B-52 should be range, and payload. Stealth, or more accurately "low observable" should be a secondary consideration, mostly for the purpose of decreasing the threat of ground to air threats. Wouldn't hurt to get a higher cruise speed out of the thing, not to mention a space for a "third" pilot, who can provide "relief" on the around the world missions these guys are asked to fly.

Instead, the rocket scientists at the Pentagon will create the most expensive set of requirements, including capabilities they'll never use, and it will run into the billions to develop, test, and deploy, and then they'll only buy 20 of them.

[Historic NY]

2. What a waste, especially when we have gone the unmanned route...

new toys for the boys.