Northrop Grumman's teaser for the Long Range Strike-Bomber.
Bloomberg editorial: The Pentagon's Next Long-Range Boondoggle?
In the next few months, the U.S. Air Force will decide which military contractor will win the right to charge the government for billions in cost overruns for the next few decades. Oh, and the winner will have to build a new bomber, too.
They are separate but related questions: How exactly does the military plan to avoid the fiasco that was the previous long-range bomber project, which resulted in a cut from a planned fleet of 132 to just 20? More important, how exactly do manned aircraft fit into the future of warfare? On these and other issues, Congress needs to demand answers.
The first question is more immediate. The $55 billion contract is for 100 planes -- which has most budget experts struggling to keep a straight face, given that the previous-generation bomber, the slow aforementioned B-2, ended up costing $2.2 billion apiece.
WNU Editor: $550 million per bomber is still not cheap .... but the critics are correct .... the history of these programs has always been the same .... cost overruns and delays in delivery.
Update: U.S. Sees Bomber Spending Boost to $9B by FY22 From $6B in FY16 -- Bloomberg
3 comments:
B1, $283.1 million per aircraft in 1998, $410.09 today,
F-117, $111.2 million per aircraft in 1981, $288.85 today,
B-2, $737 million in 1997, $1.084 billion today.
I'm not quite sure why, but when I see something like this I think of "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". It just come to me.
Hope Boeing makes them.
Post a Comment