Print 74 comment(s) - last by mars2k.. on Mar 20 at 8:53 AM

Once all costs are figured in Davis says the bomber will cost more than the target per unit

When we reported on the U.S. Air Force’s plans for a next generation long-range bomber priced at $550 million a pop, our commenters were quick to point out that there was no way that figure could be accurate. Military procurement programs have the tendency to spiral out of control with regards to costs, as witnessed by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
The USAF's top acquisition officer, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, agrees and says that costs for the bomber will definitely be higher than the quoted figure.
Davis said, “Is it going to be $550 million a copy? No, of course it’s not going to be $550 million a copy once you add in everything.”
Davis also noted that the military would try to stick as close to that budget of $550 million each as possible. One of the ways the USAF will try and keep to that budget is by preventing extra requirements and untested tech from being included in the platform.

Lt. Gen. Charles R. Davis, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
And unlike the troubled F-35 program, the winning design team – Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin/Boeing – for the next generation bomber will only have to satisfy the needs of the USAF. The F-35 has to appease – and adjust to changing operational requirements from – the USAF, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines and the numerous ally nations that have bought into the program.
The bomber program also got a significant boost in funding in the FY2015 budget when the funds for research, development, testing, and evaluation were bumped from $379 million to $914 million.
The USAF plans to purchase 80 to 100 of the new bombers. 

Source: Defense News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Divide by 5, Multiply by 6...
By BSMonitor on 3/6/2014 12:26:34 PM , Rating: 0
~"We must cut across the board."

~"I am not against military spending."

Really? What about "entitlements" spending. Are you not against those?? Those "entitlements" pay for food for poor people. They provide medical support for poor people. They enable families without much $$ to send their kids to college or to enable individuals to get themselves through college.

Or is it that you take the creed of the right wing and drivel it on this website, but have a different meaning of entitlements altogether??

If so, I am all ears for your other list of "entitlements" that are equally as wasteful as 13 air craft carriers and tons of nuclear weapons we will never use.

RE: Divide by 5, Multiply by 6...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 1
If I was being "right wing" I would be calling for this bomber program instead of outright saying we don't need it.

Keep being an idiot!

It sounds like you're angry because I'm not against ALL military spending? Well what kind of an idiot (you I guess) honestly doesn't think we need some form of military!

I said what I said, and I meant what I meant. And guess what? I don't give two shits if you don't like it, you obnoxious seeping cunt.

RE: Divide by 5, Multiply by 6...
By retrospooty on 3/6/14, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I mean I was just paraphrasing for reader convenience. It's not just entitlements vs military.

Our Government is into everything, everywhere. It spends too much money no matter what, on whatever it does or tries to do. It's expanded it's sphere of responsibility to the point that it cannot effectively manage it all. There's just no way we can keep this going, it's unsustainable.

BS is just twisting my words to argue his sacred cow issue, instead of the discussion.

By HoosierEngineer5 on 3/6/2014 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
(you are feeding the troll)

By retrospooty on 3/6/2014 12:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are freegin all over the place. This was about the bomber, he made a comment about the bomber and military spending in general. You got up on a soapbox and started ranting about entitlements. What the hell are you even talking about?

It's very clear to anyone paying any attention at all we need to cut spending across the board. I dont speak for reclaimer. but I know for a fact he is VERY much against those entitlements and paying for pretty much all the crap the US govt pays for for far too many lazy undeserving people. It's just not the subject matter of this thread you freegin nutjob.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki