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 retrospooty on 3/6/2014 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 0
"If I was being "right wing" I would be calling for this bomber program instead of outright saying we don't need it."

I know, right? This is quite possibly one of the least "right wing" things you ahve ever posted. " If we don't drastically reduce all spending across the board, entitlements and military , we're frankly doomed"

Makes perfect sense. I dont think anyone could logically argue against that statement... Certainly some nutjobs like BSM can argue, but he is too far gone for anyone to take serious.

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)

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

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