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

By inperfectdarkness on 3/7/2014 6:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
Thank god someone else gets it.

Planes wear out. They're like cars--you put enough miles on them, and eventually you need a new car (or you start spending ridiculous amounts in repairs). In order to maintain proficient crews, they have to be flown. Unfortunately, class-D simulators can't suffice for aircrew training on all platforms. Fighters, for example, simply cannot recreate a high-g envioronment combat-simulation in a sim. This is the danger of having 186 F-22's; they fleet will age much faster because there are fewer of them.

Now for the record, each and every budget cut from defense--within the last 20+ years--has been offset by a commensurate increase in government entitlements spending within 5 years. Cutting our military budget to ZERO doesn't even come close to eliminating the deficit (I won't even bring up the total debt). At the end of the day though, military spending equates to a service performed, jobs being filled, and an economy prospering off contracts. The same amount of money spent on entitlements provides no services, no jobs being filled (or jobs being created) and the only economic "prospering" is from wherever those with government checks decide to spend them.

The preamble of the Constitution of the USA says nothing about standardized healthcare, medicaid, etc. In fact, it only says "promote the general welfare", not "assure the general welfare". On the other hand, it says "provide for the common defense". In laymen's terms, national defense is a mandated service the federal government is tasked with providing--whereas welfare is only something it is charged with promoting. It's the difference between "life, liberty and the guarantee of happiness" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The USAF needs this bomber. That's not a question of "if", but "when". Armchair pundits who have no experience in the military, USAF, etc--can't possibly understand.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

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