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 Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2014 4:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
First off, I thank you for your years of service and protecting me and my family.

Secondly I certainly don't have the experience you have to debate you on some of these finer points.

I guess the real question is: Is the United States willing to undergo the costs of keeping the world from WWIII for the foreseeable future? So far, the US has said "yes", and has kept the world from the horror of yet another World War and allowed the incredible growth seen since WW II. But, is that dedication still needed or required? If yes, then we NEED a new bomber, desperately. If not, then it's time to revert back to a National Guard and let the world go it's way.

I think this is what motivated me to say the things I said yesterday. I'm worried that, economically, we will no longer be able to MAKE this choice.

RE: Divide by 5, Multiply by 6...
By FaaR on 3/13/2014 12:15:57 PM , Rating: 1
Protecting you from what, the Canadians? The Mexicans?

...Or the evil, evil commies on an entirely different continent which despite your nuclear ballistic missile arsenal would surely have invaded you without a "defense" force (offense, really!) as big as the other dozen-and-a-half biggest spending nations on the planet?

I'm sure that would have happened.

Look. The biggest military problems the US has faced in modern times have been of its own making. Poking into everybody else's pies instead of just minding your own damn beeswax has cost hundreds of thousands of human lives over the decades.

There's no realistic way you need even a sizeable fraction of your current military forces, only reason you keep paying for a metric shit-ton of military junk you don't need is corruption and your own oversized egos.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

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