Pentagon’s $55 billion mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

With the accuracy of the cruise missiles demonstrated over and over again, just why do up to date air forces need bombers?

a reply to: pikestaff

How do you plan to get your cruise missiles in range to launch them? Antiship weapons are getting better and harder to stop, pushing ships farther out.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: machineintelligence

Wow. We don't know anything about it or how the contract is structured but it's already declared a boondoggle. Don't you think we should at least find out something about it before we declare it a POS?

Thats the problem though.

No one can find out much about it.

There is keeping a few things secret then there is haveing a whole culture of secrecy that allows trillions spent with little oversight.

There's a reason you can't find anything about it. It's a black project! Shall they release entire stats on it? design and such, just to make some happy? No way. The B1 and B2 were the same way.. And I hardly call those beasts 'boondoggles''.

Just relax, you'll see it soon enough.. a few years when it goes gray.. maybe catch a glimpse of it shooting by, high in the sky!

originally posted by: Psynic
Why does the title say a "55 Billion dollar plane", yet the link says that's the price for 100 aircraft?

Starting a new project, a LOT of the R&D eats up billions.. then with the rest of the funding, they build as many as they can. (If the design is signed off on). else they scrap it.

a reply to: Pharyax

You'll see her sooner than that.

a reply to: Pharyax

It goes white this summer. Right now the demonstrators are flying. They decide the contract this summer and roll out this fall.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pharyax

It goes white this summer. Right now the demonstrators are flying. They decide the contract this summer and roll out this fall.

It's the new B2 variant? (instead of 3 points in the middle rear, there is one?

I found a B2 here..
www.flickr.com...

I THINK its Spirit of Arizona. 1067.

a reply to: Pharyax

nope. Way sweeter than that.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Pharyax

nope. Way sweeter than that.

*rubs hands together* oooh, I have a feeling I know what it is then.. if not, then I'll be surprised! Can't wait!!

a reply to: Pharyax

what do you think it is?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Pharyax

what do you think it is?

A LRS-B v3. I can tell it has wings that resemble the new RQ 180 (pushed back).. maybe a larger manned version?
Hell, I'm pumped to see the SR-72! That will be amazing to see. (could that be it? dunno who has the bid on it)

I DO hope if they retire the Warthog, they replace it with a similar look--and SOUNDING version.. The engines alone make the enemy pee themselves.

a reply to: Pharyax

There are two variants. One team entered a flying wing design. The other is a blended flying wing with a normal forward fuselage.

a reply to: Britguy

2003 was the last time this "technologically advanced, hyper-expensive war hardware" was put up against a highly respectable IADS. And it worked pretty damn well.

Yes, the ultimate test is combat. But testing airframes and training for combat has advanced to a point where many feel that combat is actually easier than some of the training. Some fighter pilots that flew in OIF said that it was almost as hard as Red Flag. Do not underestimate the test and training communities of the US military.

a reply to: justwanttofly

My big concern are the up front low ball numbers on cost. It seems a cleaver way to introduce yet another expensive boondoggle. I know TPTB love the bombers but the bigger the the target the more expensive strategic weapons get taken out by a single SAM battery.

a reply to: machineintelligence

And how do you know its a low ball? They haven't even decided on a primary contractor yet, let alone a contract type. How about at least letting them do that before you decide this thing is the worst program in the history of the military.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You might have relevant insight into the actual project which I doubt but from reading your responses you did not actually read the article linked in the OP I think. The relevant facts discussed in the article cover all of your responses to items raised by others in the thread that had read the article.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I read the article before it was posted. And it doesn't change the fact that the CONTRACT HASN'T EVEN BEEN AWARDED yet this program has already been decided to be the worst thing in the history of the military. They MAY use a cost plus contract. There MAY be over runs. How can any of that happen if the contract hasn't been awarded yet?

Please explain how this can be the worst boondoggle in history before anything is even signed, because I'd love to know how that's possible.

Notice how they ignore the fact that several of the technologies planned on being used are mature, already developed technologies. Wherever possible they're using off the shelf technologies, which worked quite well in other projects.

Why does N.G. need to advertise classified military weaponry, let alone on prime time TV?

a reply to: 0001391

They're hedging their bets. If they lose they'll almost certainly protest. They're trying to get public backing for the protest. Notice the markets that it played in.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Relevant insight is Zaphod58's forte. If anyone on ATS knows anything about aviation projects it's Zaphod58.
He told us when the bomber would roll out and the time line for program milestones around a year ago that has proved to be quit accurate
The more time you spend at the AP forum the more you'll find that out. He has earned a level of respect on ATS for a reason.