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

First question that comes to mind is...

Who the hell are we fighting that we need 100 Long Range Strike Bombers at a cost of $55 billion?! Not even Godzilla merits that kind of armament.

a reply to: IQPREREQUISITE

Have you looked at the bomber fleet recently? Our most numerous bomber is the B-52, with 76. The YOUNGEST aircraft in that fleet was built in 1961. Our newest bombers are the B-2s. There are only 20 of them, and they're over 20 years old.

Air defenses are getting much better with every generation of systems. That means stealth is a requirement if you are going to survive. That means cost. That price is actually really good for the level of stealth going into these aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I get your point. But a 100 new high tech bombers? Not even Russia could survive that. China with all their posturing and flexing is nowhere near our military capability. I just think it's overkill. Or being over paranoid if you ask me. We still have drones, ICBMs, Nikola Tesla's death ray Star Wars thing...

I'm no expert but shouldn't 50 suffice? Give the saved up money to welfare or something

a reply to: IQPREREQUISITE

The B-2 fleet had a 10% increase in Mission Capable rate in 2014. It increased all the way up to 56.7%. That means a little over half the missions requiring a B-2 were flown. That's with a 20 bomber fleet. It's been estimated that at one point, out of 20 airframes, no more than 7 would be available at any one time. That includes routine unit level maintenance and inspections, planned Depot level inspections, and aircraft that just break.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No more than seven would be available at any one time...I see...but it would be interesting to know how many regions in the world do we "secure" with bombers. Middle East, Central Europe and Northeast Asia are hotspots...I mean divide 50 bombers into three regions, you'd get roughly 16 bombers per region. Unless it's WWIII I think that would be more than enough.

But again I get your point. Would be interesting to know what Ron Paul would say about this whole issue lol

a reply to: IQPREREQUISITE

On paper I agree with you. But I've worked on all three bombers. In a peer or near peer war, the B-52 and B-1 would be relegated to missile trucks until the defenses were degraded. That means that only the B-2s would be penetrating air defenses in the first 72 hours plus.

I am looking at a bomber with a over sized bomb bay for a Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bomb with rocket assist.

The GBU-57 is a 20-foot long GPS-guided bomb and will only penetrate 200 feet of concrete.

I believe they would like to add a 5 foot long rocket booster to allow it to penetrate up to 300 of concrete or over 500+ feet of hard packed dirt.

Both Iran, and North Korea have deep buried nuclear bomb projects.

Basically the B3 will be a larger B2 with a longer bomb bay of about 30 feet and with upgrades.
theaviationist.com...
To get penetration, you need increased terminal velocity

I believe the US wants a bomber to use if ether Iran or North Korea ever uses a nuke.
Some thing to take out iran or North Korea leadership without responding with US nukes against Iran or North Korea cities.

a reply to: crazyewok

Whether the USA was in debt 17 billion or 17 trillion, the majority of public programs and spending would remain the same. So I don't really blame black budget programs which have been going on for decades for the current state of US public policy.

I do understand that there are 2 different governments as well as 2 different military complexes regarding the US. One of them is the government/military the general public gets to see and interact with. The other is the government and military that really runs things, and is exponentially growing in technology and power.