Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NO!!! We absolutely don't. And we all know that this 550 million dollar number is waaaaay off anyway. It probably costs 20 to 30% more when it's all said and done.
The speed of Eisenhower's coffin turning in its grave must be at wind turbine speeds at this point.
Anyway...this interview is pretty interesting. And of course you're gonna get the company line from a General.
No, we don't need 550 million dollar bombers. But that's not a choice you and I get to make, is it? I'm just glad that you and I can disagree on politics. While those in charge and DEMOCRATICALLY elected by me and my friends and you and your friends can keep spending money on crap we don't need.
Of course we do! Without this airplane the builders, parts and energy suppliers would have to compete in the worldwide commercial aircraft market and forgo a nearly certain $300 million profit per unit. Would you deny an industry existence just because it will likely cost us half a trillion dollars we would have to borrow. Would you deny the bankers the interest. How could you be so short sighted and selfish.
I CAN! We cannot afford to be the cops of the world and protect European or anyone else's investments at our expense and their benefit. These companies are the Welfare State that is destroying our economy.
Government contracts are given to favored cronies (remember the Healthcare website contract fiasco anyone) and to reward favored politicians. Congressmen/women's constituents are happy with well paying, never ending government contracts and happily reelect them again and again. Unneeded military weapons contracts have been funded by Congress for as long as I can remember.
With nuclear missile carrying submarines, ship based cruise missiles, B-1s, B-2s, and missile packing drones, why do we need to replace the aging B-52s?
Trickle-down economics at work. Give all the taxpayer money to the mega-corporations (big banks, weapons manufacturers, etc) and maybe a few pennies will trickle down to everyone else. We can afford half-billion dollar bombers to carpet bomb people in foreign lands, but there's no money for decent healthcare (not even for a decent VA) and education for our people at home. How very christian of us.
With nuclear missile carrying submarines, ship based cruise missiles, B-1s, B-2s, and missile packing drones, why do we need to replace the aging B-52s?
" The USAF seems committed to the program, given a lack of other non-nuclear options to deal with "deeply buried and/or hardened targets,"
It probably costs 20 to 30% more when it's all said and done.
What usually happens is they are giving a cost on producing X amount of planes. A very large part of the cost is for R&D, tooling up etc. Every plane you build those costs are spread more thinly reducing the cost per plane. If the program gets cut like the B2 did the cost per plane skyrockets from the estimates.
As for havinganother bomber if the intention is for it to be used for the delivery of nukes honestly it seems absurd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
