It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force Considers B-21 Program Expansion

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Air Force Considers B-21 Program Expansion

The plane hasn't even been built yet. And they want more?

Color me skeptical.

Congress is already complaining about the price tag. How much more will they complain if they shell out more cash?


The House Armed Services Committee is directing the U.S. Air Force to examine the possibility of expanding the Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber program. While the Air Force wants to buy between 80 and 100 B-21 stealth bombers, others including former service intelligence chief Lt. Gen. David Deptula—dean of the Mitchell Institute—have called for as many as 175 aircraft to be built.




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

There are only 21 B-2 bombers in the Air Force's inventory. At around 730 Million each. I know the B-21 is supposed to be a bit more cost friendly given new tech and building experience. But seriously 80 to 100 of them.

Must be trying to over project the cost of the entire project, to ensure a budget for 20 to 30 of them.
edit on 29-4-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2016 by Bigburgh because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

I don't know.

they might be looking at future projections and readiness numbers for future engagements.

who knows.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
No matter what happens, they will need at least 100 to maintain a combat-ready bomber fleet.

The current fleet is too old, and too risky to use in a conflict with any peer or near-peer aggressor.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580


Well it's true we need more of them. Hopefully a larger production run would reduce the per unit cost to a small degree. It will at least make maintenance cheaper. It will also make it a lot harder to keep grey-white like they have with the B-2 so they better hope it works.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Looking at the B-1 bomber. There are 4 A platforms, and 100 B platforms. So the 80 to 100 B-2's makes a bit more sense now. And considering the 744 B-52's that need replaced too. This seems far less than possibly needed. Yikes!

Thanks for putting this up.👍
edit on 29-4-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

They're right. A fleet of one hundred aircraft will work, but they'll end up stretched when you start adding in PDM, Phase, just broken aircraft, etc. I don't think they need two hundred, but another 25 or 30 would help.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

they might end up splitting the difference.

150 so they can keep the ready number around 100.

let's see how this plays out.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

The larger number will help to fill all the "other" missions the B-21 can fill not to mention lowering the price per unit and keep NG busy for a long while.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Although I agree with the numbers needed for the b21. I often wonder if the request for more bombers is really a cover for purchasing, maintaining and/or developing other bombers we dont know about.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Without a doubt Bass. Hypersonic strike isn't going to pay for itself.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Northernhollow
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Without a doubt Bass. Hypersonic strike isn't going to pay for itself.





Theres more than just that I bet



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
May be the arsenal plane for the futur will be the B-21 with more than a bombing role, may be interdiction, air-air support mission , anti ship. For this more than 100 will be good idea.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Maybe just scale them down to half size for half the cost...



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger'


It would actually be exponentially more expensive to fit the same capabilities into half of the aircraft. Like easy x^2.The B-2 is gigantic and has only a marginally higher payload and probably not even half the electronics and sensor suite.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yeah, remember the AF saying a long time ago, "LRS" is a family of systems. The B-21 is 'LRS-B'. Who else is part of the family?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

And I have a feeling the LRS-B will be paying for it's brother's and sister's upbringing if you know what I mean.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
That Bomber is a piece a junk when space battleships comes out. Why aren't we building those?
edit on 9-5-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap

Because they don't exist and the B-21 does.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

Unless they go with a modular route like the littoral ships.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join