posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 07:35 AM
a reply to:
Harru42
And you don't wait until someone is about to field a similar weapons system to replace your weapons. Our youngest B-52, which makes up the backbone
of our bomber fleet is 64 years old. Whether China and Russia have a B-2 or not, the B-52, is no longer capable of penetrating an even near modern
air defense system and can only be used in a permissive environment. So according to you, we should wait to replace that until someone is about to
build a new stealth bomber?
Our entire air force is old. You don't wait until there's a more modern threat before you start replacing them. It takes years to develop a new
platform. The F-22 took 8 years to go from first flight to IOC. The B-21 will take longer, because it's that much more advanced. Whether China or
Russia will have a B-2 in the next 50 years is irrelevant, because bombers don't fight bombers. Bombers go against defenses. That means that it will
go against the S500, and future missiles, as well as the T-50 and J-20.
As for cost, Lockheed and Northrop don't set cost. The Air Force decides what they're willing to pay for the program, and it's up to the developing
company to meet that cost. It's up to the developer to meet that cost. In a fixed price contract, if they can't, then once the Air Force meets what
they agreed to pay, everything over that is paid by the developer. The KC-46 is currently at $1.3B in pre-tax costs that have come out of Boeing's
pocket. They'll make that up in the procurement phase of the program, but that's all had to be paid by Boeing, not the Air Force. The cost of the
logistical tail and pilot training isn't part of the procurement cost, and is going to be paid regardless. Parts for old aircraft are expensive as
hell, and get more expensive the older the aircraft gets. And you need to keep training pilots regardless of whether or not you field a replacement
aircraft.
edit on 8/13/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)