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.
originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BigTrain
$550m is the price that the Air Force has set. They are moving to fixed price contracts and any cost more than that is paid by the contractors themselves.
Adding extra requirements such as hypersonic capabilities would cause the price to increase almost exponentially, leading to a smaller amount of aircraft purchased and unhappiness all around. That doesn't even account for the increased costs of maintaining and operating the hypersonic aircraft vs the subsonic one.
Would you race a NASCAR stock car down to the grocery store everyday or drive your F-150 if there was no difference in mission requirements and completion?
originally posted by: crayzeed
Just who the hell do you think you gonna fight?
What a complete waste of money just so you can brag about having the biggest dick on the block.
originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain
They already do have a kick ass sr72..
This bomber has a different requirement.
originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain
They already do have a kick ass sr72..
This bomber has a different requirement.
Who needs a plane when you can have hypersonic cruise missiles?
originally posted by: BigTrain
originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain
They already do have a kick ass sr72..
This bomber has a different requirement.
Ok this is perfect. ...if a SR-72 type bird is ALREADY flying....then whats the roadblock to building 20 or 50 or 100 of them and calling it a bomber....if a mach 6 bird is cruising the skies then the tech hurdles Zaphod mentions are not a concern as its cruising now....so again....according to some on here we have birds in the sky but we get a 2008 f150 instead of a 1995 f150????