It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The truth about opinions

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 12:42 PM
This opinion piece on Aviation Week proves the old adage about opinions. This guy is the policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, and has decided that not only can we "safely delay the LRS-B program for 10 years without compromising the integrity of the bomber fleet", we don't need a new nuclear tipped cruise missile. He goes on to say that having a nuclear tipped cruise missile on the new bomber, is "like bringing a long bow to a boxing ring".

His first complaint is cost. He states that since the B-2, F-22, and F-35 have all had major cost overruns, cutting their numbers, it's a given that it will happen to the bomber as well, guaranteeing that they won't get 100 of them, and it will probably end up similar to the B-2 with only a few.

His second complaint is timing. He says that since the B-52 will fly to the 2040s, the B-1 and B-2 will go until 2060 or longer, we don't need a new bomber now, and could save $34B by delaying it 10 years. Despite the fact that the B-52 can no longer penetrate defenses, and the B-1 just came off a record low mission capable rate, and requires $3B in modernization to continue flying.

The Pentagon has chosen Northrop Grumman to build the U.S. Air Force’s next strategic bomber, and Boeing, which led the competition, has filed a protest. But regardless of how that turns out, the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is part of an unrealistic, $1 trillion plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Like much of the nuclear strategy, the proposed bomber is out of sync with military needs and budget reality. Instead of rushing headlong into disaster, as the Air Force did with the previous bomber, the B-2, the Obama administration needs to cool its jets.

The first problem is cost. The Air Force plans to build 100 new LRS-B aircraft, unofficially known as the B-3, for $550 million each plus $21 billion for development, for a total production cost of about $100 billion with inflation. Right off the bat, the bomber program will actually cost at least twice the advertised sticker price. This will not inspire public confidence.

We have seen this movie before. Back in the 1980s, the B-2, also built by Northrop, was sold to Congress and taxpayers for about $550 million each, or $860 million in today’s dollars. But the bombers ended up costing what would be $3.4 billion per copy today—a fourfold increase. Initial plans called for 132 aircraft, and then the price rose and the Berlin Wall fell. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush cut production to 21.

I love these folks that seem to know what the future holds before they've even turned a wrench on the first EMD platform.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 12:48 PM
I would be willing to bet he doesn't drive a 35 year old car to the office.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 12:56 PM
a reply to: Bluntone22

These "think tanks" all seem to think that they know everything that's going on, and that they're smarter than everyone else. Granted our procurement process is screwed up beyond all recognition, and it needs major overhaul, but right now we have F-15s crashing while flying from point A to point B, three generations flying the B-52, B-1s that are requiring replacement of everything from brakes to navigation systems, and almost everything in between to keep them flying for more years because they're beyond their planned life cycle, and more going on.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:25 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm surprised and disappointed Zaphod- I was hoping 'Opinions' was a code name for a hypersonic, high altitude spy plane.

You're the expert so I've gotta the investment worth it? I've also heard that one model of the F-35 costs a fortune, let alone the other specialized models, and I'd like to think that the nighthawks and B-2's are not granddaddies yet.

Do you think the threat of electronic warfare has the air force spooked?

edit on 13-11-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The Nighthawk reached the point of no return. It was too expensive to maintain and keep improving and replacing the skin against improving defenses. The faceted shape was great for early generations, but now new RAM coatings and new shapes of airframes have moved far beyond what you could get from that shape.

The B-2 is in better shape, with the skin upgrades it's had. It's already got the right shape, and systems that the Nighthawk didn't have. It won't have any problem with upgrades needed to keep it flying for a long time to come.

The F-35 costs have come way down. LRIP 8, which was finalized in November 2014, had costs, minus engine, at $94.8M for the A model, $102M for the B model, and $115.7M for the C model. LRIP 9 was supposed to have the cost down to between $110 and $115M with engine for an A model. Lockheed has several changes in mind for bringing costs down with LRIP 9 and 10, and the longer the production goes on, the lower costs will come. Eventually they're going to bring the A model down to about $80M per airframe, and the others down to below $100M.

Russia and China have both made serious inroads in the field of electronic warfare. Right now the US uses faster processors, and that's the difference in capability.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 04:00 PM

This guy is the policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, and has decided that not only can we "safely delay the LRS-B program for 10 years without compromising the integrity of the bomber fleet",

Yah, who cares if it works or not, somebody is getting paid.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 04:02 PM
a reply to: intrptr

And who cares if our top of the line equipment can't fly missions, and require massive upgrades, or can't even do what they're designed for anymore. They're going to keep flying for years to come, so that's plenty good enough.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 04:08 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

They're going to keep flying for years to come, so that's plenty good enough.

As he signs the check for another trillion dollars…

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:25 PM
If you believe in the whole "national security" protect our country stance than accept their opinions and remain quiet. If you believe that through time and maturity, technology that cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars in research and development than advocate for the release of this technology. One can't have it both ways.

The Aviation World is nearly leak proof and its also a big monster black hole for taxpayer money where a lot of double grinding on technology happens. The squandering and cloak and dagger of hiding and transferring money is also very rampant in the cost over-runs of current programs.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, yes, we know. Get rid of our military, and all the problems of the world will miraculously disappear and we'll suddenly all live in piece, everyone will get along, we'll be on Mars in two years, and the debt will suddenly disappear.

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:35 PM
a reply to: themadgenius

national security is VERY important. Just because you think it is a waste of money you dont know what Russia and China etc have planned.

humans are violent and like to fight. i would rather cough up some tax $$ for bombers and what not then have bombs land on me.

look at France, God help Germany. There are people who live to do harm to MY/YOUR way of life, sorry.

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 07:04 PM
The scumbags of planet earth:

- Journalists
- lobbyists

The first group will do anything to sell a story. The second group wants to mislead for an agenda. As proven time and time again.
edit on 14/11/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in