Grumman is going to build the new bomber

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by D-Ric902, Oct 27, 2015.

  1. D-Ric902

    D-Ric902

    Messages:
    14,517
    Likes Received:
    26,322
    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/2...rumman-to-build-next-big-bomber/?intcmp=hpbt3
    Just once I would like to see a huge defense contractor write an accurate proposal, and eat all the cost overruns.

    What I couldn't believe is this line;

    We believe the administration's redundant, all-of-the-above approach to rebuilding all of the major U.S. nuclear weapons delivery systems at levels beyond realistic deterrence requirements is unsustainable and will deplete resources from higher national security priorities," Kimball said.

    Who would have ever guessed you would see that criticism about the Obama administration
     
  2. TDC20

    TDC20

    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    355
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    "The Air Force said it will buy 100 of the new bombers at a newly calculated average cost of $564 million each. The Northrop Grumman contract awarded Tuesday is for an initial set of 21 planes, plus $23.5 billion in engineering and development costs. The estimated total cost to develop and purchase the full fleet would be $80 billion."

    Huh? Let's see, at an average cost of $564 million, times 100 bombers, would be $56.4 billion, not $80 billion. Since what business model don't you count the cost of engineering and development into the price of the finished product? Oh wait, maybe Northrop Grumman will use cheap H1-B foreign engineers, then they can pocket most of that $23.5 billion in development costs. But it's still going to cost the Air Force $800 million per plane, plus cost overruns.

    I also like that phrase, "...newly calculated average..." You can't make up stuff like that!
     

  3. TxGun

    TxGun

    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    4,350
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    Family ranch in Texas
    Or, keep the $150 billion we are giving to Iran for being 'nice enough' to listen to that idiot Kerry, and for being 'so reasonable' as to let us give them a secure path to nuclear weapons, build the bombers, and have $70 billion left over for other priority items. Or, cut foreign aide to the myriad ungrateful countries who feed at our trough, who never support us in any way, who sometimes use the funding against us (even to kill us) and fund the bomber program that way. Or preferably both.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2015
  4. aircarver

    aircarver Descent Terminated Silver Member

    Messages:
    33,292
    Likes Received:
    14,480
    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, Republic of Texas
    Grumman will put a tail-hook on them for sure .... :supergrin:
     
  5. Batesmotel

    Batesmotel

    Messages:
    23,682
    Likes Received:
    24,876
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    What happened to the idea of using a 747 as a cruise missile platform? Boeing has the design worked out.
     
  6. Rabbit994

    Rabbit994

    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    54
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Location:
    East Coast
    Because while this bomber can launch cruise missiles, it's unlikely to be used much in such a manner. It will probably see most of use conducting conventional strikes using JDAMs and other guided bomb delivery systems. It will also be certified for Nuclear weapon capabilities as well though hopefully it won't see any use in that mission role.
     
    JBnTX likes this.