I’m happy that the AF is getting a better stealth bomber at a quarter of the cost of the B2. Half a billion per aircraft seems a bit exorbitant, but then again they are spending a hundred million per pop on the F-35.Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.
The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?
In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.
The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.
And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.
Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.
That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.
I see. The B-2 costs an exorbant amount to operate and can't be replaced by other B-2s and USAF want's to replace it with a Bomber that does a better job, costs a quarter of the cost and has a much lower operations cots and that's a bad thing? Please stay on track. It's not about you. It's about USAF getting in a better bomber into the enventory and getting rid of the high cost birds that can't be replaced. Sounds pretty damned smart to me.