Comments on: How much will new U.S. stealth bomber really cost? Nobody knows. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: birder http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1116157 Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:28:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1116157 It is amazing how the government just loves to spend money they do not have. Revenue means nothing to them. Just spend, spend, spend. You absolutely know that this new bomber is going to cost more than a trillion because the government does not know how to spend any less than that. Shucks the F 35 has already bankrupted the government. So now we are going for double bankrupt.

]]>
By: Lyn4U http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1116037 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:57:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1116037 Does anyone figure the lost biz deals because of antagonisms of other countries if antagonist to the them?

]]>
By: Lyn4U http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1116036 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:56:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1116036 PEACE IS A LOT CHEAPER AND IF AT PEACE THE BUSINESS DEALS COMING OUT OF PEACE MAY ADD TO THE ECONOMY.

]]>
By: amd65 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115516 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:55:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115516 This is a good plane, b2s are too expensive and difficult to maintain and a new strategic nuclear delivery bomber is needed to counter growing Russian and Chinese threats.

You need nuclear bombers, because unlike BMs, you can recall them while they are on route (gives you time to get the enemy do back down and agree to your demands).

]]>
By: wbalogh http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115508 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:03:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115508 WITH A COUNTRY WHO HAS DEBT OF OVER 18 TRILLION DOLLARS THE LAST THING WE NEED IS ANOTHER HYPER EXPENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY AND
WILL UNDOUBTLY COST MORE THEN ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED.

]]>
By: brotherkenny4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115388 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:14:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115388 Ashdoi: The system of weapons production is about money collected from tax payers and distributed to corporations with good lobbyists. Our military is a business, not a defense.

]]>
By: SayHey http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115385 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:10:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115385 $564 million per plane sounds pretty good considering that national defense is the core function of the national government. Heck, the State of New York alone spends about twice that amount on Medicaid – every week.

]]>
By: teocopos http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115364 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:09:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115364 The US Air Force has at most 15 operational B-2 bombers and the other bombers are ages old and inadequate for future operations. Therefore the number of bombers needs to be increased.

Of course, the surface-to-surface cruise missiles can do the job, but these missiles still need a platform (expensive submarine or exposed destroyer) and the surface-to-surface missiles are more expensive than air-to-surface missiles and they are not as stealthy and fast as air-to-surface missiles.

The bombers will fly unnoticed and they will make good use of aerial refueling aircraft flown from the multiple American overseas air bases.

]]>
By: maus92 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115359 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:24:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115359 This is the aircraft that the USAF needs to acquire. Not for nuclear deterrence, but for conventional deterrence of an aggressive China. Short range tactical fighters that make up the bulk of USAF conventional striking power – like the forthcoming F-35 – are useless in a theater that lacks resilient basing options. The USAF needs to wean itself from the expensive notion that all its assets need to be nuclear-capable.

]]>
By: Macedonian http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/03/new-stealth-bomber-could-be-as-expensive-as-it-is-unnecessary/#comment-1115349 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:27:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44520#comment-1115349 During the war on Yugoslavia all that B-2 bombers did was fired cruse missiles 1000 kilometers from the target which could be done from one of those self made boats the Cubans are using to reach US.

]]>