U.S. Said Poised to Award $80 Billion Secret Bomber Contract

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

Anthony Capaccio, Julie Johnsson
October 26, 2015 — 5:00 AM EDT

The U.S. Air Force plans an award as soon as Tuesday for the contract to develop and produce its newest bomber, defense officials said, providing the first glimpse into a secretive program to bolster the nation’s long-range strike capability.

The final hurdle in the competition between Northrop Grumman Corp. and a Boeing Co.-Lockheed Martin Corp. team was cleared Friday, when Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall briefed senior Defense Department leaders on the selection, the officials said. Kendall’s role in the contract was to approve the service proceeding with the award.

The Long-Range Strike Bomber will be one of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons systems of the next decade, with a price tag of about $80 billion if all 100 aircraft sought by defense officials are built. Joining the B-2 bomber known for its radar-evading “flying wing” design, the new plane is due to enter service in the mid-2020s as the successor to the 30-year-old B-1 and the Eisenhower-era B-52.

If the long-awaited announcement proceeds as planned, it will be made Tuesday after financial markets close, with a press conference by Air Force officers and possibly Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified because the contract deliberations are confidential.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/air-force-poised-to-award-bomber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

---

Oh Hillary will just love 'playing with' these new toys. So many places to bomb...decisions, decisions.

[villager]

1. Thank God, under a Democratic administration, we're not wasting money on schools and feeding people!

[Purveyor]

2. That's why I always vote for the "D", indeed!

Getting sick of this shit.

[Plucketeer]

10. D is for deception

Don't believe me? Go review some of the campaign rhetoric of the recent past.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Alan Grayson says the WH and republicans are in negotiations to cut SS and Medicare

There is a thread in GD about it, now.

Quite disgusting if true, especially reading this.

[passiveporcupine]

24. you said it!

[Dont call me Shirley]

3. Because another thing Murca needs is another fucking batch of bombers.

[MuseRider]

4. Beat me to it

although, the way we act around the world we might, one day we just might......

Seriously, why? We are totally backwards. When we dropped through that rabbit hole in 2000 I thought we would come out at some point. It appears we are digging the wrong way.

[Plucketeer]

11. Yeah! We need another revenue-sucking POS

like the miserable failure that the F-35 (and F-22) is. Let these contract competitors build flyable examples before we choose one. However expensive that might be, it'll be cheaper than committing to some drawings only to realize it's a piece of shit in the "flesh"!

Kinda surprised there's nothing about it being pilotless. I figured the whole of our air forces would be going that way.

[olddots]

5. oh goody this will help the 99%

[arcane1]

6. Why We Can't Have Nice Things, Exhibit A n/t

[i-should- be-working]

7. concept: our peace dividend is now 25 years overdue

We're running out of post-ww2 enemies, aren't we?
Ok, boko Harum folks need to be bombed to smithereens (sarcasm)
Seriously this program is downright immoral.

[SoapBox]

8. 80 BILLION!

Billion.

And I'm sure it will be built out of one time use materials...with no replacement parts...that as they age will go to the graveyard in Tucson.

$900 hammer anyone?

[eggplant]

9. Misplaced Hillary-bashing commentary is misplaced.

"Oh Hillary will just love 'playing with' these new toys. So many places to bomb...decisions, decisions."

and

"the new plane is due to enter service in the mid-2020s"

So, um, no.

[leveymg]

13. This commentary hits the target like smart bombs down a chimney. That's what really bugs you.

And, if you're honest, you know she's more likely than the other remaining Democratic candidates to use them sometime between now and 2024.

[eggplant]

18. Next time, do some basic due diligence before making baseless accusations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=58790

[leveymg]

21. Boolean loop back to the OP, much?

WTF is that supposed to mean, or does that matter?

[eggplant]

23. I simly pointed out that the OP's commentary was misplaced.

Since Hillary wouldn't be president in the mid '20s. That that the entirety of my point.

Your reply seemed to suggest that I didn't like the gist of the comment; namely, that Hillary is a warmonger. Which would suggest that I'm a Hillary supporter and thus took umbrage at the OP's commentary.

But here's the thing. I'm a firmly committed supporter of Bernie.

So I've got no fucking idea what your deal is.

[former9thward]

29. Will she stop it? No.

[eggplant]

31. Will who stop what?

Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

[Android3.14]

15. Remember that Iraq War Vote?

Her record on this type of shit is self evident and the comment represents a valid criticism addressing her suitability to represent our interests.

[eggplant]

19. See reply 18, above. n/t

[joshcryer]

12. The MIC is too entrenched.

Wonder how many jobs this would make if spent on roads or other infrastructure.

[Sunlei]

14. "Oh Hillary will just love 'playing with' these new toys." OP read the article

"new plane is due to enter service in the mid-2020s

[former9thward]

30. Will she stop it? No.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. $800 Million EACH

Are they going to go over budget and behind schedule like the F-35? Probably.

[EX500rider]

17. Well when the bombers we have are older then the pilots they may need replacing...

...the last B-52 rolled off the line in 1962, 53 years ago.....would anybody here feel comfortable using a airline with 50+ year old planes? Not me. Although drone bombers may be the way to go.

[Bigmack]

25. Missiles..... drones....fighter-delivered ordnance....?

Any of those work? How about C-130's dumping munitions out the back?
Most of the wars these days are asymmetric clusterfucks, anyhow.
ISIS and the Taliban aren't exactly strategic bombing targets.

How about the best argument the Repubs put forward in any discussion? "We can't afford it!"

[EX500rider]

26. "ISIS and the Taliban aren't exactly strategic bombing targets"

That's the classic mistake of fighting the last war.
Next one might be North Korea-China-Russia, etc...
I agree drones are probably the way to go, just bigger ones then we have now that can carry more & larger ordnance.

"We can't afford it!" is the argument that saw American pilots going up against Zeros in the Brewster Buffalo.

[Bigmack]

27. You think we're going to go to war with North Korea or China or whoever...

...with bombers?

When I say we can't afford it... I mean we can't afford it like the Soviets couldn't afford the arms race with us. It killed them.

Now, we have an arms race against... ourselves.

You think 200 Chinese bombers pose a threat to our homeland?

[EX500rider]

28. I think bombers will be part of the mix in any offensive strikes against a modern enemy, yes.

[Zorro]

22. Since Lockheed has a lock on the fighter market

I suspect this contract will be awarded to Northrop Grumman.

Of course there will be a protest, no matter who wins.

[Blue_Tires]

32. They're getting rid of the "Bone?"

It's one of the most beautiful things flying today: