Report predicts fewer next-gen bombers

[unhappycamper]

Report predicts fewer next-gen bombers
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Mar 27, 2008 7:05:41 EDT

The Air Force may be able to field a next-generation bomber by its target date of 2018, but budget difficulties could delay the program and force the Air Force to buy less aircraft than it wants, according to a new Congressional Research Service report.

“The past is replete with examples of budgetary constraints resulting in drawn out or severely curtailed programs,” writes Anthony Murch, the author of the March 7 report. “If history repeats with the 2018 bomber, the Air Force might field its (bomber) in the mid to late 2020s with far fewer bombers than planned.”

The aircraft is envisioned as an interim solution using existing technology — such as stealth technology used on the F-22 and F-35 — before developing a more advanced aircraft by 2035 or 2040.

Developing the new aircraft is expected to cost $8 billion to $10 billion, assuming existing or “soon-to-mature” technologies are used, the report says.

The Air Force has said little publicly about the bomber program because it is classified. But the report, citing Rebecca Grant of IRIS Independent Research, said some aircraft capabilities and program milestones are emerging.


Rest of article at: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/03/airforce_bomber_032708w/



uhc comment: Yeaaaa, right. At $355,000,000 a pop for the F-22 (supposedly in the shop for corrosion repairs) and $239,000,000 for the F-35 (that still does not fly above 40,000 feet), how many more bucks can you guys spend before the spigot is shut off?

[DainBramaged]

1. how many more bucks can you guys spend before the spigot is shut off?

More than we can imagine. Why more bombers? I thought missiles were the future????

[doc03]

2. That headline caught my eye I thought it ment

bombers as in suicide bombers. I thought maybe they would be on a decrease because of us killing all the young Muslims off. Sort of a reverse "baby-boom" generation.

[flamin lib]

3. There really is no reason for the Air Force to exist. The sole argument

is a heavy lift capacity--big bombers to carry large payloads. That need no longer exists for two reasons: Missiles and the changing nature of war.

Virtually all current aircraft usage is close air support for ground troops. The navy provides a lot of that from aircraft carriers and the army provides the rest with helicopters.

I say dissolve the air force and merge the "working men & women" into the navy and army. Get rid of the top heavy brass and save a bunch of money.