Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
To buy more B-2 wouldn't have been better value, since the additional bombers would have had zero additional utility.
To cut the production run was thus prudent, and it led to the excessive costs which are a fact.
It's most reasonable to expect that the USAF will lowball the cost estimate and highball the production run estimate to get the program to the point where complete cancellation is near-impossible politically.
It's furthermore very reasonable to expect the individual new bombers to end up at almost a billion USD per copy - at least.
The potential for export is almost zero. The Australians and British might look at a squadron each IF the costs are low enough. They won't if the fly away price is in the region of a new navy destroyer.
I agree with critics of the new bomber program; it sounds awfully detached from any "defense" needs. It's not "defense" of anything if your target is out of range for midair-refuelled F-35 and there's no need for a dedicated bomber with F-45-like mission radius either, so there's no plausible niche.
The United States of America has according to the Congressional Budget Office a public infrastructure investment shortfall on the order of about a hundred billion USD yearly for at least a decade or two to come. "Defense" is at a budget high since 9/11 that's not warranted by actual national or alliance security needs.
May 28, 2015, 3:23:21 PM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written