6 ms·

“The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. The Air Forc

“The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars. The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.” 75 Billion or what? 10% of all defense spending on these planes?!

Vecr 4y ago
They might not buy all of them. The military usually reserves themselves a right to buy hundreds of jets, but due to various conditions (such as a recession or the cold war ending) they sometimes don't buy all of them. There were some plans for 132 B-2 Spirit planes, but only 21 were made in the end. One of them crashed and was destroyed, and I'm not sure about the one that went of the runway last year, so there might only be 19 usable airframes at this point. You can't use all of them at the same time due to maintenance, so it could take months for all of them to get a chance to drop bombs from the start of an actual war. For the F-22 Raptor as well, an original idea in the 1980s was to order up to 750 aircraft, but only 187 production models were actually made. Not all could be made operational due to crashes and other damage.
stavros 4y ago
Wait wait, $750m EACH?! Fucking hell war is expensive.
- zppln 4y ago
  The B2 Spirit cost like $2B+ each. In the 90's...
  - acchow 4y ago
    Does anyone know how much of a cost savings is due to moving to more software-driven tech? (kind of like in Teslas)
    - google234123 4y ago
      B2 program had a lot of problems from what I’ve heard. E.g. a lot of the equipment made to make parts for the blame would break after being used to make parts for one or two planes lol.
- citizenpaul 4y ago
  War? What war? What war is using a nuclear bomber ever? What's expensive is pathetic dong measuring contests by sad old men.
  - FBISurveillance 4y ago
    Si vis pacem, para bellum. Ukraine is a good example of what will happen otherwise.
    - darkteflon 4y ago
      “Si vis pacem, para bellum” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
    - citizenpaul 4y ago
      I'm not a pacifist or a warmonger. The big cost is "stealth" in these things. You only need that if you intend to enact a war intentionally. Cheaper old style bombers are fine for the majority of day to day deterrence operations. In fact they are probably better since they can optimize for cargo loads.
  - maxnoe 4y ago
    B2 and B21 are capable of carrying nuclear bombs, doesn't mean that's the only thing they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Op...
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  Like zppln said, it's actually pretty cheap. But it gives you the ability to fly with impunity everywhere and do surgical (or less surgical) strikes on anything. That's a pretty big stick, and even not using it buys you a lot of leeway in other areas.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Especially when you consider that they'll probably only be used for air strikes on militant groups like the B-2 has been. And only so because they will be there so might as well be put to some use (missiles and drones can do the job more cheaply and more safely)...
- google234123 4y ago
  Look how much a 747 or a380 costs
  - stavros 4y ago
    $420m, Google says. You can almost buy two 747-8s for one B-21, and the 747s get used all day.
    - google234123 4y ago
      My point is that it’s within the same order of magnitude and does a lot more. I bet if the gov committed to ordering 1500 of them the price could come down A b21 can be used everyday too?
      - happysadpanda2 4y ago
        I think the "used every day" point was more along the lines of a cargo / passenger jet can haul stuff all day every day, whereas (hopefully) you don't have a need to bomb the living shit out of someone all day every day. Then again, perhaps maintenance of a stealth bomber really is horrendous enough that it wouldn't be able to fly sorties "every day". But basically I read GP cooment as an apples to oranges comparison (since you traditionally wouldn't drop bombs using a cargo aircraft, and wouldn't airlift cargo with a bomber.)
- baandam 4y ago
  We are in a ton of trouble long term. Think about how much of that 750 million is just to feed all the pigs at the trough. The USS Zumwalt is an even bigger joke if you look it up. 20+ billion and basically a mistake. Then just think about what China can build all this for in terms of speed and cost. It is game, set, match on a 100 year time frame.
  - gigatexal 4y ago
    Huh? No government’s military has yet proven to have developed tech that rivals that of the planes and such in the US or that of its Allies.
halpmeh 4y ago
I'm more shocked that $550 2010 dollars are worth $750 now.
CameronNemo 4y ago
They probably won't buy all of them in a single year. They will phase out older bombers like the B-1 and B-2 and replace them with these.
ThinkBeat 4y ago
US ended up only buying 21 of the B2.

Vecr 4y ago

They might not buy all of them. The military usually reserves themselves a right to buy hundreds of jets, but due to various conditions (such as a recession or the cold war ending) they sometimes don't buy all of them. There were some plans for 132 B-2 Spirit planes, but only 21 were made in the end. One of them crashed and was destroyed, and I'm not sure about the one that went of the runway last year, so there might only be 19 usable airframes at this point. You can't use all of them at the same time due to maintenance, so it could take months for all of them to get a chance to drop bombs from the start of an actual war. For the F-22 Raptor as well, an original idea in the 1980s was to order up to 750 aircraft, but only 187 production models were actually made. Not all could be made operational due to crashes and other damage.

stavros 4y ago

Wait wait, $750m EACH?! Fucking hell war is expensive.

zppln 4y ago
The B2 Spirit cost like $2B+ each. In the 90's...
- acchow 4y ago
  Does anyone know how much of a cost savings is due to moving to more software-driven tech? (kind of like in Teslas)
  - google234123 4y ago
    B2 program had a lot of problems from what I’ve heard. E.g. a lot of the equipment made to make parts for the blame would break after being used to make parts for one or two planes lol.
citizenpaul 4y ago
War? What war? What war is using a nuclear bomber ever? What's expensive is pathetic dong measuring contests by sad old men.
- FBISurveillance 4y ago
  Si vis pacem, para bellum. Ukraine is a good example of what will happen otherwise.
  - darkteflon 4y ago
    “Si vis pacem, para bellum” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
  - citizenpaul 4y ago
    I'm not a pacifist or a warmonger. The big cost is "stealth" in these things. You only need that if you intend to enact a war intentionally. Cheaper old style bombers are fine for the majority of day to day deterrence operations. In fact they are probably better since they can optimize for cargo loads.
- maxnoe 4y ago
  B2 and B21 are capable of carrying nuclear bombs, doesn't mean that's the only thing they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Op...
radu_floricica 4y ago
Like zppln said, it's actually pretty cheap. But it gives you the ability to fly with impunity everywhere and do surgical (or less surgical) strikes on anything. That's a pretty big stick, and even not using it buys you a lot of leeway in other areas.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Especially when you consider that they'll probably only be used for air strikes on militant groups like the B-2 has been. And only so because they will be there so might as well be put to some use (missiles and drones can do the job more cheaply and more safely)...
google234123 4y ago
Look how much a 747 or a380 costs
- stavros 4y ago
  $420m, Google says. You can almost buy two 747-8s for one B-21, and the 747s get used all day.
  - google234123 4y ago
    My point is that it’s within the same order of magnitude and does a lot more. I bet if the gov committed to ordering 1500 of them the price could come down A b21 can be used everyday too?
    - happysadpanda2 4y ago
      I think the "used every day" point was more along the lines of a cargo / passenger jet can haul stuff all day every day, whereas (hopefully) you don't have a need to bomb the living shit out of someone all day every day. Then again, perhaps maintenance of a stealth bomber really is horrendous enough that it wouldn't be able to fly sorties "every day". But basically I read GP cooment as an apples to oranges comparison (since you traditionally wouldn't drop bombs using a cargo aircraft, and wouldn't airlift cargo with a bomber.)
baandam 4y ago
We are in a ton of trouble long term. Think about how much of that 750 million is just to feed all the pigs at the trough. The USS Zumwalt is an even bigger joke if you look it up. 20+ billion and basically a mistake. Then just think about what China can build all this for in terms of speed and cost. It is game, set, match on a 100 year time frame.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  Huh? No government’s military has yet proven to have developed tech that rivals that of the planes and such in the US or that of its Allies.

halpmeh 4y ago

I'm more shocked that $550 2010 dollars are worth $750 now.

CameronNemo 4y ago

They probably won't buy all of them in a single year. They will phase out older bombers like the B-1 and B-2 and replace them with these.

ThinkBeat 4y ago

US ended up only buying 21 of the B2.