Seven Hundred Million Dollars !

[Jim Bow]

The Northrup Grumman B-21 Stealth bomber is being unveiled to the public this evening.
I believe the projected cost is $700,000,000 each.

Who are we going to bomb?

[Canoeyawl]

Mexico, or maybe Canada?

[LeeG]

The Northrup Grumman B-21 Stealth bomber is being unveiled to the public this evening.
I believe the projected cost is $700,000,000 each.

Who are we going to bomb?

Someone who isn’t as technologically advanced as Afghanistan.

[LeeG]

$700 million sounds like a deal. I bet the service package costs a lot.

[JayInOz]

Someone who doesn't have any ground to air missiles. Fiji maybe? Iceland?

[Jimmy W]

Someone who doesn't have any ground to air missiles. Fiji maybe? Iceland?

Also someone who doesn't have any nukes to shoot at us.

[stromborg]

Wikipedia says the USAF is planning on buying 100 of these planes.

[Paul Pless]

wow, they're getting cheaper
the b2 was $737 million in 1988

[Durnik]

Someone who isn’t as technologically advanced as Afghanistan.

(-:

[Jim Mahan]

The Northrup Grumman B-21 Stealth bomber is being unveiled to the public this evening.
I believe the projected cost is $700,000,000 each.

Who are we going to bomb?

Anyone we want. At any time, and no can stop us. Not Russia, not China, not Iran nor North Korea.

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

Anyone we want. At any time, and no can stop us. Not Russia, not China, not Iran nor North Korea.

[ron ll]

Tuck your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye.

[wizbang 13]

We ,the USA, spend about 3 BILLION dollars a DAY for offense. About trillion a year
so, one days budget pays for 3 or 4 of these things
is my math that far off ?

[Jim Mahan]

Re my post above, I am absolutely not in favor of these bombers and the MIC. But the capacity is necessary to the degree that there are potential enemies with competing tech latent in the world.

If it were up to me, I'd use our comparative extreme wealth—after downsizing both the DoD and the MIC to where we could drown them in a bathtub at the drop of a hat—to pay all the likely enemies of our state and the world, just to stay home and not attack us, while we figure out how to give everyone on the planet a way better standard of living including all the basic human rights to health care, shelter, food and water, education etc for everyone everywhere.

If we did that, the increase in total wealth, and happiness, in all countries, and for all people on every continent, would climb and continue to grow long-term. Subsequent generations would know peace and civilizaton as never before, and true to our potential as a sentient species at the top of chain of sentient species.

I can magine a world with no armed forces on any continent and across no borders.

Just like I can imagine a domestic situation that is so good in a standard way—without being dominated by a crushing layer of billionare piracy above us all being the only real difference—crime would vitually disappear over time. We'd always have individuals born with warped anti-social propensities but they'd be such a vanishingly small part of the general population as to be negligible overall, and all sorts of human frailties would also disappear, as there'd be way less anxiety and despair and ignorance. Future generations in such a world would be gobsmackingly appalled by our contemporary brutal, uncivilized world, and proportionately gobsmackingly surprised and pleased with the transition Humanity finally managed.

And so would be the aliens of the Federation. Jus sayin.

[skuthorp]

But….but…… where would the money come frm to bribe political parties in whose interests the said gravy train is kept running?

[Gerarddm]

The equation does not balance. A B17 in WWII could carry enough bombs on one mission to destroy infrastructure that was worth more than what the bomber & payload cost.

Other than carrying a nuke, modern expensive planes can never economically justify the investment.

[LeeG]

The equation does not balance. A B17 in WWII could carry enough bombs on one mission to destroy infrastructure that was worth more than what the bomber & payload cost.

Other than carrying a nuke, modern expensive planes can never economically justify the investment.

Don’t think that’s how one decides to procure and use weapons.

[Gerarddm]

^ No, surely. But it does show how systemic war literally is increasingly unaffordable.

[sonofswen]

What happened to the Pentagon holding a bake sale to support itself?

[Dave Hadfield]

What’s the price of a new B-777 these days? $400M?

[Paul Pless]

google says 279

[Dave Hadfield]

$320M here Why a Boeing 777 costs $320 million (usatoday.com)

[LeeG]

What’s the price of a new B-777 these days? $400M?

The pricing of military aircraft seems awfully variable. I’ve read a couple articles that point out the cost given for an F-35 leaves out a lot of the necessary electronics that makes it a weapons platform. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing is happening here.

[Vince Brennan]

The Northrup Grumman B-21 Stealth bomber is being unveiled to the public this evening.
I believe the projected cost is $700,000,000 each.

Who are we going to bomb?

Bettter yet... "Can It Fight ?"