Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
February 12, 2016

The New Stealth Bomber Is (Finally, Maybe) Coming

A stealth bomber flies over the parade route during the 124th Rose Parade on Jan, 1, 2013 in Pasadena, Calif. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)

A stealth bomber flies over the parade route during the 124th Rose Parade on Jan. 1, 2013 in Pasadena, Calif. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)

The Air Force’s top acquisition chief said Friday that the department is “days away” from seeking proposals from industry on the mostly classified new Long-Range Strike Bomber, one of its three top procurement priorities. Unless it isn’t: “I’m learning in the Pentagon, ‘days away’ can go on for a long time,” William LaPlante joked.

Speaking at the Atlantic Council, LaPlante shared additional information on the timeline and expectations for the bomber that the Air Force plans to buy 80-100 of by 2026 at a cost of as much as $550 million each (although affiliated costs could drive the price up, and analysts suggest the total price could near $81 billion).

The new bomber has been under development since 2007, got derailed shortly thereafter and has since been reborn in modified form as a “family of systems.” For fiscal 2015, the Obama administration has requested $914 million in research and development for the project. The program is secretive enough that the Government Accountability Office recently criticized the Defense Department’s nuclear budget forecast for not including any bomber spending in part out of fear that the information was too sensitive.

And the current bomber fleet is aging rapidly.

The final request for proposals from industry is about to hit the street “soon,” LaPlante said, with the plan being to receive proposals by late  summer or early fall, followed by source selection — determining the proposal with the best value — by early next year.

Some industry heavy hitters, like Northrop Grumman, are expected to seek the contract, with Boeing and Lockheed Martin already announcing a team last year to go for it.

LaPlante said he wasn’t able to discuss too much about what was involved given classification, but he said the Air Force would be looking for “relatively mature technologies” and would want to “build the first version knowing it’s not going to have everything on it we want or will want.”

The other top procurement priorities LaPlante mentioned are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and KC-46A refueling tanker.

Comments (156)

  1. Jack Everett

    June 13, 2014
    6:47 p.m.

    The Pentagon CEOs are keeping their self busy supporting the military industrial complex pigs while allowing children to go hungry and parents living in the streets. Stop all military industrial complex funding until it’s small enough to fit in a kitchen sink.

    “The role of the intellectual, so it is said, is to speak truth to power. Noam Chomsky has dismissed this pious tag on two grounds. For one thing, power knows the truth already; it is just busy trying to conceal it. For another, it is not those in power who need the truth, but those they oppress.” -</i? Terry Eagleton

    • fuzzball

      June 15, 2014
      7:43 p.m.

      Until Islamic fanatics knock on your door rape your wife and daughters and then take and train your sons to strap bombs on and then you will say “Where is the government, why are they not doing something?” Kind of like 9/11 when everybody said it was the governments fault we should have known and done something to prevent it. The time to prepare is BEFORE not after.

      • Raj

        June 23, 2014
        1:25 a.m.

        By that time it will be Sunni govt in America if America does not stop immigration from middle east.

      • Suitcase Jefferson

        June 25, 2014
        2:14 p.m.

        I don’t know how buying a bunch of a fancy new gazillion-dollar stealth bombers does anything to prevent that scenario.

      • stpn2me

        July 3, 2014
        10:46 a.m.

        And you are not meant to. The next military invasion or enemy we are facing are not worried about “Suitcase Jefferson”. They are worried about the United States Military.

      • mike larson

        July 5, 2014
        3:57 p.m.

        Pure dribble. When people like you stop questioning our Military spending, than people like Cheney will just keep smiling. Scary.

      • Jersey_Prophet

        July 12, 2014
        8:43 a.m.

        I’m happy to see Cheney smiling because when he is, America is safe. When I see obama smiling, I know it’s in danger.

      • Shangheyed

        July 13, 2014
        2:50 a.m.

        Protect your cultures, peoples and civilizations from the convert or die cult by any means neccessary, everywhere else there is SUBMISSION.
        Even Mecca was taken by force.

      • Edward Pike-Carrington

        Nov. 2, 2014
        10:19 a.m.

        Ever heard of a commie threat west of Japan and north of India? That’s what the B2s are for. B2s weren’t designed for some mullah in a cave. Different threats, different solutions.

      • Jack Everett

        June 26, 2014
        2:58 p.m.

        Just stay in your duct taped closet so they can’t find you.

      • mbrogan007

        July 6, 2014
        7:03 p.m.

        Amen….finally some common sense.

      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 31, 2014
        7:32 a.m.

        Your cowardess should embarrass you. Yes 9/11 is a great example of what corrupt politicians can do to increase their war profits like Cheney no bid contracts.

      • oopsilaffatatory

        Oct. 3, 2014
        6:38 a.m.

        yeah right.

        The bogey man lives under your bed and pops out at night to fornicate with the budgie.


      • stjohnofthevatican

        Nov. 7, 2014
        6:54 p.m.

        who owns and who has been prepared for war since WW I? Who has been spending money for military? Is it the Islamic countries? Who manufactures these weapons? Islamic countries? Rape? Read the papers dude and see who is raping and eating who.

    • Thomas Parker

      June 19, 2014
      2:25 p.m.

      I wish the world was peaceful enough to stand down all militarys and their respective defense spending. Unfortunately reality says it isn’t so. However, if you feel that deeply against your country please go forth and tell the masses how wrong they are. I highly suggest someplace that truly needs the sermon, say Ukraine/Russian border, Syria, Iraq heck even the Israeli/Palestinian could stand to listen to it. Otherwise put your money where you mouth is, vote out the incumbents that keep these outrageously overpriced defense contracts going. I know I voted against all the incumbents in my state this year, and can’t wait to not only out the current President but to vote against the likely GOP candidates as well. Perpetuating this current two party, corrupt system is only giving the US the Government it deserves.
      Oh, and after serving my country for over 20 years I know that the defense procurement system is corrupt and riddled with over-paid lobbiests who seem to do whatever they can not to provide what is needed, but only what they can the most money for.

      • sgtRock101

        July 11, 2014
        5:39 p.m.

        Worn out and proven wrong many times. The country was designed for just two parties. that’s what we have and for the most part it works for us. Sending out the devil you know for the devil you don’t is stupid.

    • Progressive=Communist

      June 25, 2014
      1:15 a.m.

      So Jack, let’s open our borders to millions of poor hungry unhealthy Mexicans, central and South Americans, drug dealers, et al in exchange for election votes. To hello with our country. It’s the Democrat leftist party that is most important, right Jack?!

      • Jack Everett

        June 26, 2014
        2:57 p.m.

        I know you want to make these border jumpers citizens for your corporate friend but I will continue to protest it. To hell with the country resides in the house of obstruction wing nuts that hate Americans. Why don’t you go back and ask Reagan why he lied about securing the borders.

      • fidobite

        Aug. 21, 2014
        9:57 a.m.

        In researching Jack I have it from several reliable sources that, indeed, Jack is suffering from a combination of mental disabilities. Jack, I am so sorry for your condition; I had no idea the anguish you must be suffering everyday.

        In light of these facts I personally will not be responding to Jack’s comments and I implore others here to abstain from any further comments that might exacerbate Jack’s lamentable condition. My apologies, Jack, and I do hope medication becomes available soon that will help.

      • Jack

        Aug. 21, 2014
        10:53 a.m.

        So you stayed up late chugging the kool aid. Whats next going back to your Mexican crack pipe.

      • j johns

        June 27, 2014
        7:28 a.m.

        In the immortal words of the dear leader “If it saves one child, it’s worth doing”

      • sgtRock101

        July 11, 2014
        5:37 p.m.

        Wack job for sure.

      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:06 p.m.

        You shouldn’t call yourself names.

    • Paul Hawkins

      June 26, 2014
      11:42 a.m.

      So you do not live in reality eh? Quoting dead “intellectuals” does nothing to solve the issues…and your ramblings are stuck in the 60s…This country will be soooooo much better off when you old “yippies” die off…really…

      • Jack Everett

        June 28, 2014
        5:44 p.m.

        Coward scum do not solve anything.

    • SAWolf

      July 7, 2014
      8:14 a.m.

      Hungry and not fed? 67% of Americans are either dangerously overweight or obese . BTW Defense spend 625+Billion, Entitlements, 1.3 Trillion per year and Entitlement growing rapidly.

      • Jack Everett

        July 7, 2014
        9:23 p.m.

        You need to buy a real version of the constitution and start reading on the military.

  2. Fiji's Best

    June 14, 2014
    12:47 p.m.

    Although governments conjure up illusions of their own omnipotence, the effectiveness of such illusions becomes more limited with each day.

  3. agsb

    June 16, 2014
    10:34 a.m.

    Who knows, it may be a hybred!

  4. PS Miller

    June 17, 2014
    10:47 a.m.

    Wouldn’t the money better be spent on developing the intercontinental rail gun?

  5. billsimpson

    June 17, 2014
    12:18 p.m.

    Elon Musk could form a company and do it cheaper.

  6. Michael Inflorida

    June 19, 2014
    8:17 a.m.

    Thought the next air war was gonna be cheap drones?

    • Juiced

      June 19, 2014

      Unfortunately at the moment, drone technology is having difficulty handling heavier aircraft on anything other then basic flight maneuvers. And without that ability, drones are limited to the size of the ordinance that it can carry. A Hellfire can take out a tank, medium bunker, small building; but larger or heavier targets need the larger ordinance that is limited to fighter/bombers and bombers.

      • Michael Inflorida

        June 19, 2014
        12:05 p.m.

        n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. “What is sarcasm, Alex?”

      • Juiced

        June 19, 2014
        12:09 p.m.

        usually designated with a /s to separate true sarcasm from boneheaded comments. 😛

      • martykayzee

        June 22, 2014
        2:04 p.m.

        Any vehicle. i.e.: aircraft, can be retrofitted to be remotely piloted. Old F-4s are being dusted off as highly manoeverable remotely piloted practice targets. No reason a B-2 couldn’t be outfit.

      • Juiced

        June 22, 2014
        2:53 p.m.

        No reason much at the moment, the last I looked into it (about March) was they were having stability problems with larger aircraft then fighters. There was a project on using smaller cargo aircraft retrofitted for radar picket (data transferred to interested parties) as well as a compliment to sub hunting aircraft. More maneuverable aircraft such as the smaller F4 fighter have a better chance of of recovery in abnormal operations that could happen in retrofitted aircraft, but the control surfaces of larger aircraft were unable to react quickly enough to do the myriad of multiple actions needed by larger craft to regain stability. DARPA and the US Navy almost lost 2 test COD Greyhounds they were using for testing, and the fact that pilots were on-board kept the aircraft from losing complete control.

        As to a B-2, that would be a different story as the computer mainly flies the plane anyway and the computer controls are already built in and tied to almost every part of the control surfaces. During a typical B2 flight, the pilot ends up being a passenger and the computer maintains stability, control surfaces, engine throttling, and can even release weapons with no imput from the crew. It’s not that much of a stretch to turn a more modern aircraft into a drone as it is already on the verge anyhow.

      • martykayzee

        June 22, 2014
        5:50 p.m.

        Right you are. Autonomous carrier landing was an acid test. One issue is latency. There could be as much as a minute lag over crowded networks. Swarm technology, as well as more BW is in the works.

      • Sam

        June 25, 2014
        1:31 p.m.

        You would not want to handle a time critical issue such as carrier landings over a say as 802.11 based network. Point to point reserved channel communication is the singular answer. Thus no latency. A simple handoff from one system to the other when turning final would resolve any latency issues. Easy fix!

      • martykayzee

        June 25, 2014
        5:10 p.m.

        Right again, Sam. I was a USAF TAC GCA/RAPCON controller back in the ’60s. Now retired stockbroker. My elder son is with GA-ASI in Poway and works on code for the pending FAA RPA regs. Up in the air, junior birdman.

      • sgtRock101

        July 11, 2014
        5:33 p.m.


      • martykayzee

        July 11, 2014
        5:55 p.m.

        Why do you write that? Are you admitting to being foolish?

  7. Allan Frazier

    June 20, 2014
    10:44 a.m.

    Now let me get this straight. We’re considering spending excessive tax dollars on a weapons system that is designed for the Cold War? What? Oh, WTH build a few more nuclear subs too. SMH!

  8. william crisler

    June 22, 2014
    1 a.m.


  9. sydchaden

    June 23, 2014
    2:08 p.m.

    Are we sure that we want to do this? Isn’t it risky? Putin seems content to fly Bear bombers to the US coast, even though they could be easily done away with. China needs a heavy long range bomber, to go with its expansionist policies and threats to destroy the USA. They undoubtedly have already stolen the US concept designs, and are simply waiting for the US to do the development work, so they know what to make. If the heavy bomber is a drone, could Iran “capture” it? Will another Snowden take off with the designs? It’s a tough world.

    • j johns

      June 27, 2014
      7:31 a.m.

      Please no hard questions..

    • Adheeb

      July 7, 2014
      10:15 a.m.

      The Chinese walked off with American designs years ago when Bill Clinton was guarding the front door the Chinese used the back. If it weren’t for that, the Chinese would still not have placed a man in space. If the Chinese get a man on the Moon by 2019 they’ll only be 50 years behind us.

  10. Adheeb

    June 24, 2014
    11:26 a.m.

    “And the current bomber fleet is aging rapidly”

    We are still using B-52s, the newest if which was built in 1962. They are more than 50 years old, although maintained and upgraded many times. However, you really don’t need stealth technology to bomb goat herders in Afghanistan. When was the last time a B-52 was shot down? 100 B-52s could be built for far, far, far less than entirely new technology. These proposed new planes aren’t going to cost $550 million each …. more like a billion dollars per copy and the Washington politicians in DC have already bought the stock of the company that will build them.

    • wiseman

      June 29, 2014
      6:47 p.m.

      agreed, gave you an up vote.

    • sirock

      July 6, 2014
      7:16 p.m.

      I’m sure they will work well against the Chinese too. It’s a good thing you just a drunk instead of someone who really matters.

      • Adheeb

        July 7, 2014
        5:59 a.m.

        The Russians are still using prop jobs and the Chinese don’t have a strategic bomber. That’s a thought, you can’t get shot down if you’re not flying.

      • sirock

        July 7, 2014
        8:53 a.m.

        So SAM’s are not a threat? Both countries are working on stealth aircraft and high speed anti Aircraft rockets thanks for sharing your insight. I guess after our equipment will be ineffective would be a good time to address this.

      • Vtran

        Aug. 17, 2014
        1:44 p.m.

        The Russian Turbo Props are 20 mph slower than the gas guzzling B-52’s
        Russia also does gave Supersonic Backfire and Blackjacks … and around 2018 their new PAK DA will be in prototype form !

      • Dutchman61

        Aug. 27, 2014
        2:31 p.m.

        The props are cheap reliable patrol planes. So they keep them. BUT the Russians have also kept a number of 1950’s era radar stations that can track the B-2. The B-2 was designed for newer short wavelength systems and they ignored the old unit since the US retired them in the 70’s. Word leaked out in the late 90’s that the Russians were about to retire the old stations when they noticed bleeps that the new systems could not track. It only took them a few months to figure out they were B-2’s

      • Vtran

        Aug. 27, 2014
        3:45 p.m.

        That is why Serbia managed to shoot down a F-117 using Russian radar 1960’s and a 1970’s sam
        As to B2’s 5 or 6 left …. saw a great vid of one of them crashing !

      • Twyfordbucks

        Oct. 5, 2014
        9:08 a.m.

        No B2s have crashed. Several F117s did, and they are all now out of service.

      • Vtran

        Oct. 5, 2014
        9:27 a.m.

        Wrong – here is just one B2 crash

      • Guest

        Dec. 2, 2014
        10:45 a.m.

        Wrong, one B-2 Crashed departing Guam several years ago.

      • David Stephens

        Dec. 2, 2014
        10:47 a.m.

        The one B-2 that crashed was repaired and entered service over a year ago.

      • David Stephens

        Dec. 2, 2014
        10:43 a.m.

        Bull$hit, there old radar picked up the F-117, signature when the bomb bay doors were opened.

      • Vtran

        Dec. 2, 2014
        11:17 a.m.

        Still shot it down state of the art plane with ancient technology
        Just goes to show what BS USa stealth is


        Oct. 11, 2014
        6:05 a.m.

        Do u ever heard about TU-160 BLACK JACK and MIG 31 Interceptor

    • DaHitman

      Aug. 12, 2014
      4:20 a.m.

      The B2s aren’t a commercial plane so their lifespan is longer due to less usage, common sense really…………..they have been updated over the years too

      • Dutchman61

        Aug. 27, 2014
        2:27 p.m.

        The B-2’s barely get used because they are too expensive to fly. They requires special hangers and huge maintenance staffs with long down periods even after training flights.

    • Chang

      Aug. 14, 2014
      7:25 a.m.

      We? what pane do you fly? You fly in your armchair.

    • Dutchman61

      Aug. 27, 2014
      2:17 p.m.

      What is often missed in the romance about the BUFF’s is the B-1 has been more effective for the last 10 years. it carries more bombs, has better electronics, is faster, longer ranged, designed as a low level penetrator, and has partial stealth design. it can carry missiles, smart bombs and dumb iron bombs. it is also easy to maintain and needs fewer manhours of service to stay up in the air. B-2 is a maintenance pig and there are only 3 US bases and one European base that can service them. AF is cagey, but I have heard 10+ hours of service for every hour of B-2 flight time. The Air Force did a lot of work on reducing the B-1’s radar profile and most of the work was never implemented. I believe they are less than 10% (5%?) of the B-52’s profile and the AF work would have reduced it to 1%. In the real world that is stealth.

      And when it comes to stealth, the Russians can track the B-2 using 1950’s era radars. Without stealth, it is a slow fat target.

      • Paul S.

        Nov. 26, 2014
        12:29 a.m.

        Right on, brother. The lobbyists in Washington must be drooling over the business potential. Some of the same politicians who support government shut down over spending are the ones who want these new expenditures.

    • DoctorFeelgoodMD

      Aug. 31, 2014
      6:09 a.m.

      “more like a billion dollars per copy and the Washington politicians in
      DC have already bought the stock of the company that will build them”.
      Sounds like the old Bush administration and their NO BID contracts to Cheney’s Halliburton. Republican millionaires were born every day under Bush and this is FACT!

    • jim smith

      Sept. 22, 2014
      10:43 a.m.

      I agree. gave you a tidal wave of banks fund this project.

    • robertmeerdahl

      Nov. 5, 2014
      12:32 p.m.

      because some day we will be fighting a country with a more modern air defense system

  11. Sam

    June 25, 2014
    1:26 p.m.

    Generally, I am a hawk on weapons development. But, I cannot come up with a mission for a new long range bomber. It is completely unnecessary. Modern fighter-bombers have more than enough lift capacity and penetration to accomplish any reasonable mission. Plus, it is easier to stealth a smaller vehicle. Land and sea based missiles can handle the strategic deterrence mission. If you want to pound a converntional army to jelly, as we did to the Iraqis, a B-52 is more than adequate. For that matter, a C-17 with a bombing package would do the same job. Sorry Air Force, but the days of the large manned bomber have come and gone. Concentrate on drones and space based weapons instead. Much more payback in those systems.

    • Jack Everett

      Aug. 3, 2014
      4:19 p.m.

      Its becoming old technology just like the sitting duck carriers. Missile technology will overrule all of it.

      • Sched

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:25 p.m.

        Because missiles are new technology…

      • glock22

        Aug. 11, 2014
        11:06 a.m.

        New? LOL…”smart” missiles like the Tomahawk have been around since the 1970’s.

      • Sched

        Aug. 11, 2014
        11:12 a.m.

        My response was sarcastic. Smart missiles have been around since 1943. Carries aren’t sitting ducks, because smart missiles can shoot down carrier killing smart missiles.

  12. ChoirLoft

    June 27, 2014
    1:36 p.m.

    Oh happy day. Another weapon in the hands of Washington criminals. And once this thing is operational, what then? Why of course we’ll have to concoct ANOTHER WAR to justify the expense. As long as it’s packaged like another sports contest (with overtime included of course) America can justify the effusion of yet more blood and treasure for yet another futile and pointless battle.
    USA hasn’t won a war since 1945, but that doesn’t stop the blood suckers in Washington from starting another one.


    and that’s just me, hollering from the choir loft…

    • sgtRock101

      July 11, 2014
      5:30 p.m.


      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:12 p.m.

        The wing nuts continue to post their cowardice. As long as the wing nut leaders keep supporting their welfare they will bow down to them.

  13. Thomas Parker

    June 28, 2014
    1:49 p.m.

    Feel free to leave it if you live here, it’s such a free country that we certainly won’t stop you.

    • Jack Everett

      June 28, 2014
      5:46 p.m.

      You fascist pigs will be taken care of iN November so practice with your crying towel wing nut.

      • Thomas Parker

        June 28, 2014
        11:36 p.m.

        Troll much? LOL
        What a joke.
        Oh and these words you use? Fascist pig? I don’t think they mean what you think they mean (at least in terms of me and my comment).
        Thanks for playing though.

      • Jack Everett

        June 29, 2014
        7:19 a.m.

        Go suck on KOCH some more you deserve it.

      • Robert

        Aug. 3, 2014
        11:43 a.m.


      • robertmeerdahl

        Nov. 5, 2014
        12:31 p.m.

        “You fascist pigs will be taken care of iN November so practice with your crying towel wing nut.”

        how did that work out for you?

  14. Paul Hawkins

    June 29, 2014
    10:51 a.m.

    I think Jack Everett seems to be just some angry ex yippie that is just
    trying to piss people off…just another poor misguided elderly folk
    that is still pissed off his “model” of the country didn’t pan out from
    the 60s….he has tried every angel he can think of to try and get at
    the people he feels “betrayed” by…LOL…sad…he need to just take his
    Geritol and blood pressure meds and let the REAL WORLD go on around him, and realize he is no longer relevant…
    Only a couple more years of your rantings, and ,hopefully, you will go
    away permanently…bye!:)
    Oh, and I just “can’t wait” to see your
    lame, ineffectual response, including crap like the incorrectly used
    “fascist pigs” and “down with the man” or something equally as dated and
    stupid…c’mon grandpa, what other stupid comments can you make?? Let us see…….

    • BigBill

      July 12, 2014
      3:15 a.m.

      Gee Paul, you must feel really threatened to rant like this.

    • wiseman

      Aug. 5, 2014
      10:34 a.m.

      I believe you are right about jack Everett.

      Gave you an up vote.

  15. wiseman

    June 29, 2014
    8:51 p.m.

    Because international relations between Russia, China and the US have become strained and contentious, it is necessary to plan for conflict and produce the most advanced bomber possible given technical and fiscal limitations.

    Any new bomber, must be ultra-stealthy and ultra-long-range or it will not survive over Chinese or Russian air space.

    • Jack Everett

      July 5, 2014
      4:46 p.m.

      Their will not be any bombers hanging over Russia or China.

      • wiseman

        July 5, 2014
        5:24 p.m.

        Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you. You have every right to state what you did.

        Consider this, I was a USAF navigator and planned and quality controlled B-52 strike missions.

        Those aircraft could not survive in acceptable numbers if they had to attack targets in Russia or China in a modern automated command, control and communications environment where defensive and offensive capability is incredibly powerful.

        China stole our space and air surveillance, bomber and fighter technology through hacking DOD and contractor data stores to ensure that their technology had an edge over ours. More than likely, they shared some of their results with Russia. Nations only do that when they suspect that they will need to use that technology against their perceived enemies in the future.

        It is foolish not to be prepared to deal with Russia and China, given the fact that those countries are developing advanced bomber technology.

        Support the development of a new strategic ultra stealthy and ultra long range strategic bomber. It will be worth the investment.

      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:16 p.m.

        Tell me what America has stolen through spying including on our trusted allies and citizens. Your B-52 nonsense is old hat and not worth listening to.

      • wiseman

        Aug. 4, 2014
        8 p.m.

        You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I already answered you. Scroll up.

        Some advice. Do not attempt to speak for everyone by stating to me “not worth listening to” because it is important to exchange ideas without personal attacks.

        When one engages in personal attacks, one is actually announcing to readers that they cannot be trusted, right?

        Try doing your own research. You have all you need to confirm my conclusions.

        Gave you a down vote for being arrogant.

      • Sched

        July 11, 2014
        1:31 p.m.

        LOL, stop being silly.

      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:17 p.m.

        Only a fool talks like that.

      • Sched

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:24 p.m.

        You’re the expert.

    • david95

      July 28, 2014
      1:38 p.m.

      Why would it be over Russian or Chinese air space?

      • wiseman

        July 28, 2014
        2:54 p.m.

        First of all, thank you for responding to my post.

        In my earlier life, I planned and quality-controlled battle plans for B-52 strike missions. I know how difficult it is to attack targets in a high-tech networked air defense environment, where data sharing is super-efficient as opposed to a low tech environment where it is not.

        I will not tell you exactly what I did. So, please don’t ask.

        I will try and keep this short and to the point. Sources will be available upon request.

        Russians stole the Crimea and now want to steal eastern Ukraine. Pro-Russian forces are believed to have shot-down MH-17, which killed 298 civilians.

        Casus Belli is clearly present against the Russian federation by a justified EU and the US, right?

        I currently do not believe that war will break out between Russian, Pro-Russian, US, EU and Ukrainian forces, but I am smart enough not to rely on belief. Probably, the west will supply Ukraine with modern military technology, but no boots on the ground, except those needed to secure the MH-17 crash sites.

        Is better to plan and prepare for that possible contingency, rather than wish one had it when one desperately needs it, right?

        In regard to China, notice that it behaves along a neutral path in global politics, but not in regard to contested lands on its economic borders with the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan.

        It is only a matter of time before China will have a military strength superior to the US forces available to operate there.

        China does not believe that Taiwan is an independent nation. It will perhaps steal it at some time in the future because it has already stolen much land from others.

        It is only a matter of time when victim nations may say enough already and militarily resist China.

        Because of uncertainty in the direction of global politics, it is wise to be prepared to deal militarily with both Russia and China, right?

        Both China (Hongzha-6K, a copy of the US B-2 ) and Russians (T-60s, an amazing aircraft) are developing ultra-stealthy ultra long range bombers on the basis that bombers can be used multiple times or recalled, while missiles cannot.

        Pearl Harbor taught the world that if one fails to plan, then one plans to fail, right?

      • Jack Everett

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:14 p.m.

        You wing nuts should be posting what America has stolen.

      • wiseman

        Aug. 3, 2014
        4:51 p.m.

        Actually, if you state such a thing without providing sourcing nor details, then many will believe that you are not credible, right?

        However, I have enough experience to know that there is some truth to what you stated.

        The US gained technology from other nations dating from the revolutionary war. It went to the moon using WWII German Rocket technology and scientists. It effectively studied acquired Russian and other technology.

        I think the word stolen is what bothers you the most.

        Stealing to me occurs when a country acts like it is friendly and wants to collaborate on an economic basis, but actually is robbing victims of intellectual property rights?

        Do you agree?

  16. Observer974

    July 5, 2014
    1:26 a.m.

    With much of the work on this new airframe and weapons system being handled by H1-B workers, the plans, details of the design, likely parts, are already for sale in India. This happened with both the B1 and B2 bombers. A country that refuses to employ its own citizens for these jobs, that calls “immigration reform” a ten fold increase in those foreign workers, while there are already more than two native born US citizens, unemployed US tech sector workers, for every tech, software, and science job in the country, doesn’t even deserve to exist.

    • sgtRock101

      July 11, 2014
      5:26 p.m.

      No they are not.

  17. Jack Everett

    July 5, 2014
    4:50 p.m.

    You can go back into your closet now coward Koch sucker we don’t need any of your dark ages bullshit.

  18. F M

    July 10, 2014
    9:26 a.m.

    What good are new weapons when we have a foreign policy that treats friends like enemies and enemies like close family members?

    • sgtRock101

      July 11, 2014
      5:25 p.m.

      Todays friends may be tomorrows enemies. Just be glad you have a defense capable of defending you.

      • F M

        July 11, 2014
        6:03 p.m.

        A defense capability is secondary to a political structure that will use it correctly. Yesterday’s friends are no longer running our government, today’s enemies are. Hopefully this is only temporary. In the meantime I feel queasy thinking these guys are in charge of our armed forces.

        When they decided not to defend the Bengahzi embassy, our people died. They didn’t and won’t defend our border and we face disastrous consequences.

        The Pentagon has been largely purged of anyone who disagrees with them. If they decide to use the armed forces against citizens, who will stand up to them?

      • UnionLeague

        July 18, 2014
        12:59 p.m.

        Are you talking about Germany, Japan and Vietnam? LOL!

      • david95

        July 28, 2014
        1:37 p.m.

        No, I think he was talking about the U.K.

      • dove2012

        Aug. 11, 2014
        7:44 a.m.

        Yep , by the the Muslims will have taken over and the Christians shoved into mass graves dead or alive.

      • chris2146

        Aug. 7, 2014
        4:55 a.m.

        He is probably on the lines of Russia and China, regardless of sanctions they are still technically friends, they are not enemies yet but could be soon.

    • david95

      July 28, 2014
      1:36 p.m.

      Maybe that is WHY we need newer weapons, because we keep making more enemies.

  19. sgtRock101

    July 11, 2014
    5:29 p.m.

    They were much to expensive to operate. They required thousands of men to man; modern ships in the hundreds.

  20. Shangheyed

    July 13, 2014
    2:51 a.m.

    And poor at Geography… wouldn’t have a clue which way is Mecca… and its pray 5 times a day… the extra two helps with the brainwashing… 3 times a day not nearly enough to eliminate your Humanity.

  21. Ratt Stone

    July 18, 2014
    12:37 p.m.

    Uh, that Tanker and Fighter are already 10 years old.

  22. DannyGane

    July 27, 2014
    7:17 a.m.

    why invest so much on stealth bombers??? are you planning to invade and rule the planet earth when your economy finally collapse due to overspending on research on development on new technologies and then just being pirated by other countries at a fraction of your spending? a wild imagination…

    • Bucker

      July 29, 2014
      9:18 a.m.

      It will be used by the one world government to control the entire world
      Its no longer about the US
      We already have bombers that are barely broke in

  23. david95

    July 28, 2014
    1:36 p.m.

    Instead of making 100, make 99 and send me 550 million dollars. :)

  24. sarntcrip

    Aug. 3, 2014
    6:27 a.m.


  25. calibre oda

    Aug. 7, 2014
    5:14 a.m.

    Command and Conquers GENERALS!!! MOAB!!! USA Commander in Chief BUSH


    Aug. 8, 2014
    7 a.m.


  27. royalgreenjacket

    Aug. 11, 2014
    3:37 a.m.

    UAVs the way forward

  28. dove2012

    Aug. 11, 2014
    7:41 a.m.

    Bit of a waste of money as drones by then will shoot them down . Read somewhere Russia is into building drones that will do the job so to speak .

  29. DaHitman

    Aug. 12, 2014
    4:19 a.m.

    I’m guessing the US Air-force is doing this because if they don’t spend it their budget will be reduced, I’m saying this because the B2 (currently still the best bomber in the world) order was reduced from 132 to 21

  30. Chang

    Aug. 14, 2014
    7:25 a.m.

    Listen up beotches.

  31. Guest

    Aug. 14, 2014
    7:26 a.m.

    I think my dck is hard

  32. Little John

    Aug. 16, 2014
    10:07 a.m.

    Only fuzzball’s comments make sense. The rest are deluded pacifists!!!!!

  33. Vtran

    Aug. 17, 2014
    1:48 p.m.

    Based on Lockheed Martins F-35 projected cost per aircraft, current cost and expected cost once all the issues are resolved, it is rather optimistic to quote $550 per aircraft !
    Besides 2026 – is anybody sure the Dollar will exist or whether the world will exist based on the West aggression of wanting WW3 tomorrow

  34. evad666

    Aug. 25, 2014
    4:23 a.m.

    Now which US President said talk softly and carry a big stick?

  35. Dutchman61

    Aug. 27, 2014
    2:11 p.m.

    The problem is why do we need these ultra expensive bombers? There are only two countries that we might need stealth bombers for an attack and they are Russia and China. For the other missions, the troops on the ground will tell you the most effectve bomber has been the B-1B Lancer built by Reagan. They carry more bombs that either the B-2 or the B-52. They have the longest range of the three and the longest loutering time over target. They are far easier to fix and more reliable than the others, faster (Mach 1.06), more modern that the B-52’s, partially stealth in design (1/10th the B-52 radar profile) and can deploy to any long runway airbase around the world. The B-52’s are simply too old, can be seen far far away on radar, and use huge amounts of fuel.

    The B-2’s are decent nuke bombers but they have been a flop as conventional weapons. For every hour they fly, they need 10 for service. There are only 3 bases in the US, one in Europe, and ZERO anywhere else that can service and rearm them properly. It was also found that the B-2 is not really stealth, It was designed to defeat modern radar, but the Russians found by accident that they could track it using 1950’s era early warning systems which are very different technology. US Air Force was not even aware of that issue because the last similar system was retired in the 1970’s in the US. So will the B-3 super stealth bomber be any better? Not likely. We were supposed to build over 100 B-2’s and that never happened. We have only 23 of the bottomless pits in the service. I bet we build on 15-20 B-3’s as well. Still not enough to have meaning.

    The B-1’s could be modernized for a fraction of the cost and a newer B-1C built and deployed for far less cost. The fact remains the B-1 can be modernized to have a very small radar profile that effectively competes with the B-2 and B-3. Reality is not a pleasant place for hyper expensive military jets. Odds are the Air Force brass will never risk the few B-2’s or B-3’s in anything but the ultimate nuke war. So they are basically useless weapons.

  36. snotcricket

    Aug. 31, 2014
    5:50 a.m.

    Let us hope it doesn’t become another F-35C joint strike etc, etc.


    Sept. 4, 2014
    6:24 a.m.

    Only one thing I really wanted to see… Eliminate the PLA and let their people live with democracy. they are like slaves of their own government. They are not far with NoKor.

    If Chinese saw a lot of movements on the Pacific by American fleets or we called em Armada then Chinese PLA makes some noise at the social media or in the internet that something blah.. blah.. blah..!

    I like that the British Fleet rallied over the Pacific towards Chinese Territory as well as the Aussies and US… Then on the lad at south north are the Indians and Vietnamese, then at the East North the Japanese… Germany and Poland hold their troops upward at the Ukraine border if Russia help China then the Three will eliminate Putin. SoKor will hold the NoKor.

    Turkey and Israel will be the one to hold up the other Mid-East countries if they try to help.

    With these strategic plan, China will start from the scratch again and start to build their country with peace on their minds and live like a normal persons.

    My 2 cents.

  38. Bloink

    Sept. 6, 2014
    12:41 p.m.

    Ha, it’ll be 20 years away before it’s useable and like the F35 a complete dogs breakfast.

  39. al pepoy

    Sept. 21, 2014
    5:09 a.m.

    Better long range bombing (nukes for China and Russia) capability and stealthy too. It will make both China and Russia think.

  40. mauloa

    Sept. 23, 2014
    10:30 a.m.

    I’m glad to see Northrop-Grumman go after the contract. I had the wonderful experience of working for Northrop when the B2-Stealth Bomber was built – both before and after is came out of the black. A beautiful plane what has done magnificent tasks for America and the world. A very patriotic, dedicated and talented group of people working together on something we felt proud to be a part of.

  41. udhayamoorthy

    Oct. 12, 2014
    1:32 p.m.

    The Air Force’s top acquisition chief said Friday that the department is “days away” from seeking proposals from industry on the mostly classified new Long-Range Strike Bomber, one of its three top procurement priorities.

  42. venkatraman

    Oct. 13, 2014
    5:33 a.m.

    its great u can safe borders but inteligent failure makes wrong missile fire lik in iraq and afghan 80% r wrong shots, also raise in domestic migrants employees make tech stealing and local bcom jobless, y whites r not getting jobs, in europe gulf and usa nly asians r working and inter ethnic marriage also danger let usa produce whites nly 3 to 4 children and make law asians couldnt marry asians

  43. benoNetanya .

    Nov. 3, 2014
    7:55 a.m.

    Yeah, with love to the industrial military complex, the elderly and poor kids can wait.

  44. Chito Sanchez

    Nov. 24, 2014
    3:02 a.m.


  45. sishir patnaik

    Nov. 28, 2014
    5:59 a.m.

    India should go for a fleet.

  46. Anonymous

    June 28, 2015
    6:16 p.m.

    Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword….wait there’s even more Now what if i told you there was a simple WordPress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That’s right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin
    seo plugin

  47. Anonymous

    July 7, 2015
    7:42 a.m.

    I do love the way you have presented this particular matter plus it does offer me personally a lot of fodder for thought. On the other hand, coming from what precisely I have witnessed, I really wish as other commentary pack on that people continue to be on issue and in no way get started upon a soap box regarding some other news du jour. Anyway, thank you for this excellent piece and even though I can not concur with it in totality, I regard the standpoint.

  48. Anonymous

    July 9, 2015
    5:08 a.m.

    This is a topic close to my heart cheers, where are your contact details though?

  49. Anonymous

    July 18, 2015
    8:32 a.m.

    As a Newbie, I am constantly searching online for articles that can benefit me. Thank you

  50. Anonymous

    July 21, 2015
    6:07 a.m.

    I am constantly thought about this, regards for putting up.

  51. Google

    July 23, 2015
    7:03 a.m.

    Here are some hyperlinks to internet sites that we link to simply because we believe they may be worth visiting.

  52. Anonymous

    July 24, 2015
    8:33 a.m.

    I genuinely enjoy examining on this website , it contains fantastic posts. “For Brutus is an honourable man So are they all, all honourable men.” by William Shakespeare.

  53. Anonymous

    July 24, 2015
    8:05 p.m.

    My husband and i have been quite peaceful John managed to complete his web research while using the ideas he had from your web site. It is now and again perplexing to simply choose to be handing out concepts that most people have been making money from. We really do know we need the blog owner to be grateful to for that. The main explanations you made, the straightforward blog navigation, the friendships you make it possible to promote – it’s got all astonishing, and it is leading our son and our family consider that this subject is awesome, and that’s rather indispensable. Thanks for all!

  54. Anonymous

    July 25, 2015
    8:03 p.m.

    You have observed very interesting points! ps nice website .

  55. Anonymous

    July 28, 2015
    4:44 a.m.

    I dugg some of you post as I cogitated they were very useful very beneficial

  56. Anonymous

    July 30, 2015
    2:14 p.m.

    We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our entire community will be thankful to you.

  57. Anonymous

    July 31, 2015
    1:23 p.m.

    you’re really a good webmaster. The website loading speed is amazing. It seems that you’re doing any unique trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a excellent job on this topic!

  58. Anonymous

    Aug. 2, 2015
    2:41 p.m.

    I visited a lot of website but I think this one holds something special in it in it

  59. Google

    Aug. 5, 2015
    2:06 p.m.

    Always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I really like but do not get a good deal of link really like from.

  60. Anonymous

    Aug. 6, 2015
    9:53 a.m.

    After all, what a great site and informative posts, I will upload inbound link – bookmark this web site? Regards, Reader.

  61. Anonymous

    Aug. 7, 2015
    10:05 a.m.

    I like what you guys are up too. Such smart work and reporting! Keep up the superb works guys I¦ve incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it will improve the value of my web site :)

  62. Anonymous

    Aug. 12, 2015
    4:16 p.m.

    I’ll immediately take hold of your rss feed as I can’t to find your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me recognise so that I may subscribe. Thanks.

  63. Anonymous

    Sept. 3, 2015
    9:12 a.m.

    ceTpGw Incredible points. Outstanding arguments. Keep up the amazing spirit.

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...