"The U.S. Air Force announced plans for a new long-range bomber several years ago, but the program has not received much attention or funding in the regular defense budget because of competing budget demands.
According to defense experts, plans call for the new bomber to be subsonic, manned and have a range of about 2,000 miles.
Developing a new bomber from scratch could be costly, but defense analysts say the Pentagon may already have spent billions on early conceptual work from its classified budget.
A new bomber is needed to upgrade the Air Force’s aging bomber fleet, which is based on 1970s technology and expensive to maintain, said Lockheed’s Cappuccio.
"It’s really an economic thing with the government," said Cappuccio. "They have to recapitalize or go bankrupt holding onto a 1979 Chevy. Would you want to hang on to your 1979 Chevy for another 20 years? They have to do something."" The Guardian
Why do we need a new, very expensive bomber? Why? Modern fighter aircraft are pretty much all ground attack aircraft as well as air superiority machines. Pilotless aircraft appear to have a vast potential. (The picture at the left is a USAF concept of an UNMANNED bomber) Why a new subsonic, manned bomber with a range of just 2000 miles. What the hell is this, welfare for Air Force Academy graduates? The USAF is understandably enough wedded to the idea of manned aircraft. Without manned aircraft the aviators would have to start paying for their passion in life.
I suspect that this project represents the "military-industrial" complex in full view for a change. I wonder what sort of "horse trading" went on among the services for this to have been agreed on.
A ’79 Chevy? A ’79 Chevy is a reasonable analog for a B-1 or B-2 bomber?