Hacker News Reader

Because even USA doesn't have unlimited money. A B-21 can carry a lot of cheap precision weapons. Eg. JDAM costs like $25k each, compared to many millions each target would require with missiles.

View on HN

They sure print like they do and the pentagon has a $35 trillion accounting inaccuracy. [1] We don't even know what this stuff costs us in the end.

[1] https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/stocks-options/the-penta...

But you'd also have to include the cost of the B-21, crew, maintenance, etc. - it's not only the $25k vs millions for a missile.

'Cheap' / dumb ammunitions may be easier to produce in volume, so if you need to increase production it could be easier.

The B-21 is a fixed cost that is ready to go: just 'add water' (munitions) and you can have a higher pace of operations as long as you can feed the machine (B-21).

Eh, bombers aren't a fixed cost. There's certainly a fixed CapEx, but the B2 OpEx is ~$130,000 per hour (https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/air-forces-10-expens...).

Still, strategic bombers add capability that drones/missiles don't. In particular, eyes on the target still haven't been deprecated by remote optics in drones and missiles can't loiter.

Yep. True. But amortized over the expected lifetime of the aircraft, it will still be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com