The Air Force said they made a boo boo in estimating the costs of their newest strategic manned bomber. They were only off by 76%.
Air Force Brushes Off $27 Billion Accounting Error
Last year, the Air Force told Congress the estimated cost for developing the Long-Range Strike Bomber from fiscal years 2015 to 2024 would be $33.1 billion. This year, the service put the price tag at $58.2 billion between fiscal 2016 and 2026, a 76 percent increase.
“It occurred in part because of human error and in part because of process error, meaning a couple of people got the figures wrong and the process of coordination was not fully carried out in this case,” she said, adding the method involves “other people” looking at the numbers to provide a “check and balance.”
James said leaders have counseled those involved, “tightened up” the process, corrected the price tag with Congress and double-checked all the other figures contained in the reports.
Don’t expect Capitol Hill lawmakers to take the Air Force explanation at face value, especially given the service’s poor track record developing other pricey weapons programs, like the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Error or Bait and Switch? With the Air Force's track record on these recent weapons acquisitions we should probably assume this will be another epic Air Force boondoggle.
Why do we even need new manned strategic bombers in the 21st century?
The Pentagon's Next Long-Range Boondoggle?
By Editorial Board
In the next few months, the U.S. Air Force will decide which military contractor will win the right to charge the government for billions in cost overruns for the next few decades. Oh, and the winner will have to build a new bomber, too.
They are separate but related questions: How exactly does the military plan to avoid the fiasco that was the previous long-range bomber project, which resulted in a cut from a planned fleet of 132 to just 20? More important, how exactly do manned aircraft fit into the future of warfare? On these and other issues, Congress needs to demand answers.
The first question is more immediate. The $55 billion contract is for 100 planes -- which has most budget experts struggling to keep a straight face, given that the previous-generation bomber, the aforementioned B-2, ended up costing $2.2 billion apiece. Moreover, the military has gone all-in on its new F-35 fighter, a $400 billion contract that can no longer be scaled back significantly given that 45 U.S. states have some employment stake in its production and a host of allied nations are waiting on deliveries. So if the U.S. wants to slow the annual increases in Pentagon budgeting, as it should, something else will have to give.
The primary threats to U.S. interests in the medium term remain terrorists and non-state actors (such as the stateless Islamic State). And even as potential adversaries catch up, the trio of U.S. bombers -- the slow but stealthy B-2, the aging B-1 Lancer, and the ancient but dependable B-52, which has been in service since the late 1940s -- continue to be retrofitted and updated and remain capable of most offensive and reactionary missions, especially in combination with the Navy's nuclear-powered submarines and other assets.
I hope our Congress has enough sense NOT to keep doing the same thing (trusting the Air Force and listening to the contractors) and expecting a different result.
