OK. Sounds like the folks on the Hill are doing something smart for a change
(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons

I was cynical at first too, but it seems to be a general feeling, at least in
the Senate, that bombers have proven themselves extremely useful since 9/11 and
we need to ensure we have them in the future. I'm sure not every Senators
motives are that "pure", but many of the people speaking out won't gain any
thing for their constiuents with a new bomber program.

It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
being in the "possible" box.

Apparently the USAF position is; "hey, we were going to build a bomber that
could fly to anywhere on the globe from the mid-west of the U.S. in under 3
hours and drop hundreds of near precision munitions from 200,000 feet with
impunity....but the technology to do any of that is not available now, so if
you make us design a bomber now, you're going to get an improved B-2".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"