This article subverts its own thesis. The $435 hammer was an “accounting artifact,” but the government is routinely fleeced and the DoD in particular is unable to accomplish basic accounting tasks.
My favorite paragraph:
> Conversely, said defense analyst Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a conservative Arlington, Va., think tank, the $2 billion-per-plane figure cited by opponents of the B-2 stealth bomber includes the program's high research and development expenses--which must be spread over only 21 planes--plus spare parts, maintenance and future inflation. Said Thompson: "What would it cost me to build one more bomber? . . . $700 million."
Gee, what a steal! Only $700 million for a “stealth” “bomber” that is neither stealthy nor able to carry a significant payload.
Your last sentence is filled with so many factual errors...
The B2 is considered the most stealthy of any of the fifth generation aircraft currently flying. And it carries a 40K payload. Yes, that's smaller than the B-52 and B-1, but it's fine for it's role.
