The Air Force has dealt with these uncertainties by simply assuming defenses can be suppressed, regional bases will be available, and other inconveniences won't arise. Alternatives Cost More Let me turn now, briefly, to the question of costs. Ask these same critics what the alternatives will cost. They seldom have any idea. For example, some critics say it is cheaper to load up older bombers with long-range cruise missiles rather than paying for a stealthy penetrating bomber.
Cruise missiles cost a million dollars each.
Some critics also contend it is cheaper to use tactical aircraft operating from regional bases or aircraft carriers than to rely on the B-2. When you see an estimate like that juxtaposed with the service's assertion that it can't afford more bombers, it makes you wonder what this whole debate is really about. The nation has passed through such periods in the past, and we all know how prepared they left us for the next war. But we should be under no illusions about what sort of Air Force we are passing on to the next generation of Americans. It will be a less capable and more costly Air Force.