For those of you aviation nerds like myself, the government just awarded the new bomber to Northrop
OT: Long Range Strike Bomber Announced
- Thread starter sagar1127
- Start date
Agreed, that and their history...but I think quite a few people were mentioning that BA would just end up buying NOC if Northrop lost
You and I have met in a related work environment but for the sake of remaining anonymous on this board I'll let you figure out where. I prefer to remain that way because I'm customer facing and like the freedom of remaining nameless and faceless.
More frivolous use of tax payer money. What the heck do we need another long range bomber for? To bomb more unsuspecting developing countries into submission while plundering their resources?
It's not enough that our military is 10x stronger than anything else on this world. We need to make it stronger... All the while we have people that are jobless, destitute and starving in the street. Great priorities here... :flush:
It's not enough that our military is 10x stronger than anything else on this world. We need to make it stronger... All the while we have people that are jobless, destitute and starving in the street. Great priorities here... :flush:
Wow, you have an amazing memory! I had to work my Googling/Stalking prowess to figure it out haha...good to hear from you!
I'm not a big fan of the country's war tech budget either...I wish they would pour some of that money over to the space or energy (renewables not O&G) sectors
I am doing well as I hope you are too. I'm impressed with your google and stalking skills but I suppose there is enough of me out there that a determined individual could figure it out. BTW: having a good memory helps on the job.
I wish they poured more money into the personnel we already have.
interesting. Likely the last American bomber built for the next 50 years (possibly ever). Without the contract Northrop would've likely gone out of business/merged. Clearly puts Northrop stealth technology ahead of Boeing's "large plane" experience. While B-52s (with upgrades) will likely fly until the late 2040's (almost 100 years since the first design of the B-52),hard to see Boeing ever building another bomber.
The goal seems to build some combination of piloted/unpiloted aircraft with a build and maintenance cost well below the B-2. Given the cost over-runs of the F22 / F35 projects - you have to wonder if it's really possible.
with Lockheed busy with their $1 Trillion F-35, you have to think Boeing is best positioned for the next generation Air Superiority fighter just starting to be discussed to enter service in 2030's
The goal seems to build some combination of piloted/unpiloted aircraft with a build and maintenance cost well below the B-2. Given the cost over-runs of the F22 / F35 projects - you have to wonder if it's really possible.
with Lockheed busy with their $1 Trillion F-35, you have to think Boeing is best positioned for the next generation Air Superiority fighter just starting to be discussed to enter service in 2030's
Our military is currently the best in the world. In order to maintain that edge we must invest in the next generation of technology just as our peers (China, Russia) are trying to catch up with and surpass us. Look no farther than the current tensions in the South China Sea. We want to protect free trade and open rights to minerals because we view it to be in the best interests of our country. In order to guarantee the freedom of action that we currently enjoy we must continue to invest in future technologies.
And your pathos plea is pretty over the top. There are a number of issues that it would be great if we could spend more money on (education, food insecurity, homelessness) but we need to balance all of those desires with our basic need to protect ourselves. Clearly there should be a ceiling on how much we will spend on any one area, but as someone who sees the threats daily I can tell you that our world is only getting more complicated and dangerous. (That was a moderately over the top ethos plea.)
my first response was harsh... let me tone it down....
The USA is currently Ohio state university....just because we're the champs doesn't mean we stop recruiting or building new facilities. .
Last edited:
Is it the XB-70? Maybe not. The article says 100 planes for $80B. How about less than 80 planes and more than $100B? I still support the program....and the POS F-35 too. You have to keep Russia and China spending money. The problem with our model is that the companies that lose the competitions have to get absorbed by the winners....so down the road there is no more competition. I'd kind of thought we had built our last manned combat vehicles. Oh well.....
This is the key part in your statement: "But we need to balance all of those desires with our basic need to protect ourselves"
I agree that we need to constantly improve to be one step ahead of the enemy, but the way we go about all these contracts is just horrible. Millions of dollars are lost just on the sheer fact of mismanagement, not technical lapses...and those lapses cause exponential increases in sustainment... and of course lets not even get started on the black budget programs that lead to no physical value or technical value...the government isn't the most efficient machine out there and we all know that, but there are areas for improvement that don't seem to get addressed...
the crappy part about being the leader is that our enemies just spy the tech and shorten their development and lessen financial investments. Its beginning to get harder to continue to maintain our edge. Europe isn't carrying its weight as a military ally as far as investment into their defense sectors.China and Russia can make our lives difficult.
I'd like to say I'm doing well myself haha...I tried Direct Messaging to let you know how I found your digital footprint but it seems I don't have access to that feature
the attempt to secrecy costs $$$ too....Could you imagine proper biding processes on components and secret tech? Its impossible, companies and people can keep their mouths shut. Its already impossible with all the precautions.
How much longer do you think the American people are going to fall for the fear mongering?
The surge in popularity of candidates that claim some kind of Socialism like Bernie Sanders and election of Socialists like Kshama Sawant to the Seattle city council are very telling.
Protect free trade for who, certainly not for the American people who have suffered enough.
What daily threats are you talking about, the only threats I see are the ones coming from the corporations that have seized control of our government or from FBI manufactured threats.
The only thing we are number one in is defense spending and people incarcerated, anything else we are way down the totem pole and the American people are sick of it.
You're mixing your metaphors. I think you mean, it's right in his cockpit.
We cannot win a numbers war. We need to win the tech war.. which is why giving away tech to China, or their hackers, is scary.
Thanks Obama (and the Clintons).
Thanks Obama (and the Clintons).
Do you really believe that there is no economic benefit for Americans by having the strongest military in the world ? Bernie Sanders appeals to the fringe left and there have always been political candidates from that spectrum. He would never get elected in a general election and had no hope of beating a centrist Clinton.
Only a Republican could blame 2 Presidents 8 years apart and not the frigid buffoon in the middle. Amazing.
Good - I work in the defense industry.... "We protect those who protect us".....
All we keep doing is laying off more and more people here. It has to stop at some point.... Haven't hired hardly any freshout engineers here in awhile - it's a shame.
All we keep doing is laying off more and more people here. It has to stop at some point.... Haven't hired hardly any freshout engineers here in awhile - it's a shame.
I know I should just leave this alone, but I can't help myself!
Regarding your bolded comment above: please provide a list of "unsuspecting developing countries" we have bombed into submission and the resources we have plundered from those countries. Afghanistan? What development and resources? Saddam Hussein, unsuspecting?
These new bombers are not scheduled to be ready for combat until 2025. When were our current bombers built? We built 20 B-2s, almost 20 years ago. According to an LA Times story, we have 62 active B-1Bs that were built 29 years ago. We have 58 B-52s that were built during the Kennedy administration. So by the time the new ones are ready, half of our bomber fleet would be 60 years old. How long do you think you can keep patching them up and sending them back out there?
If people who supported the Bernie Sanders of the world actually could the fill the head of a pin with knowledge of what our enemies (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, let alone the state supported non-state actors of ISIS, AQ, etc) were doing, they would all retire to a commune in Vermont and stop polluting America's gene pool.
I don't claim to be an expert on military contracting (though I am familiar), nor would I ever argue that America's military spends a buck efficiently. That said, I am intimately plugged into what ACTUALLY happens in the world. My perspective is both operational and academic.
There are scary people in the world. People who are not satisfied with a status quo of America as the world's lone super power. If their aspirations ended with SHARING super power status with the United States, you "military indusltrial complex" loons would have a better argument to make. However, that is decidedly NOT their aspiration. They are playing a Zero Sum game. They win, we lose. They aren't stopping short of accomplishing those goals--economically and militarily. They spend incredible amounts of capital--human and financial--to hack our private corporations AND our military and intelligence networks. They are not satisfied with having access to Levis, internet porn and Big Macs.
The sooner people get out of a Cold War mentality, the better. It's not 1995 anymore.
I don't claim to be an expert on military contracting (though I am familiar), nor would I ever argue that America's military spends a buck efficiently. That said, I am intimately plugged into what ACTUALLY happens in the world. My perspective is both operational and academic.
There are scary people in the world. People who are not satisfied with a status quo of America as the world's lone super power. If their aspirations ended with SHARING super power status with the United States, you "military indusltrial complex" loons would have a better argument to make. However, that is decidedly NOT their aspiration. They are playing a Zero Sum game. They win, we lose. They aren't stopping short of accomplishing those goals--economically and militarily. They spend incredible amounts of capital--human and financial--to hack our private corporations AND our military and intelligence networks. They are not satisfied with having access to Levis, internet porn and Big Macs.
The sooner people get out of a Cold War mentality, the better. It's not 1995 anymore.
Only Democrats would blame criticism of Clintons gifts to the Chinese and Obama's gifts to the Chinese as partisan politics. Sure, we've had thefts of tech under all presidents.. but these two assisted the Chinese in acquiring tech.
Unfortunately PM's are only available to premium accounts - not our choice, it's forced on us by Rivals. One of the features that John's tried to get changed.
As an Acquisition Officer I am intimately familiar (through the repetitive training and Nunn-McCurdy mandated changes) with many of our largest acquisition blunders. There's a delicate balance between needing to design a weapon system to be ready for the future and using current/proven technology. The F-35 is a perfect example of something that was a couple of steps too far when it was baselined. The American public deserves the weapons for which they are paying and when our Government fails to deliver them people are being held accountable.
I would quibble slightly with the word "lost" though. All of these dollars are staying domestic and are paying American salaries. This isn't paying Afghans to build multi-million dollar bases where the money leaves our economy all together. I agree that when you pay for something and don't get the desired outcome (ie a fieldable weapon system) something needs to be done but it's a distinction that I think should be made.
Finally regarding black budget programs...why would you say they lead to no physical or technical value? The F-117, the very first stealth bomber, was a black program. Corona, the very first spy satellite system, is the great great grandfather of Google maps satellite imagery. Sure there will always be failures in cutting edge research and development but I strongly disagree that just because a program is classified that it will not yield unclassified benefits in the future.
I don't understand the "fear mongering" comment. Other countries are trying to surpass us technologically. If we do not stay ahead of them and in the event hostilities occur, more damage will be inflicted on us than would be currently. Neither of those two statements are speculative. Fear mongering would be "the Chinese are going to kill you and everyone you hold dear if we don't do something NOW". You get what you pay for and if the American public would prefer to allocate resources elsewhere then that's fine and I can go do something else. But we also have to accept the fact that other nations will gladly surpass us and use their technological advantage to exert influence in the world that we currently wield.
The threats I read about daily are along the lines of what's going on in the South China Sea, China's aggressive approach in space, Russia's war-gamming in Syria, and various testing that shows both of those countries are catching up to and surpassing us in some areas. I'm not coming to you with "FBI manufactured threats" saying that some calamity is going to befall a city unless we put GoPros on everyone. I'm saying that if we do not continue to invest in our technological advantage it will go away. It would seem to be a fairly obvious conclusion.
I wish we took other countries resources. Iraq should be a U.S. outpost with full control of their oil.
Well dollar for dollar you would create many more jobs rebuilding our inter-structure(which we really need to do) vs. building weapons be it aircraft, ships, missiles etc.
Secondly I don't think using our tax money to secure the oil fields for Exon Mobil and BP is going to give us any break at the gas pump. Not to mention these companies hardly ever pay any taxes which shifts more taxes on us plus there are subsidies that we give to these corporations. How about if these corporations fund their own wars, I am sure Blackwater would be glad to supply them with mercenaries just have them give Erik Prince a call and I'm sure Halliburton could use some contracts just tell them to say that Dick Cheney sent them.
As far as Sanders is concern I have not heard him speak out against the Military Industrial Complex, he welcomes their manufacturing plants in his state, he voted to fund the Iraq War, supported Israel's military attacks on the Palestinians. Now that does not sound to left wing to me. Those that are actually on the Left will not support him for what I just mention but the biggest reason they will not support him is because he is running as a Democrat, they see it as a sellout with Hillary most likely to get the nomination and it hurts the effort to establish a viable third party.
Yes fear mongering, it reminds me of the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
everything today is a THREAT, THREATENING, I keep seeing this one military aircraft manufacturer's commercial might be Boeing? that keeps telling me how they are keeping me SAFE, these are all key words that play on us I mean who wouldn't want to be kept safe but from who or what, after all the War on Terror is not an actual war, it is a slogan, a slogan that has no end, although some speculate it will last 20 years or till the next slogan comes along.
I think one of the biggest fear mongers I keep seeing on the news is that Congressman Peter King, I can't believe that guy was actually voted into office.
2 years ago when the war drums were beating to go to war in Syria I turn on the news and they were talking about the THREAT of Syria or was it Iran, so they show missiles being fired from a file film from a ship and the news broadcaster went on to say they could get close enough to our west coast for that to happen as if we would really allow them to do so. Mainstream media is an echo chamber for all this fear.
This is the type of fear mongering that took place in Nazi Germany.
everything today is a THREAT, THREATENING, I keep seeing this one military aircraft manufacturer's commercial might be Boeing? that keeps telling me how they are keeping me SAFE, these are all key words that play on us I mean who wouldn't want to be kept safe but from who or what, after all the War on Terror is not an actual war, it is a slogan, a slogan that has no end, although some speculate it will last 20 years or till the next slogan comes along.
I think one of the biggest fear mongers I keep seeing on the news is that Congressman Peter King, I can't believe that guy was actually voted into office.
2 years ago when the war drums were beating to go to war in Syria I turn on the news and they were talking about the THREAT of Syria or was it Iran, so they show missiles being fired from a file film from a ship and the news broadcaster went on to say they could get close enough to our west coast for that to happen as if we would really allow them to do so. Mainstream media is an echo chamber for all this fear.
This is the type of fear mongering that took place in Nazi Germany.
This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about, re: this board.
You're a friggin' idiot. Your grasp of the actual world is more tenuous than a circus high-wire act.
