• Northrop Grumman wins US$80b Long Range Strike Bomber contract for 100 new bombers.
    112 replies, posted
[t]http://i.imgur.com/1ABPIdw.jpg[/t] [quote]PENTAGON: Affirming its status as the nation’s builder of stealthy bombers, Northrop Grumman today won what will probably be the biggest defense contract of the decade, the $80 billion, $564 million-per-plane Long-Range Strike Bomber program, which will enter service circa 2025. “The LRSB will allow the Air Force to operate in tomorrow’s high-end threat environment, what we call anti-access/area denial,” said Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, making the announcement in the Pentagon briefing room. “It will also give us flexibility and the capability to launch, from the continental United States, airstrikes that would be able to strike any location in the world.” With James was Gen. Mark Welsh, who signed off on the official requirements for the bomber shortly after taking office as Air Force Chief of Staff in 2012. Since then, “those requirements remained unchanged,” he boasted, which meant that both competitors could move ahead with actual design work, “achieving what I believe is a remarkable level of fidelity for this point in a new aircraft program.” Shifting requirements and incomplete design are chronic problems that cause delays and cost overruns on Pentagon programs. The Air Force leaders were preceded by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who outlined the need for the aircraft. The LRSB initiative in fact arose from a joint review of strike requirements Carter led in 2011 as Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, which concluded a “new and innovative design” was necessary. That means the bomber has buy-in at the highest level of the Defense Department.[/quote] [url]http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/northrop-garners-huge-win-with-new-bomber-lrsb/[/url] I know a lot of people were expecting Lockheed Martin to get the contract but I didn't think that was going to happen. I didn't think the US Government would regale their other large defense contractor to just making drones.
Why do we need this again
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996467]Why do we need this again[/QUOTE] Because the USAF's bomber fleet is mostly made up of 50 year old B52s and 40 year old B1s. Neither of which have any chance in hell of surviving any vaguely modern air defense.
[QUOTE=download;48996478]Because the USAF's bomber fleet is mostly made up of 50 year old B52s and 40 year old B1s. Neither of which have any chance in hell of surviving any vaguely modern air defense.[/QUOTE] You didn't really answer my question. I mean, I update my car when it gets old. But that is because I need to drive around and go to work. It has a purpose. It's not just to show I have a bigger dick then someone else.
[quote]the $80 billion, $564 million-per-plane Long-Range Strike Bomber program, which will enter service circa 2025. [/quote] It'll be up to 500 billion, 3 billion per plane, and be 3/4ths developed by 2038.
I'm just excited to see Grumman win this instead of Boeing/Lockheed. Cant wait to see what new technologies they come up with to make it possible.
This plane will simply not be built. This contract will die. I feel bad for all those defense engineers.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996488]You didn't really answer my question. I mean, I update my car when it gets old. But that is because I need to drive around and go to work. It has a purpose. It's not just to show I have a bigger dick then someone else.[/QUOTE] Maintenance costs could come down by using more modern materials?
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996488]You didn't really answer my question. I mean, I update my car when it gets old. But that is because I need to drive around and go to work. It has a purpose. It's not just to show I have a bigger dick then someone else.[/QUOTE] Having a big girthy dick is what the whole American foreign policy is all about.
[QUOTE=nomad1;48996558]Maintenance costs could come down by using more modern materials?[/QUOTE] You know what else reduces maintenance costs... Not keeping around gigantic planes that are disused.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996536]This plane will simply not be built. This contract will die. I feel bad for all those defense engineers.[/QUOTE] Our aging fleet needs a new bomber. You can only stretch the -52's for so long. Naive to say the contract will die the day it gets awarded.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48996562]Having a big girthy dick is what the whole American foreign policy is all about.[/QUOTE] In the words of George Carlin [video=youtube;jMwXR-1oajE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwXR-1oajE[/video]
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996488]You didn't really answer my question. I mean, I update my car when it gets old. But that is because I need to drive around and go to work. It has a purpose. It's not just to show I have a bigger dick then someone else.[/QUOTE] The US likes to stay ahead of other countries in the weapons (including bombers) department. [I]The US is already ahead of other countries in the weapons (including bombers)department.[/I] The US likes to stay [I]far[/I] ahead.
[QUOTE=download;48996478] Neither of which have any chance in hell of surviving any vaguely modern air defense.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't exactly say that
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48996575]Our aging fleet needs a new bomber. You can only stretch the -52's for so long. Naive to say the contract will die the day it gets awarded.[/QUOTE] The US is going down the tubes financially. After everyone says we've failed at choosing our wars appropriately, what makes you think that having this defense budget is going to be sustainable for the next 20 years? These planes are really fucking cool but it's just not the direction we need to go.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996599]The US is going down the tubes financially. After everyone says we've failed at choosing our wars appropriately, what makes you think that having this defense budget is going to be sustainable for the next 20 years?[/QUOTE] You lack perspective. Its not about the budget. Its about replacing our 50-60+ year old fleet of airplanes that should have been grounded 20 years ago. This is like trying to drive a 70's vehicle in the salt belt still. It may still exist, but its a pile of shit that costs more in maintenance than its worth. Its unsafe and uneconomical. You get a new 2016 vehicle and suddenly you get more safety features, more efficiency, more flexibility, new technologies, and a considerably longer life than the one built in the 70's.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;48996598]I wouldn't exactly say that[/QUOTE] I would, our current heavy bombers are simply large airplanes, they don't have much in the way of stealth or maneuverability. Any modern AA system could make short work of them.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48996648]You lack perspective. Its not about the budget. Its about replacing our 50-60+ year old fleet of airplanes that should have been grounded 20 years ago. This is like trying to drive a 70's vehicle in the salt belt still. It may still exist, but its a pile of shit that costs more in maintenance than its worth. Its unsafe and uneconomical. You get a new 2016 vehicle and suddenly you get more safety features, more efficiency, more flexibility, new technologies, and a considerably longer life than the one built in the 70's.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=old_hag12;48996565]You know what else reduces maintenance costs... Not keeping around gigantic planes that are disused.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;48996712]Better to have them than not at all. Like the Netherlands heavily skimped on the army because we were neutral in WWI. Then Germany started to flex its muscles and the entire world went on a buying frenzy. The end results we had some canons that were used to try to knock Napolean off his horse, pre-WWI uniforms and army structure and at times grandpas old musket. So the points of them to have them before some weird mustache guy with right arm problems starts doing stuff.[/QUOTE] How far do we go with this? Do we just keep growing our military and continue to ignore the people? How many years into the future do we keep funding billion dollar flying killing machines? There's reason education in this country sucks. There's a reason why our infrastructure is weak and outdated. If this country actually got into a war where we would need that plane, our infrastructure wouldn't keep up!
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996708][/QUOTE] Heavy bombers have been used extensively in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. They're not "disused" as you put it. [editline]28th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=old_hag12;48996749]How far do we go with this? Do we just keep growing our military and continue to ignore the people? How many years into the future do we keep funding billion dollar flying killing machines? There's reason education in this country sucks. There's a reason our infrastructure is weak and outdated. If this country actually got into a war where we would need that plane, our infrastructure wouldn't keep up![/QUOTE] The US military has had continuous cuts for two decades. I wouldn't call that growing myself.
[QUOTE=download;48996753]Heavy bombers have been used extensively in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. They're not "disused" as you put it. [editline]28th October 2015[/editline] The US military has had continuous cuts for two decades. I wouldn't call that growing myself.[/QUOTE] The US currently spends a bit over 600 Billion on defense . More than the rest of the world combined. Where's the lower limit? There's an unhealthy obsession somewhere in there.
Well, the BUFF's gotta go. I expect the maintenance costs for the old aircraft have spiralled, whether the USAF will admit it or not, and hopefully with fewer B-3s than the number of B-52s currently maintained, they can do the same job. Less maintenance costs (hopefully), less putting aircrew in almost certainly dangerous aircraft, reduced pollution and reduced fleet size which means less staff needed. If you ask me, it's a good plan. As usual of course I'm too lazy for sources and numbers. I'm totally theorising and ballparking here. But coming from someone who's been closely and disgustedly watching the left argue 'we no longer need <insert military asset here>' in Britain, I don't really think it's the right way to go. Both nations need to maintain our current capability in a more modern and efficient fashion.
[QUOTE=download;48996753]The US military has had continuous cuts for two decades. I wouldn't call that growing myself.[/QUOTE] You could cut it in half and go with it for 10-15 years and USA would probably still have the most advanced tech, biggest navy fleet, etc...
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996467]Why do we need this again[/QUOTE] We don't really need it, well, until we do. Thinking there's no potential for conflict in the future in today's VERY volatile world is naive. Bombers see plenty of use in the conflicts we're part of now. Whenever the next huge one breaks out, and it probably will, I'd prefer us to have what we need to make sure we come out on the winning side. In which case, it's so we can have airmen buzzing around in the most suitable thing for the job.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996488]You didn't really answer my question. I mean, I update my car when it gets old. But that is because I need to drive around and go to work. It has a purpose. It's not just to show I have a bigger dick then someone else.[/QUOTE] the point of retaining a standing army is for you to be prepared to defend/attack at any moment. you might as well not have a military rather than rock about with severely outdated equipment
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996785]The US currently spends a bit over 600 Billion on defense . More than the rest of the world combined. Where's the lower limit? There's an unhealthy obsession somewhere in there.[/QUOTE] It's more like the next 10 countries combined. Either way, it wouldn't be necessary if other Western nations took up the slack, which they're not.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996785]The US currently spends a bit over 600 Billion on defense . More than the rest of the world combined. Where's the lower limit? There's an unhealthy obsession somewhere in there.[/QUOTE] Well, maybe when our allies start picking up the slack they promised they would, we can. Until then, it's irresponsible to defund the largest military in the world when there's no foreseeable substitute.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996708][/QUOTE] When it comes to the military, they like to operate under the pretense of "would rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" Your posts are confirming that you are incredibly naive when it comes to defense
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996749]How far do we go with this? Do we just keep growing our military and continue to ignore the people? How many years into the future do we keep funding billion dollar flying killing machines? There's reason education in this country sucks. There's a reason why our infrastructure is weak and outdated. If this country actually got into a war where we would need that plane, our infrastructure wouldn't keep up![/QUOTE] Whether you like it or not, military strength allows for peace through deterrence. Yeah, it sucks that we aren't getting a free college education for everyone instead, but the world would look a lot different without deterrence and military innovations. There is no guarantee that money would go to where you would want it to go, nor would it be assured that the United States (or any country for that matter) would be safe without a military. Hell, as ironic as it is, the invention of nuclear weaponry has kept us from having large-scale and bloody conflicts like world wars because of the threat just one warhead has.
[QUOTE=download;48996839]It's more like the next 10 countries combined. Either way, it wouldn't be necessary if other Western nations took up the slack, which they're not.[/QUOTE] Can I just ask how can other western nations take up the slack? What is it they don't do that the US does. This is a legitimate question.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.