Northrop Grumman wins US$80b Long Range Strike Bomber contract for 100 new bombers.
112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48996887]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.[/QUOTE]
NATO members are supposed to sped a certain amount of their GDP on defence. I think 2%. Many of these countries aren't and the US has been picking up the slack.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Here we go:
[quote]BRUSSELS—Most NATO countries are boosting their military spending by small amounts if any, despite the concern over Russia’s growing assertiveness, according to a report released Monday by the alliance.
Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.
Overall, six countries are raising and six are cutting their military spending as a proportion GDP this year when compared with 2014, and the rest are staying the same. Russia invaded and annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea in early 2014.
“We need to redouble our efforts to reverse this trend,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday. “We are facing more challenges, and we cannot do more with less indefinitely.”
‘We are facing more challenges, and we cannot do more with less indefinitely.’
—NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
Mr. Stoltenberg said 18 allies have increased their spending in real terms, but noted that overall North Atlantic Treaty Organization spending is set to decrease by 1.5%, to roughly $893 billion. At the same time, Russia has been significantly increasing its own military spending as President Vladimir Putin seeks to modernize the country’s armed forces.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193[/url]
[QUOTE=G3rman;48996875]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]
makes me wonder, if our allies contributed in a more equal fashion maybe we could afford the social services they have
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48996887]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.[/QUOTE]
Well, the idea is that NATO countries should be spending 2% of their GDP on their defense budgets and then, in theory, their militaries would be more capable of force projection and military deterrence so that the US could then scale back its own individual efforts.
[QUOTE=G3rman;48996914]Well, the idea is that NATO countries should be spending 2% of their GDP on their defense budgets and then, in theory, their militaries would be more capable of force projection and military deterrence so that the US could then scale back its own individual efforts.[/QUOTE]
i would love to see a chart of how much each nato country spends on defense and how much the US budget could be reduced if each country pulled its own weight
Ask and ye shall receive.
[QUOTE][IMG]https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/natopercgdp.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/deltadefensespending.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48996939]i would love to see a chart of how much each nato country spends on defense and how much the US budget could be reduced if each country pulled its own weight[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO[/url]
ninjad
[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]
You really are naive if you think those planes, or military spending as a whole, doesn't effect the whole world. A strong military provides stability in a lot of places. If the U.S declines in military power other countries will take notice of that. It will effect the way in which everyone operates.
I agree that less money needs to be spent on physical warfare devices as the world isn't in a dire need for conventional warfare anymore unless we plan on bombing deserts some more.
However where we severely lack a proper budget is in cyber defense, which is quickly getting out of hand to the point that we have Western governments conspiring to severely monitor the internet rather than put forth proper security measures to block outside attacks from the likes of China and Russia.
Either way I don't expect the defense budget to severely decrease, even if NATO members picked up the slack.
[QUOTE=G3rman;48996914]Well, the idea is that NATO countries should be spending 2% of their GDP on their defense budgets and then, in theory, their militaries would be more capable of force projection and military deterrence so that the US could then scale back its own individual efforts.[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I can see how more spending on Military would be a good thing, here in the UK it provides a lot of specialized jobs which is important, ship building especially, and with the oncoming Type 26's it's going to increase a lot more.
This is also true for the US is it not? Wouldn't a decreased budget affect a lot of specialized jobs and manufacturing?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48997000]You really are naive if you think those planes, or military spending as a whole, doesn't effect the whole world. A strong military provides stability in a lot of places. If the U.S declines in military power other countries will take notice of that. It will effect the way in which everyone operates.[/QUOTE]
Please. Tell me, in detail what would happen. Seriously. I'm curious.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48997037]Thanks.
I can see how more spending on Military would be a good thing, here in the UK it provides a lot of specialized jobs which is important, ship building especially, and with the oncoming Type 26's it's going to increase a lot more.
This is also true for the US is it not? Wouldn't a decreased budget affect a lot of specialized jobs and manufacturing?[/QUOTE]
Yes, budget cuts really hit hard since we have such a large military and many rely on it for their income. Apparently it can be a struggle for many veterans to find "good" work unless they have technical experience and/or officer commission.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996565]Not keeping around gigantic [B]planes that are disused.[/B][/QUOTE]
Except they arent, the B-1 has been used as recently as this year during Operation Inherent Resolve and the Siege of Kobani.
I havent found much on the B-52s recent combat history though and I agree that long range, large strategic bombers like the B-52 are probably obsolete.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48997137]Except they arent, the B-1 has been used as recently as this year during Operation Inherent Resolve and the Siege of Kobani.
I havent found much on the B-52s recent combat history though and I agree that long range, large strategic bombers like the B-52 are probably obsolete.[/QUOTE]
We've already determined that the war in Iraq was a failure, and created more problems then it solved. Look up on why ISIS exists.
Justifying building planes with pointlessly murdering people is an awful cycle. Then because we have the planes that we keep up to date and a massive budget, we are ready at any moment to fuck with the next country.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997170]We've already determined that the war in Iraq was a failure, and created more problems then it solved. Look up on why ISIS exists.
Justifying building planes with pointlessly murdering people is an awful cycle. Then because we have the planes that we keep up to date and a massive budget, we are ready at any moment to fuck with the next country.[/QUOTE]
You've missed the point entirely.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48996655]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]
Implying we would send bombers to a target with modern defenses alone.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;48997037]Thanks.
I can see how more spending on Military would be a good thing, here in the UK it provides a lot of specialized jobs which is important, ship building especially, and with the oncoming Type 26's it's going to increase a lot more.
This is also true for the US is it not? Wouldn't a decreased budget affect a lot of specialized jobs and manufacturing?[/QUOTE]
There have been some suggestions that the early 90s recession in the US was caused by the sudden cancellation of hundreds of billions in defense projects
[QUOTE=G3rman;48997183]You've missed the point entirely.[/QUOTE]
Which point.
I never said anything about whether or not we should fight these wars, thats a completely different argument. As far as keeping our bomber fleet up to date though this contract makes sense because what we have right now is really old.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997211]Which point.[/QUOTE]
Check the last page. It's not about making killing machines; it's about deterrence and its effect on world stabilization and conflict avoidance.
My argument is we don't need them because we don't use them. You said we do use them because we bombed ISIL.
We DESTABILIZED the middle east. That's why we needed to get involved!
We are disusing planes because we are misusing them.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997243]My argument is we don't need them because we don't use them. You said we do use them because we bombed ISIL.
We DESTABILIZED the middle east. That's why we needed to get involved![/QUOTE]
Whether they were used and whether they should have been used are completely different things.
[QUOTE]We are disusing planes because we are misusing them.[/QUOTE]
Im getting mixed signals here, are you saying we are not using these planes because we are using them when we shouldnt?
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997243]My argument is we don't need them because we don't use them. You said we do use them because we bombed ISIL.
We DESTABILIZED the middle east. That's why we needed to get involved![/QUOTE]
I didn't say any of that at all. And the truth is we do need a strong military otherwise deterrence doesn't exist; the purpose isn't necessarily to use them since their simple existence leads to stable relations. Same with nuclear weapons.
Without a strong military, without the ability to deter enemies, the world would suffer from a lot more regional conflicts between established nations. That goes for any country, not just the US.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48997253]Whether they were used and whether they should have been used are completely different things.[/QUOTE]
Planes that kill people are only necessary if we are involved in conflict. Whether we use them are not should be dependent on our will to put holes in another country.
Still no one has answered my question:
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48997000]You really are naive if you think those planes, or military spending as a whole, doesn't effect the whole world. A strong military provides stability in a lot of places. If the U.S declines in military power other countries will take notice of that. It will effect the way in which everyone operates.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997062]Please. Tell me, in detail what would happen. Seriously. I'm curious.[/QUOTE]
Hasnt the US pretty much always kept its weapons around regardless of if we are at war or not? I dont think that we would get rid of our bombers if we were not fighting a war.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997273]Planes that kill people are only necessary if we are involved in conflict. Whether we use them are not should be dependent on our will to put holes in another country.
Still no one has answered my question:[/QUOTE]
Yeah but these planes being replaced weren't used in the middle east to "murder people!!1!!" and destabilize the place. The B-52 is a long range strategic bomber, meaning it either carries really big fucking bombs or a shitload of bombs for carpet bombing. JDAM's are dropped by the F-117 or B-2 afaik. Strategic bombers are designed for large scale actions, like carrying nuclear payloads or performing long-term carpet bombing campaigns on enemy positions. They would be used in large scale conflict with other first-world nations.
China has been upping its air defense game lately and has been catching up, particularly in the field of guided missiles and missile defense. In turn, it is only logical that we up our ability to deliver guided payloads and strategic ordinance. Its how an arms race and deterrence works.
I think we can start counting the thing with China as cold war 2.0? or at least cold war act 2, after our intermission for a whiile?
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
ah, looks like B-52s were involved recently. Point still stands, they are a terribly aged airframe held together with the hopes of their crew and the tears and angst of crew chiefs everywhere. They're old enough they probably wouldn't hold up in modern conflict, recent conflicts were against insurgents who lacked the ability to strike at strategic aircraft in a meaningful fashion
[QUOTE=paindoc;48997320]Yeah but these planes being replaced weren't used in the middle east to "murder people!!1!!" and destabilize the place. The B-52 is a long range strategic bomber, meaning it either carries really big fucking bombs or a shitload of bombs for carpet bombing. JDAM's are dropped by the F-117 or B-2 afaik. Strategic bombers are designed for large scale actions, like carrying nuclear payloads or performing long-term carpet bombing campaigns on enemy positions. They would be used in large scale conflict with other first-world nations.
China has been upping its air defense game lately and has been catching up, particularly in the field of guided missiles and missile defense. In turn, it is only logical that we up our ability to deliver guided payloads and strategic ordinance. Its how an arms race and deterrence works.
I think we can start counting the thing with China as cold war 2.0? or at least cold war act 2, after our intermission for a whiile?[/QUOTE]
You sounds like Dick Cheney. Guess what the world must move on.. Continuing an arms race will always lead to more war. You cannot choose both war and peace.
If you believe in peace on any level and have any hope for the future, you must push for negotiations and disarmament, over fear and disagreement. Cause guess what, the issues that are not Russia and China are significantly more pressing. Even more so then most people think.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997368]You sounds like Dick Cheney. Guess what the world must move on.. Continuing an arms race will always lead to more war. You cannot choose both war and peace.
If you believe in peace on any level and have any hope for the future, you must push for negotiations and disarmament, over fear and disagreement.[/QUOTE]
well I invite for you to push for that with China and Russia then
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997368]You sounds like Dick Cheney. Guess what the world must move on.. Continuing an arms race will always lead to more war. You cannot choose both war and peace.
If you believe in peace on any level and have any hope for the future, you must push for negotiations and disarmament, over fear and disagreement.[/QUOTE]
I nominate old_hag12 to be the official negotiator with ISIS to discuss terms of peace.
"sound like dick cheney" lmao who do you surround yourself with? 10m around my family and you'd lose your goddamn mind. I'm a filthy treehugger compared to them
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Senscith;48997382]I nominate old_hag12 to be the official negotiator with ISIS to discuss terms of peace.[/QUOTE]
i support this
[QUOTE=paindoc;48997320]Yeah but these planes being replaced weren't used in the middle east to "murder people!!1!!" and destabilize the place. The B-52 is a long range strategic bomber, meaning it either carries really big fucking bombs or a shitload of bombs for carpet bombing. JDAM's are dropped by the F-117 or B-2 afaik. Strategic bombers are designed for large scale actions, like carrying nuclear payloads or performing long-term carpet bombing campaigns on enemy positions. They would be used in large scale conflict with other first-world nations.
China has been upping its air defense game lately and has been catching up, particularly in the field of guided missiles and missile defense. In turn, it is only logical that we up our ability to deliver guided payloads and strategic ordinance. Its how an arms race and deterrence works.
I think we can start counting the thing with China as cold war 2.0? or at least cold war act 2, after our intermission for a whiile?
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
ah, looks like B-52s were involved recently. Point still stands, they are a terribly aged airframe held together with the hopes of their crew and the tears and angst of crew chiefs everywhere. They're old enough they probably wouldn't hold up in modern conflict, recent conflicts were against insurgents who lacked the ability to strike at strategic aircraft in a meaningful fashion[/QUOTE]
The B52 was used as an on-call bomber in Afghanistan because of it immense range. It could loiter for a long time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.