Northrop Grumman wins US$80b Long Range Strike Bomber contract for 100 new bombers.
112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=paindoc;48997378]well I invite for you to push for that with China and Russia then[/QUOTE]
That is a world worth fighting for. Better to show up at the table then to stay at home and brew in terror.
[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]
And you sound like one of those people who sees the world in black and white, which is a view that 90% of the time is wrong
[QUOTE=paindoc;48997320]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]
Cold war was between two independent blocks, economically and politically speaking. The economies of China and USA are so much interconnected today that it alone is a bigger defense against any future conflict than all the weapons those industries can produce. China and USA simply could not function without each other.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997390]That is a world worth fighting for. Better to show up at the table then to stay at home and brew in terror.[/QUOTE]
What you don't seem to realize is that through military progress we actually create peace and stability between the nations that could do the most harm to each other and the world.
We can't just stop military spending and disarm; the world doesn't work like that. You can try and be an idealist all you want, but no matter how hard you try and fight it's going to stay a dream.
Also, you fail to recognize the technology we have for personal and commercial use now that originally came from military research and spending. The world would be such a different place without the progress.
Well this seems like a giant waste of money. I don't understand the conflict in which these would be utilized.
I'd rather we developed a long range stealth aircraft specifically designed to complete wild weasel sorties.
Then the rest of your ground attack aircraft don't HAVE to be stealth. Seems a lot cheaper.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48997390]That is a world worth fighting for. Better to show up at the table then to stay at home and brew in terror.[/QUOTE]The kind of military and foreign policy you argue for is the one where when you show up at the table, the guy on the other side has his armed guards throw you in a cell to be executed because, hey, you can't really stop him and he'd like the things you've got. The policy we have right now is where everyone walks in to the room strapped from head to toe with weapons and explosives and no one can really leverage force against anyone else much because to do so would be detrimental to oneself at the same time.
[QUOTE=G3rman;48997426]Also, you fail to recognize the technology we have for personal and commercial use now that originally came from military research and spending. The world would be such a different place without the progress.[/QUOTE]
Computers, nuclear energy, space programs... all have roots in military projects, but honestly that was ages ago, and was developed during actual world conflicts. Now we have large international projects like ITER, LHC... I'm not sure how much military programs contributed in the last 30 years to technological progress.
[QUOTE=download;48997386]The B52 was used as an on-call bomber in Afghanistan because of it immense range. It could loiter for a long time.[/QUOTE]
I saw that, interesting. Good usage for it, making it on-call or using it to carry AGM's.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48997410]Cold war was between two independent blocks, economically and politically speaking. The economies of China and USA are so much interconnected today that it alone is a bigger defense against any future conflict than all the weapons those industries can produce. China and USA simply could not function without each other.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but Chinese naval strategy and technological development has been quite clearly aimed at antagonizing or dickwaving towards the US- the carrier-killer type missiles and the accelerating pace of the development of their own carriers being some of the more common examples. China imitates though, freely stealing design data from others.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48997486]Computers, nuclear energy, space programs... all have roots in military projects, but honestly that was ages ago, and was developed during actual world conflicts. Now we have large international projects like ITER, LHC... I'm not sure how much military programs contributed in the last 30 years.[/QUOTE]
this is astonishingly shortsighted
[QUOTE=GunFox;48997463]Well this seems like a giant waste of money. I don't understand the conflict in which these would be utilized.
I'd rather we developed a long range stealth aircraft specifically designed to complete wild weasel sorties.
Then the rest of your ground attack aircraft don't HAVE to be stealth. Seems a lot cheaper.[/QUOTE]Well as anti-air measures improve, they'll also likely be faster to deploy. So while existing ones can be taken out in advance, new ones may have popped back up by the time your traditional, unstealthed aircraft arrive.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48997498]Well as anti-air measures improve, they'll also likely be faster to deploy. So while existing ones can be taken out in advance, new ones may have popped back up by the time your traditional, unstealthed aircraft arrive.[/QUOTE]
Enemies with proper modern surface to air systems generally also have nuclear weapons.
We don't need to fight them. We need to economically fight the guys using dated tech.
In the bizarre and unlikely event we encounter an enemy that has sufficient surface to air coverage, we still have B-2's, cruise missiles, drones, and standard stealth ground attack aircraft.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48997557]Enemies with proper modern surface to air systems generally also have nuclear weapons.
We don't need to fight them. We need to economically fight the guys using dated tech.
In the bizarre and unlikely event we encounter an enemy that has sufficient surface to air coverage, we still have B-2's, cruise missiles, drones, and standard stealth ground attack aircraft.[/QUOTE]
But with nuclear weapons everyone knows that everyone will be unwilling to use them to deter anything but their own complete destruction right?
Conventional forces surely still play a huge role in deterrence against major players.
Curious to see what the cost balloons to
The SSBN(X) is currently slated to be $100B, doing that at the same time as the LRSB is scary.
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;48997606]But with nuclear weapons everyone knows that everyone will be unwilling to use them to deter anything but their own complete destruction right?
Conventional forces surely still play a huge role in deterrence against major players.[/QUOTE]
Not so far. So far they have ended direct conflict between nuclear armed nations almost entirely.
[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. Cause guess what, the issues that are not Russia and China are significantly more pressing. Even more so then most people think.[/QUOTE]
as long as humans have ambition, world peace through any method other than deterrence will be impossible. someone somewhere in charge of some country would recognize the power vacuum that disarmed nations would leave and would take advantage of it.
Well they at least seem to know what they want to be built.
'We need a bomber that can go places the enemy doesn't want us to go and blow things up, and also jive with all the retarded shit we jammed into the F-35's nose so the pilot knows what the fuck is going on.'
This SHOULDN'T be an issue, we don't need it to do anything retarded like conform to every department of our military and their needs, or be sold to every Nato member state and add more constraints and particulars.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48997463]Well this seems like a giant waste of money. I don't understand the conflict in which these would be utilized.
I'd rather we developed a long range stealth aircraft specifically designed to complete wild weasel sorties.
Then the rest of your ground attack aircraft don't HAVE to be stealth. Seems a lot cheaper.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you could argue that having one aircraft that can sneak past enemy air defenses and bomb a target is more efficient and streamlined than having a stealth aircraft that attacks enemy AA to open a hole for conventional aircraft to bomb the target. A target could move in the time it takes for the SEAD aircraft to ensure that the airspace is clear so that the conventional bombers can sortie and move in. Range is also a consideration to take as fighter bombers and ground attack aircraft don't have the range of a dedicated bomber aircraft.
I remember that one of the plans to assassinate Osama Bin Laden once his hideout was discovered involved using a B-2 Spirit to sneak through Pakistani airspace and level his complex. As messy as that may be, it also highlights one of the intended roles that stealth bombers have in the US Arsenal. That is, the ability to bomb targets with impunity inside a controlled airspace. It's faster and a bit easier to justify than what essentially amounts to an invasion.
Of course this begs the question, why don't we just upgrade the B-2? Because the Air Force likes new and shiny things. The B-2 is also very expensive to maintain, so they think they can make a faster, stealthier, more cost efficient aircraft that is optionally-manned to maintain their technological advantage throughout the mid 21st century. Stealth technology seems to be advancing at a rapid rate, so retrofitting the B-2 might as well require a complete rebuild with new materials. However, given the fiasco that is the F-35's development and procurement, it is very like that costs will spiral out of control while under-delivering on the initial developmental goals.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48997706]Not so far. So far they have ended direct conflict between nuclear armed nations almost entirely.[/QUOTE]
What about indirect conflict? Do you think that the massive force projection of the US has contributed to stability between other nations, especially towards allies of the US?
(Also arguably to destabilization in areas where it has been misused)
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48997749]I suppose you could argue that having one aircraft that can sneak past enemy air defenses and bomb a target is more efficient and streamlined than having a stealth aircraft that attacks enemy AA to open a hole for conventional aircraft to bomb the target. A target could move in the time it takes for the SEAD aircraft to ensure that the airspace is clear so that the conventional bombers can sortie and move in. Range is also a consideration to take as fighter bombers and ground attack aircraft don't have the range of a dedicated bomber aircraft.
I remember that one of the plans to assassinate Osama Bin Laden once his hideout was discovered involved using a B-2 Spirit to sneak through Pakistani airspace and level his complex. As messy as that may be, it also highlights one of the intended roles that stealth bombers have in the US Arsenal. That is, the ability to bomb targets with impunity inside a controlled airspace. It's faster and a bit easier to justify than what essentially amounts to an invasion.
Of course this begs the question, why don't we just upgrade the B-2? Because the Air Force likes new and shiny things. The B-2 is also very expensive to maintain, so they think they can make a faster, stealthier, more cost efficient aircraft that is optionally-manned to maintain their technological advantage throughout the mid 21st century. Stealth technology seems to be advancing at a rapid rate, so retrofitting the B-2 might as well require a complete rebuild with new materials. However, given the fiasco that is the F-35's development and procurement, it is very like that costs will spiral out of control while under-delivering on the initial developmental goals.[/QUOTE]
Because there are only 20 B2s.
[QUOTE=download;48997810]Because there are only 20 B2s.[/QUOTE]
We don't really need a lot of them to be effective. Just a few operating at once can be absolutely devastating. This new contract is only for 21 aircraft as well.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48997749]I suppose you could argue that having one aircraft that can sneak past enemy air defenses and bomb a target is more efficient and streamlined than having a stealth aircraft that attacks enemy AA to open a hole for conventional aircraft to bomb the target. A target could move in the time it takes for the SEAD aircraft to ensure that the airspace is clear so that the conventional bombers can sortie and move in. Range is also a consideration to take as fighter bombers and ground attack aircraft don't have the range of a dedicated bomber aircraft.
[/QUOTE]
Risking a multi billion dollar aircraft in order to hit a single target when we historically can obtain air supremacy and knock out ground defenses in a matter of days is ridiculous.
I'd rather we field a stealth aircraft that is approximately the size of the old heavy interceptors. That would lend it the range and payload it needs to go cut a massive hole in any air defense network, even if launching from a considerable distance. They could continue operating in the ground attack role, and do so for a fraction of the cost of a strategic bomber.
I've always liked the concept of the B-2, but the price tag just isn't worth it for that class of bomber. Strategic bombers are simply not that important.
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;48997759]What about indirect conflict? Do you think that the massive force projection of the US has contributed to stability between other nations, especially towards allies of the US?
(Also arguably to destabilization in areas where it has been misused)[/QUOTE]
Indirect conflict occurs in poor regions and they utilize dated tech.
:snip:
totally misread the post
[QUOTE=Apache249;48997947]No, it's because airframes suffer from metal fatigue and will crack after an approximated number of takeoffs and landings. The newest operational B-52 rolled off the assembly line in 1962. Fifty-three years ago. Planes don't last that long. Please do some research before posting.[/QUOTE]
I know that as well. Metal fatigue is definitely one of the reasons why the cost to maintain these old bombers is going up. You can only do so much to repair an old airframe
:snip:
bad reading
[QUOTE=Apache249;48997994]Right, so why did you say
as if it wasn't a necessity?[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean that it wasn't a necessity, that was just for anyone wondering why we would need a new aircraft to fulfill a role that is already filled. I was thinking of it in terms of a B-2 replacement, which is a significantly newer airframe than the B-52. I forgot to mention that it is also intended to replace the B-52, although the role is slightly different from a traditional strategic bomber. I do think that they both need to be replaced at some point and that the LRSB is a long term solution.
I'm kind of just typing as I think so I apologize if it comes off the wrong way.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48998120]I didn't mean that it wasn't a necessity, that was just for anyone wondering why we would need a new aircraft to fulfill a role that is already filled. I was thinking of it in terms of a B-2 replacement, which is a significantly newer airframe than the B-52. I forgot to mention that it is also intended to replace the B-52, although the role is slightly different from a traditional strategic bomber. I do think that they both need to be replaced at some point and that the LRSB is a long term solution.
I'm kind of just typing as I think so I apologize if it comes off the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
I snipped before you made this post because I originally though you were talking about the B-52. My bad.
[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]
USN dood here. Budget decreases all the time, please talk about something you know about instead of saying something that makes sense to you at the time.
[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]
It's crazy to think the B-2 Spirit's tech is almost 35 years+ old technology
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48997829]We don't really need a lot of them to be effective. Just a few operating at once can be absolutely devastating. This new contract is only for 21 aircraft as well.[/QUOTE]
It's for 100 aircraft.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48996562]Having a big girthy dick is what the whole American foreign policy is all about.[/QUOTE]
lol foreign policy, as if this will even have applications in the future, as if this isn't just corporate welfare
how else are we going to prop up all those high paying STEM jobs?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;48998525]lol foreign policy, as if this will even have applications in the future, as if this isn't just corporate welfare
how else are we going to prop up all those high paying STEM jobs?[/QUOTE]
Hey man, we bomb things, okay?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.