SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US Department of Defense has announced that Northrup Grumman will be supplying its next generation of Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) to replace the aging B-52 and B-2 fleets.
"Over the past century, no nation has used air power to accomplish its global reach -- to compress time and space -- like the United States," said Defense Secretary Ash Carter
"Building this bomber is a strategic investment in the next 50 years, and represents our aggressive commitment to a strong and balanced force. It demonstrates our commitment to our allies and our determination to potential adversaries, making it crystal clear that the United States will continue to retain the ability to project power throughout the globe long into the future."
The first prototypes of the new bomber won't take to the skies until 2025 at the earliest, and is unlikely to be operational for years after that. But it's going to be packed with the latest technology to shield it from ever-smarter missiles and other weapons systems.
...
Like the B-2, it will be using radar-absorbing materials and high-tech weapons. Directed-energy anti-missile technology has been touted for the aircraft by some analysts, as has the ability to carry electronic payloads that could disrupt enemy computer systems.
Yes, Ye Children of Slashdot, this one will have frickin' laser beams.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday October 30 2015, @08:23PM
Your personal share of this thing is like $200, if you're a US citizen. Every single one of us forking over $200 just to give to Northrop Grumman, and for just one project.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lunix Nutcase on Friday October 30 2015, @08:31PM
You think this is actually going to come in at budget? This thing is probably gonna cost a couple hundred billion.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday October 30 2015, @08:45PM
I just had to look it up, the entire budget for the US State department in FY2014 was apparently less than this project's proposed budget.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 30 2015, @09:14PM
Yeah, but the State Department is ineffective.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 30 2015, @09:23PM
The war against Iran just got pushed back 15 years, right on time to field-try the delayed proto of the new bomber.
That's pretty efficient use of our money.
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Saturday October 31 2015, @12:48AM
"Over the past century, no nation has used air power to accomplish its global reach like the United States"
"What other countries address via diplomacy, the US addresses by sending in bombers".
"Building this bomber is a strategic investment in the next 50 years, and represents our aggressive commitment to a strong and balanced force"
"The amount of campaign contributions we got from this was unbelievable, and Northrop subcontracted out development to the home territory of every senator who voted for it".
The first prototypes of the new bomber won't take to the skies until 2025 at the earliest, and is unlikely to be operational for years after that
"We'll still be flying B-52s in 2070".
"But it's going to be packed with the latest technology"
It will go a minimum of five, possibly ten times, over budget. Only a token handful will be ordered because of the cost".
Like the B-2, it will be using radar-absorbing materials and high-tech weapons.
"The Chinese will build something that can go head to head with it in combat without needing all the expensive doodads, at one twentieth the cost. In any case though they won't need to use them because they've already bought the place they'd need to use them against".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @08:34PM
Awww you think that this will come in on budget when the *prototype* is ten years away? That's cute.
(Score: 1) by jon3k on Friday October 30 2015, @08:48PM
You pay many, many times that so someone can sit at home and play xbox and sell weed. $200 for the next generation of bomber, that will last us several decades? Sure, where do I write the check.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @08:55PM
You pay many, many times that so someone can sit at home and play xbox and sell weed.
[Citation needed]
$200 for the next generation of bomber, that will last us several decades? Sure, where do I write the check.
Yeah, just like the F-35 is shaping up to be the great next generation fighter plane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @11:24PM
a commenter on Slashdot wrote:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @09:29PM
You pay many, many times that so someone can sit at home and play xbox and sell weed.
And why is that worse than padding the pockets of the defense industry with more pork?
$200 for the next generation of bomber, that will last us several decades? Sure, where do I write the check.
Hahah, yeah right. We'll be lucky if this is even done after several decades and 100s of billions in budget overruns.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday October 30 2015, @09:49PM
You pay many, many times that so someone can sit at home and play xbox and sell weed. $200 for the next generation of bomber, that will last us several decades? Sure, where do I write the check.
At least, playing Xbox and selling weed is productive rather than a $55 billion bomber, that probably will cost more and probably won't be an adequate replacement for the B-52 when it's finally built?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday October 30 2015, @11:33PM
I would rather pay people to sit at home playing XBOX and selling weed, then building huge bomber fleets that *also* magically make billionaires back here at home.
Dunno about other people, but I have always found it intensely abhorrent that ANY American gets paid millions of dollars to contribute to our country's defense. Fucking disgusting little shits, and I would love to beat the shit out of them the very moment they begin to claim themselves as patriots. There is nothing patriotic about being a leech on society during war time, and there are no greater leeches than Wall Street and the Military Industry Complex. Some defense industry executive is drinking $20,000 dollar wine (like Pharma Bro), snorting lines of coke off a hooker's ass, and our soldiers are dying without the bullet proof technology that private mercenaries receive instead.
What happened to loving your country? I'm not against profit, but 55 fucking billion dollars? You damn well know there are several individuals involved, all excited Capitalists, that honestly believe it's moral and just that *they* get compensated to the tune of millions personally. If this was really war time, and like World War II, I would drag the executives out into the street and *SHOOT* them dead. War profiteering deserves no less of a punishment, as they've wholly betrayed their fellow citizens in the worst way.
I have to be honest. I take great offense at your statement as it implies the 55 fucking billion dollars has greater moral standing than a citizen quietly sitting at home peaceably enjoying themselves and choosing to sell what is essentially a plant. Also, why the hell would you agree to 55 billion? At that price point, it makes no sense logistically. We just don't need anything that *badly*.
To be clear, I think any hard core street thug from Compton probably has the moral high ground over any Wall Street executive, or Military Industry Complex leech. Sure, he's a thug. Sure, his base desires run him. Does he actually think, and work towards, harming millions of Americans at the same time? Nope. You take some executives though, like ones from Johnson & Johnson, and they'll deliberately poison and terrorize a family on a farm for 5 decades because they can. Most of the thugs simply aren't psychopathic enough to do that, it takes an Ivy League MBA/Lawyer to do it!
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @12:02AM
...thereby enriching the makers of your gun and ammunition.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 30 2015, @10:42PM
I'm O.K. paying $800 for an air defense fleet for the rest of my lifetime (family of 4) - much more so than the $350 we spent on Gulf War II.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday October 30 2015, @11:10PM
This is ONLY the bomber. You've also got to pay for the F-35, the pilots, the training, the overhead of the air force operations.
I'm afraid you're not getting off the hook for 1k.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @11:18PM
You forgot the bombs. It can hardly be a proper bomber, if it's not filled with bombs. :-)
(Score: 2) by bziman on Saturday October 31 2015, @03:18AM
What's really obscene, is that if you own $1,200 worth of Northrop Grumman stock, over the next ten years, you'll get that $200 back just in dividends. I realized a few years back that I own enough stock in defense contractors that most of the money I pay in taxes that goes to defense, I actually get back in dividends and capital appreciation. And I'm closer to the 2% than the 1%. America's wars are designed to extract wealth from the middle and lower classes and transfer it to the upper class. And looking at the math, they're doing a pretty good job.