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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @09:04PM
The US Department of Defense
The US Department of Offense
USA hasn't done anything that could be considered defense since the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.
Oh, BTW, that battle was fought after a peace treaty had been signed.
We could dissolve DoD, and leave the actual defense of the country to the Coast Guard and we'd be just fine.
In fact, better than fine.
After cutting out the 57 percent of the budget that is pissed away on aggression, we'd then have giant buckets of money to make sure we had the healthiest, best educated, most competitive work force of any country, able to produce stuff that the world wants.
(Of course, we'd also have to get rid of the current crop of "job creators" who are doing such a horrible job and replace them with worker-owned cooperatives.)
After that, we'd have plenty left over to build an amazing public infrastructure with e.g. a mass transit system that would be the envy of the world.
global reach
Aggression again
compress time and space
Murder people faster
this bomber
A weapons system to murder kids and their mothers.
Crews are so high up that they can't even tell what they are striking.
strategic investment
Giant waste of money
aggressive commitment
Well, at least they admit to being aggressive.
a strong and balanced force
You'd have to compare the USA's military spending to the combined strength of next 11 most-armed nations (most of which are USA's allies), to get to "balanced".
The correct term is Ridiculous Overkill.
project power
We're back to aggression.
Throw in hegemony, imperialism, and colonialism for good measure.
the latest technology
We talked previously about how stealth is a giant boondoggle.
The F-35: A Gold-Plated Turkey [soylentnews.org]
Adversaries simply use older, cheaper radar and can see this expensive junk coming at them without any difficulty.
It was also mentioned that stealth aircraft are hanger queens.
You have to cut a hole in the aircraft to fix anything.
You then have to use nasty chemicals to fix the hole.
After that, you have to wait several days for the chemical patch to cure.
Readiness? Yeah. Right.
I've already mentioned that the "warriors" who operate these things can't identify what they are killing.
In the current aggressions in which USA is involved, these things would kill USA's own troops on the ground because the systems can't hit an opposing force that is close to USA troops|allies because the accuracy|feedback needed is what's available with an A-10 ground attack aircraft--not a high-altitude bomber.
USA keeps buy weapons systems that have been obsolete since the end of the Cold War.
enemy
The Chinese have figured out they don't need to piss away giant gobs of money on weapons and aggression.
With the giant trade imbalance (China selling USA tons of stuff and USA have nothing to export for China to buy), the Chinese are using all that spare cash to buy up the USA one business at a time.
(Try to find a 4-star hotel in Manhattan that isn't Chinese-owned.)
...and who do you think is buying up all of USA's gov't bonds?
USA's ever-more-impoverished working class?
Nope. It's the Chinese again.
Oh, and when they need electronic parts to put into these aircraft, what happens then?
The Pentagon grants Northrop an exemption to buy Chinese stuff because USA doesn't manufacture that stuff any more.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Covalent on Friday October 30 2015, @10:15PM
I concur.
We pay so much for our military that our military budget alone could easily run a continent.
That's horrifying.
I'm not saying no military. What I am saying is that having enough military power to kill everyone just one time is probably enough.
We could cut taxes in half or give every child a stable, comfortable life with healthcare and education for free...or maybe even both, just by agreeing to the idea that there is such a thing as too much power.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @09:49AM
enough military power to kill everyone just one time
Across how many thousands of miles of ocean does USA have to project power to accomplish that?
What exactly did the other guys do to piss off USA?
Did they conduct an attack inside the territorial waters of the USA or attack one of USA's numerous colonial possessions?
...or (more likely) did they say NO to another of USA's overt attempts at hegemony somewhere on the other side of the world?
Y'know, at one of the more than 800 USA military outposts in 135 countries across the globe.
...or was it due to another of USA's numerous covert attempts at regime change.
The problem with having a standing military (as our 1st president knew all too well) is that you then have to find something for it to do.
The bigger that standing military is, the greater the temptation to use it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @10:35PM
...and who do you think is buying up all of USA's gov't bonds?
USA's ever-more-impoverished working class?
Nope. It's the Chinese again.
Wrong http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/business/economy/no-surprise-fed-was-biggest-buyer-of-treasuries-in-2013.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
While this is just two years old, it appears that the top 3 were:
1. The Federal Reserve
2. Japan (71.3bn to the Fed's 543bn)
3. China (A "measly" 48.5bn)
The argument that we're owned by TEH CHINESE is just reactionary bullshit. The problem isn't that we're spending money so much as what we're spending it on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @09:53AM
I notice China in the top 3 buyers on your list.
I also notice the absence of of any mention of Joe Average.
What I said--as far as that went--is accurate.
Now, there -was- a time when USAian workers were buying War Bonds and Savings Bonds and T Bills.
These days? Not so much.
Joe Average is having a tough time just putting food on the table.
The slimy bankers? Yeah, they're trying to prop up Larry Summers' version of Capitalism for all they're worth.
...and if USA implodes, Japan will start militarizing again.[1]
As such, their concern is very clear.
[1] ...if PM Abe hasn't already gotten that into high gear.
-- gewg_