US earmarks billions for new bomber

Herald Sun ^ | 21 July 2006

[Quix]

I don't doubt it - that's why talk of building more conventional sounds more like a payoff to certain Congressmen and defense firms than a needed program.
= = = =

Reportedly, the Space Shuttle is the same sort of boondoggle, make works, smoke screen type of program.

But then some people insist we have had a bases on the moon and Mars for years, too.

God knows. Will be interesting to see what all's true and what's not.

[RightWhale]

You need a bomber that can identify a terrorist from the other side of the planet, fly to that location and drop red dye all over him--the kind the banks use.

[Quix]

and drop red dye all over him--the kind the banks use.
= = = =

Could we at least mix some itching powder with the red dye?

Maybe some poisonous Australian spiders?

SOMETHING?

[Lazamataz]

Somehow I think all these prognostications will come for naught. It will be unlike anything flying today.

I think it will look like this:

[lmailbvmbipfwedu]

>My beloved B-52 cannot go on forever

It can. They are rebuilt every 4 years. It seems to me that with the design being well understood, materials being reasonably cheap (old beer cans) that a production line could be built and have new B-52 rolling out at less cost as designing from scratch....

ex 424X1 (InFlight Refueling repairman)

[spetznaz]

I would like to see the U.S. build a fleet of at least 8,000 bombers that are triple the wingspan of the B-52, can travel around the world three times without refueling and that can drop over 800 two-ton bombs.

At the way the cost over runs have been flowing, plus the trend by congress to always cut airframes (eg the Raptor was originally supposed to be over 750, but now will be less than 200 - and due to the fewer airframes being built, each aircraft will be significantly more expensive than previously projected), and the way every successive generation gets more expensive; I'd say that by the time this bomber comes out Congress will probably approve only 2 of them. And one of those will be the test prototype!

Just look at the JSF. Once upon a time that thing was supposed to be a 'cheap' but very effective fighter. One time it was supposed to go for 40 mil. Now they say 60 mil. The cost overuns are still continuing, and by the time it is all said and done the plane will be overweight and considerably more expensive than it was intended to be (actually it is already both of those, it is just that it will probably head even more in that direction).

Anyways, I know this new bomber, when it comes out, will make the world gasp. When the F-117 came out it was amazing (and although it is 'old' for the US the rest of the world still has to come up with a Night Hawk analogue, whcih says something about the F-117). Then the B-2. And in the world of fighters the F-22 is simply without comparison. Thus this new bomber, whatever they decide it to be, will be a flying wet dream. Absolutely amazing.

The thing is you will be sure that the sabres and cutlasses will be swinging and slashing in Congress and the Pentagon as all sorts of camps and 'mafia' pop up all over the place.

[Centurion2000]

Redevelop the B-70 with todays technology.

Damn skippy idea there.

[Centurion2000]

I've been convincingly told that we have MORE THAN 11 DIFFERENT weapons systems more awesome and deadly than nukes.

How odd but I've heard the exact same thing.

[Quix]

Fascinating. How long ago?

I lost contact with my source decades ago.

[Little Ray]

Manned aircraft are so twentieth century. This is what they need:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/060716_popsci_switchblade.html

[rbg81]

Yeah, sure. I highly doubt it. Even if true, you'd have to test it to know it really works. That would give their presence away.

[RandallFlagg]

I'm actually hoping for these bombers soon.