Posted on 07/20/2006 5:16:22 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
THE US Air Force will earmark billions of dollars in its next five year budget plan to help meet the Pentagon's goal to develop a new long-range bomber by 2018.
The timetable was aggressive but achievable, given the new bomber would be likely to include technologies already under development by the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and the US aerospace and defence industry, an official said today.
"Substantial resources will be dedicated across the future years defence plan from 2008-2013 to get there," the official said.< "It will be billions."
Defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute said it would cost around $US20 billion ($26.7 billion) to develop and build a new bomber, unless it was based on an existing aircraft such as the Lockheed F-22 fighter jet.
The air force began a formal analysis of the alternatives for long range strike last October that could help shape the requirements for a future bomber competition.
Officials now plan to split the analysis into separate sections addressing the need for new long-range missiles, which could hit targets within a few hours, and the requirements for a next-generation bomber, which would be able to loiter over a given area for a longer time.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have already expressed interest in the bomber competition.
The idea of developing an F-22 bomber variant, first championed by former Air Force Secretary James Roche, was still being considered, Mr Thompson said.
The aircraft's radar-evading characteristics and its supersonic speed could be attractive features for a new bomber.
He predicted that the new bomber would be manned, despite increasing speculation about an unmanned aircraft that could be remotely piloted like the Predator flying missions over Iraq daily, or fly autonomous like the Northrop Global Hawk, which has also been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"No amount of software is going to allow you to cope with all the things that come up in combat. You need a real pilot," Mr Thompson said.
I don't think it was cold fusion either.
Though I have come across puzzle pieces that cold fusion does work and has some . . . benefits not evident in all the disinformation and squelching of the phenomenon in the MSM etc. I have no idea what those benefits are.
Ahhh.
Welll, my "gut," intuitive sense, has born out more often than not in a lot of esoteric and muddy fields of interest.
Of course, that could be 51% which would still allow for a lot of misses! LOL. Though most have said I tend to be 80-90% accurate, on average. I don't know. Don't keep track.
What reading would you suggest as most recent and most advanced in levels of disclosure and specific details?
Any particular websites?
B-chan
Dropout, Naval Nuclear Power School
NS Orlando (now defunct)
Oh, be careful about that. Somewhere out there in the world is the man who harbors the darkest secret.
He isn't happy.
Always word your wishes very, very carefully.
I have 0.0000000000000% doubt that you are 100% correct.
Thankfully, God has made very clear that all that's hidden will be brought to light.
Mercifully, Christ's Blood, Love and our confession and repentance covers a multitude of sins!
I want a bomber that has a ceiling of, say, 80,000 feet and can drop Rods From God on the miscreants of the world.
Yeah.
I'm quite willing to wait for God to uncover things in His ways and His times.
Especially the darker secrets.
Joke:
"How do you tell when a B-1 has flown over you?"
"By the trail of parts behind it."
It may console you to know that it is without a doubt this incident that was the basis of a Stargate SG1 episode.
The staging of the accident, the nature of things that occurred, lead me to believe that someone familiar with Slocum's fate wanted to create a dramatic incident on film that is in its way a tribute to his courage and intellect.
Explain. You can frepmail me if you want to keep any secrets.
Not really any more to explain.
That's all I was told.
It's just that my source was well known to me and worked in a position where he should have known such things.
I believed him then. I believe him now.
That was more than 30 years ago.
He was very sobered by what he knew. He considered at least some of such things to be quite hideous, evil, terrible in their effects. I deduced that more from his tone and the look on his face rather than words he shared.
He was wisely quite circumspect.
There's been another rather fantastic report by a supposedly highly placed General. I don't know what to make of it but my gut tells me it's more likely more true than not.
He declared that if we can imagine it, we have the technology to do it, now. And, that we are 50 years ahead of any other nation in our military and related technologies. Part of me hopes so. Part of me wonders. Part of me doesn't want the oligarchy to have that much power--though it clearly does at least approach that kind of power.
That puzzle piece is available somewhere on the web in the maze of UFO and related info sites.
It may surprise you to learn that I have not been specifically researching this matter. No websites to reference.
I glean bits of information from a variety of sources, and attempt to meld them into an understanding.
I think about the big bang, about nuclear reactions and matter-energy transformations, and about the ways in which energy gets captured and stored atomically.
I recognize that matter and energy are not very dissimilar things; that each has dimensions we can neither see nor measure with anything other than our minds.
Intrinsically, nuclear reactions are no more difficult to understand and deal with than are chemical ones. At some stage in man's development, God willing, nuclear energy will be as commonplace and as well understood as fire.
The same sense of imagination that lets me picture chemical reactions is the instrument I use to analyze the nuclear world around me.
Very impressive.
Interestingly, I do somewhat similarly but at many layers out from the technological understanding you have of the basic physics. You are way ahead of me on that score and so, probably are most high school physics students. LOL.
But I can grasp principles and basic dynamics fairly quickly and I synthesize and sort and combine bits of puzzle pieces fairly well--having been collecting them since 1960 from a wide diversity of sources.
I think one of the clues to developing this kind of advanced physics is the fact that in physics, everything is reversible.
The scattered particles can be brought together, the energy captured, and a new thing created.
I would suspect that the manner of dealing with high energy reactions is a kind of energy-level seive, that somehow captures and diverts the high energy into lower energy states, possibly ending as simple current flow.
Perhaps a kind of solar cell for cosmic rays.
Much to think on. Good Night!
Sounds plausible to me, a psychologist! LOL.
Heading for bed myself.
Thanks.
I Enjoy the chat with you.
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.
It sure is a beauty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.