Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Picks Northrop Grumman For Next Gen Bomber (theatlantic.com)
retroworks writes: The B-52s currently in use have been flown by three generations of American Air Force pilots. B1s and B-2 Bombers are also long in the tooth. The Pentagon has been looking for a new model to replace them, and Northrop Grumman has won for the next half-century with a major new order for state-of-the-art bomber aircraft. The bomber will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and the contract is worth almost $60 billion. The Atlantic reports, "While the current fleet remains useful, the Air Force wants a bomber that can evade the advancing air defenses of Russia and China—if ever the need arises. The long-range bomber would act as a deterrent against actions designed to keep U.S. forces out of a designated area—what the military calls 'anti-access aerial denial.'"
Here we have 100 bombers delivered under contract for the cost of developing the F-35 with no aircraft delivered. I wonder if it will actually happen tho...
I'd say it was easily doable if it was a B-52 style 'bomb truck', perhaps even being supersonic like the B-1.
But if it has to survive against modern air defenses that means stealth AND speed. I'm thinking of something like a supersized F-22 or 35.
As such, I'm with Richard - 100 craft delivered for less than the cost of F-35 development? Even if it's just scaling up a F-35, I don't see it happening.
I don't read AC A human right
Various sources around the net speculate that this thing is already flying for some years now. Developed as a black program, this announcement would serve only to declassify it. One wonders how many $$$ already went into it ...
she used to be the bomb.
... if Russia and China announced new attack planes that were designed with the specific purpose that they couldn't be kept out of American airspace...
We've already got two bombers vastly more advanced than the B-52, both specifically designed to easily nuke Russia. First the (supersonic) B-1B from the 1980s, and also the (stealth) B-2 from the 1990s. But they just keep using those old dammed B-52s everywhere...
If anyone has a dammed good reason those two are pieces of crap, and a new bomber is necessary, I'd love to hear it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, to eliminate most healthcare, you have to eliminate ageing. Cancer is not a hunger related disease, nor is Alzheimers. Only somewhat cardiac. It is alleged that 50% of health spending is in the last six months of life. Hunger is a major problem, and hunger has health consequences. But it is not the major driver for healthcare demand.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Instead of building fighter planes, we spend that money on feeding the poor, educating people with no options for education, and providing infrastructure to help those who lack even running water, let alone electricity, internet, or other amenities of modern life?
I thik it's NorthrOp not NorthrUp.
La culpa no es del chancho...
given the rising threat of China and Russia. B-3 bombers freely roaming their heavily defended airspace and dropping massive ordinance is a reassuring thought.
Actually there are. You don't have to leave the USA to find many pockets of 3rd world country living.
Scale it up to a bomber? It barely scales up to a fighter!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yes, we do. Bombers get old. And we no longer have the capability of building B-52's. The assembly line is long since gone to wherever old assembly lines go when they stop making something.
Since the B-52 is pre-interwebs and mostly pre-computer, recreating the ability to manufacture B-52's is likely to be even more expensive than designing a new bomber from scratch, even ignoring that we want stealth and other fun things in a new bomber.
Note that the B-1 and B-2 suffer some of the same problems - not making them anymore means recreating the ability to make them with modern machine tools may be as hard as or harder than starting a new bomber from scratch.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I guess you could detect a radar shadow of cm waves coming from a satellite.
There are potentially techniques to fight this though. There are the metamaterial invisibility "cloaks", also with lots of phased arrays on the bottom of the plane you might be able to detect the incoming radiation on top and relay it to the bottom.
BS. Education transforms lives and enables the poor to become producers within society. In fact, the reason for most poverty is the lack of education I. The first place. Furthermore, there should be no starvation or death by curable disease in the richest country on earth. Certain things should be provided to all when are basking in abundance.
I kind of assumed the GGP is not a sociopath. Stop projecting your deficiencies on others.
The bomber will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons
You mean like virtually every bomber manufactured after we stopped using wood and cloth for airframes?? You don't say! ;)
I checked the links and there isn't even an artist's rendering of a proposed design!
Just weld some bomb releases on that badboy and let it do it. It will be cost efficient having only one airplane model
It's also a bomber. A suicide bomber.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Yes, we do. Bombers get old. And we no longer have the capability of building B-52's. The assembly line is long since gone to wherever old assembly lines go when they stop making something.
Since the B-52 is pre-interwebs and mostly pre-computer, recreating the ability to manufacture B-52's is likely to be even more expensive than designing a new bomber from scratch, even ignoring that we want stealth and other fun things in a new bomber.
Note that the B-1 and B-2 suffer some of the same problems - not making them anymore means recreating the ability to make them with modern machine tools may be as hard as or harder than starting a new bomber from scratch.
No we don't. The point he was making is the old bombers we have now murder just fine.
Fortunately, there are almost no people like that in the US, despite fabricated horror stories by people with selfish political and economic motives
Do you live in a small town? Or do you live in a city and just never go outside? Or have you actually become blind to homeless people or the parts of cities in shambles?
East Coast, West Coast, all cities have parts that are either in dilapidated housing or have no housing at all. Even Minneapolis and St. Paul up north in MN have huge homeless populations as well as those without adequate housing amenities.
The headline is certainly prescient: This may indeed be the plane that will bomb the next generation
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
What could they want that an "evolution" B2 couldn't be? The other option is something like what the US almost built 45 years ago—the XB-70. The B1 was always a boondoggle and only has a very narrow effective mission profile (terrain-hugging approaches). The B2 wasn't used in a number of battles because it was so expensive and there were so few that it wasn't worth the risk of losing one. Nope, attacking with a large number of cheap drones—not necessarily remotely piloted—is the method that will work in the future. Overwhelm defenses, not fight them on their terms.
60,000,000,000 could buy you a LOT of drones. So what if they aren't all that stealthy or fast or whatever. Send 10,000 of them.
Rather than have one bomber carrying lots of bombs, that might get taken down by AA measures, have MANY bombers, with a few bombs, overwhelming defenses. Make 'em cheap. Lose a bunch, who cares, no pilots to die. Also makes the enemy use up their ariel weaponry for the next wave etc...
There is no "that money"; we are running a huge deficit, and this is just placing a burden on future generations.
Don't worry, eventually we won't be able to make the minimum payments on the national credit card, and then the party will be over. Then the big corps will move on to some other country to rape and the U.S will turn into a 3rd-world country.
The party won't last forever, people. Eventually the credit will run out and the bills will come due. Let's see how long our great military power lasts when our noble soldiers and the contractors who supply them start getting paid in dollars that are worthless.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
WWII mentality. We have a bunch grown kids up at the defense department playing soldier. Unfortunately China and Russia seem to have the same problem.
The number of people without running water or electricity in the USA is incredibly small. Internet, we're working on.
Oh, you meant in other countries? Why not lobby those governments to provide these vital services for their citizens?
I'm sorry... I thought you were asking us to stop acting like the policemen-- or bullies-- of the world, by shrinking our army and ending our interventionist policies. So it turns out that you still want our money. Well, my tax money goes to provide for the general welfare of the USA. To do otherwise is interventionist, and also against our fundamental principle of no taxation without representation. If we don't get to demand that the corrupt dictators of failed states change their policies and act according to the needs and will of their people, then no government assistance will be given them.
The people of the United States are not a wallet. If you want to perform charity work, donate time and money to a charity organization.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"we are running a huge deficit"
by choice. We could easily balance the budget, like we did in the 90's, through prudent tax increases.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We already have well-funded social programs for those issues. They date back to the 1930s. More money isn't the answer.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So those cities have no governments? And the states in which they reside have no governments? And there are no charities like Habitat for Humanity?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
From a HUD report:
"In January 2014, 362,163 people experienced
homelessness as individuals "
"here were 216,261 homeless people in families
on a single night in January 2014, accounting
for 37 percent of all homeless people"
approx. 500k homeless total, 30% unsheltered. see https://www.hudexchange.info/r...
approximately 7.8 pct of households have unsafe drinking water. From http://www2.census.gov/program...
I am ashamed and so should you.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
That and, if such a system existed, we'd simply take out the satellite long before we were sending manned bombers over there. We can target a satellite from the deck of a ship that's floating on the water - with all the movement that entails and all the accuracy that requires. If such exists, we know about it. We'll defeat that long before sending bombers over. It will be much like how we'll sit off-shore and fire missiles that target static radar platforms before sending in the stealthy planes. We're pretty stupid but we've got killing people pretty well figured out.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The mission of this aircraft is idiotic. If we use this thing to bomb Russia or China we get nuclear war. Period. As such, the mission of any long range stealth bomber's can be achieved equally well by our simply nuking ourselves. Since we already can do that now, let's cut the USAF budget by $60B and declare "Mission Accomplished".
Here's sense: if I were king of the land, I'd stop all F-35 production. Its hugely expensive and not necessary. It doesn't even dog fight. The A-10 is the single most effective machine against ground troops. Upgrade those. And the V-22? Gone. Replace those with the Apache program that it killed. Bombers are passe, we don't need 'em. Replace those with cruise missiles which can be carried by subs, ships, and other planes, and at 1/10th the cost of a bomber, or less. Put the money in those and drones and you have a highly effective air power at a fraction of the cost. We DO NOT NEED A NEW BOMBER. We have an array of technological new weapons that can completely replace any notion of a bomber. They're simply not necessary.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
We have a huge homeless population in San Francisco, I can attest to that. They have shelters here, but apparently those are a horror show in and of themselves. A lot of the homeless refuse to use them.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Are you being serious? The Osprey and the Apache are entirely different, the Osprey is a people-hauler and the Apache is a gunship, so cancelling the Osprey gets nothing really. Cruise missiles can't replace bombers for any serious conflict since they cost a million or so per shot, while a bomber can carry hundreds of smart bombs that can be targeted on the fly and cost only a few tens of thousands a piece.
Are you being serious?
I know. Those are the fact. The reasons for cancelling the Apache given were the funds were needed for the Osprey. Go figure. It had nothing to do with "replacing" the apache. And I do believe cruise missiles can replace bombers. You haven't convinced me.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
The median hourly compensation has fallen in the last 40 years while productivity has more than doubled.
The rich have doubled their ownership, CEO pay has tripled or more.
A basic education is now out of reach for many, and globalization and rampant immigration have mostly annihilated upwards mobility.
You're right, the safety nets established 80 years ago are now ineffective. Time for something much more disruptive.
I might agree with the F-35 stoppage, but I'd prefer that they fixed the dogfighting aspects of it. We need fifth generation attack fighters that work.
The A-10 is great, but it does one thing very, very well. If it was a choice of keeping it and a a *working* F-35, I'd take the F-35. As the F-35 seems flawed, I certainly don't want to drop the A-10 yet, but I can understand why we don't want to maintain two strike platforms.
I disagree entirely about bombers, though. Bombers carry cruise missiles too. A lot of them. And, in a war with a first rate power, you're going to need overwhelming bombing capacity to overwhelm more advanced air defenses and attack more targets.
Of course, in a low threat environment like most of the wars have been recently, the B-52 has been fine because we almost always have air dominance about 8 hours into a campaign. That's not going to happen in a war with a more advanced power.
This is not the end of history. We will eventually fight another major war with an advanced power. Due to a nuclear deterrent, this will be a touchy matter, and it is likely that neither side will be able to attain an unconditional surrender from the other because of that deterrent.
However, to win that war with its more limited objectives, we'll likely need to take and hold strategic locations that are far from the US. For that, you don't want to have to keep sending sorties of fighter/bombers. You need bombers that can do the job just like the B-17s and B-25s did the job in WWII.
Right, because the history of countries which ignore their defense has been so positive.
Sounds like a minuscule problem, there are 300m people in the US. The question is, why are they homeless. When you look into that you might find that it is mental illness and/or drug addiction. No matter what you do for those people, they will remain homeless. Unless you are advocating for institutionalizing people against their will, which is essentially the opposite of freedom.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Thankfully I don't NEED to convince you.
If you wanted something like the B-52, but newer, you could start with the Freight version of the 747 or 787, I suppose. Just add a few doors in the bottom, and buttons or levers to open them, and you're essentially done.
Which already puts you in the $250 to $400 million dollar range without even all the military electronics and communications. Estimated price list for Boeing: http://www.statista.com/statis...
The United States never was credibly at threat of an actual invasion during WWI or WWII, unless you mean small Alaskan Islands or maybe Hawaii. That didn't prevent us from needing bombers.
If it gets to the point where someone can actually threaten to invade the US, we're already in an incredibly dire position. You'd have to have bases to launch a campaign from which probably means either Canada or Mexico. To get to that point, the world order would have had to have changed enough so that you could actually get an enemy into either of those two countries.
The point is, do not make every program be justified by the need to repel an invasion defensively. We're more likely to be defeated by cutting us off from world trade than we would be from an actual attack on the mainland. To prevent that scenario, we need to maintain our interests overseas. If you don't understand that, your strategic thinking is stuck somewhere in the mid 19th Century.
Providing available mental health care would be a real good start.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You'd need an awful lot of detectors because the plane would have to fly directly overhead. You could maybe do it the other way, with a satellite detecting a radar shadow from lots of emitters, but I would think it would be easier (nowhere near easy) to detect the actual shadow against background street lighting.
Considering that an F-16 is "capable of carrying nuclear weapons", that's not all that impressive in a bomber.
sic transit gloria mundi
"While the current fleet remains useful, the Air Force wants a bomber that can evade the advancing air defenses of Russia and China—if ever the need arises"
Since the end of the cold war, the US military industrial complex have been desperately in search of a new bogeyman to scare the American people and justify its huge budget.
Is lack of running water a significant problem in the U.S.? Where? How much?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The definition of poor in the US is an absolute joke. There is a good reason why so many illegal immigrants sneak across the border, US poor is much better living then 3rd world poor.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
But...... that wouldn't make as much money....
Many people are homeless because there are no free apartments near the parts of town they want to live at. They want the activity or drug that they can only get there. Drag them outside of town and place them in a nice apartment and by morning they will be gone, back into the city. Now sure, you could build those apartments in the back alleys they prefer but that is very expensive real estate.
We had a surplus in 2001. Before Bush's tax cuts and stupid war in Iraq.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We'd already be in the process sending bombers over to bomb them. (Which is why we'd be shooting down their satellite.) I'm pretty sure that's a foregone conclusion, at that point.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If you don't understand that I was responding only to the quoted passage at the beginning of my comment your English skills are woefully deficient.