|
Americas newest bomber!!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3035332.stm
I was on the BBC's website,and I saw this article,which is about the new unmaned bomber plane with supersonic speed that America is building.
I think it isscary,like how much more weapons America need??
how many more wars are expecting to see??
Iam not happy at all reading this.
:nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Skynet anyone? :wtf: |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| Jeez,surely there are more pressing issues that need to be spent money on than this? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Jeez,surely there are more pressing issues than need to be spent money on than this? |
Thats what Iam saying too,but looks like having the top of the line weapons is more important!!:rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Thats what Iam saying too,but looks like having the top of the line weapons is more important!!:rolleyes: |
Darpa puts new items on the drawing board all the time ... it's their job to think up future concepts in as much the same way as the Euro military, the Chinese, etc. Geez you all don't even know what kind of budget is assigned to this. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Darpa puts new items on the drawing board all the time ... it's their job to think up future concepts in as much the same way as the Euro military, the Chinese, etc. Geez you all don't even know what kind of budget is assigned to this. |
what kind of budget??I wanna know:nervous: |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Jeez, the money could be spent on more important things like poverty and the economy.... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
what kind of budget??I wanna know:nervous: |
Well the budget right now is a big fat $0.00. The bomber hasn't even entered the design or competition phase.
But ************ of how the armed forces decides to spend its money, its budget remains constant and set by congress. Instead of building a new bomber the army could spend it's money on peanuts and it would impact us just as much. So if you want less money spent on defense lobby congress! |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| yaya...another toy for Dubya to play with.......Seriosuly occrider, what the is the point of this new bomber? Why is it so important for the military to even DESIGN it? |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
yaya...another toy for Dubya to play with.......Seriosuly occrider, what the is the point of this new bomber? Why is it so important for the military to even DESIGN it? |
To ensure that the US is the ONLY superpower, duh :rolleyes: :D |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
To ensure that the US is the ONLY superpower, duh :rolleyes: :D |
that...it's the same reason why people get Hummers in a smal sub-urban town (like mine) It's becuase they've got small dicks, so they need this to make up for it. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
yaya...another toy for Dubya to play with.......Seriosuly occrider, what the is the point of this new bomber? Why is it so important for the military to even DESIGN it? |
Since when did I become spokesman for the pentagon hehe? Well ... I suppose I can hazard a guess as to the reasons for the new bomber. Much like the article said, one of the reasons would be to avoid the need for forward deployed air bases. If the US has sensitive intelligence where time is a critical factor, a hypersonic bomber can hit it almost immediately as opposed to waiting for air crews to take off ... fly a few hours to the target ... take hits from enemy anti-aircraft fire, and then brave it back to the outside border. From this standpoint, an unmanned bomber with such capabilities would appear to be very useful. Secondly, the article seems to indicate that even a light bomb travelling 10,000-13,000 miles an hour (the speed of the space shuttle or any other object orbiting the Earth) would be quite an effective bunker buster given the kinetic energy involved.
But as for why this is even news I have no freaking clue. Darpa cancels have the projects it has on the drawing board before it even goes from the planning phase to the design phase. Then if the competing companies aren't up to standards, projects are often cancelled then, then ... even if the project goes under development it stands a chance of being cancelled (the crusader program for example). I have no idea why this is in any way news except for the fact that it's a cool topic and hypersonic planes will probably be the wave of the future. |
|
|
|
|
