Why are we building a new bomber?

Velocity173 said:
Because it's Northrop. They build great planes. :D

No doubt our MIC is in full effect but do we sacrifice our defense because we have a system designed to profit contractors and lobbyists? Just tell the contractors they're charging us too much for too little? Like telling a civilian aviation company we won't pay $900 for a magneto that costs peanuts to make. It's the way things have always been and always will be. They've got us by the ***** and they know it. Greed.
Click to expand...

Boeing just lost the contract to build this new bomber, after spending how many billions? and now like the old Grumman company stands a good chance of not playing this game again.
Companies that have no staple product can't play this bidding process, because it simply costs too much with no return on their investment.
 
Henning said:
The concept that there must be a loser is a false premise, there is enough for everyone to live a good life and have fun; be fed and enjoy themselves. The only reason we have losers is because we choose to take advantage of each other rather than take care of each other. When you sieve through all the religions and philosophies you find one common denominator, the only real mandate mankind has is "Be kind and take care of each other." We utterly and completely fail at that.
Click to expand...
That's a nice idea but a fantasy, given human nature. We are wired to be a certain way, especially by the time we are adults, and have less free will than most of us would like to believe.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Why do you think it will be any different than the current F35 debacle? Your reaction is what defense lobbyists dream about. Flag waving ain't gonna get it. Common sense is.
Click to expand...

Okay,

So what is your solution?
 
Everskyward said:
That's a nice idea but a fantasy, given human nature. We are wired to be a certain way, especially by the time we are adults, and have less free will than most of us would like to believe.
Click to expand...

It works in homogeneous countries. Diversity reduces trust among everyone, not just different groups. Give each race it is own country to build(or not) according to their culture and DNA and they will take of themselves(according to their culture and DNA.) Mix everybody up and you get no end to the wars.
 
Velocity173 said:
Rainbows and unicorns. This thread was never about a bomber. It's about expressing how well off the world would be without wars.
Click to expand...

The world would be better off without wars but IMO that is unrealistic. If we don't keep our military strong we will be invaded. We have done too many things to countries not to be.

Cutting edge technology takes time and mistakes. Do you remember how many people were complaining about how much money was being spent on the B-2 and how it couldn't fly at first? Well now it is one of the best military airplanes in the sky today.
 
Phoenix said:
It works in homogeneous countries. Diversity reduces trust among everyone, not just different groups. Give each race it is own country to build(or not) according to their culture and DNA and they will take of themselves(according to their culture and DNA.) Mix everybody up and you get no end to the wars.
Click to expand...
Aren't we talking about wars between countries? The thread is about a new bomber. It's probably a good thing that countries have diversity within themselves. That would cause a reluctance to bomb their kin in another country.
 
FloridaPilot said:
The world would be better off without wars but IMO that is unrealistic. If we don't keep our military strong we will be invaded.
Click to expand...
We are being invaded. Matter of fact we are paying them to invade and outbreed us. Self genocide for whitey. Just what is. Never mind the bombers, build fences. If Canada gets uppity we can take them, we've taken Mexico three or four times, sensibly we just end up giving Mexico back.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Henning,

With all due respect, (Just trying to clarify here) when you write: "Take care of each other" exactly what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Everybody is fed, watered, and sheltered. We need to make sure every human is cared for at least how well we expect a pet to be cared for. Human's also need opportunity to be productive. It's all very doable, we can fix every problem that society has quite simply by a change in thought and perception. We have everything required technologically to thrive and move off the planet. We don't have the resources available though because we mandate that our resources are used to the best interest of the stock holder. All that's required is to change that mandate to best interest of our species; lo and behold when you do that you also symbiotically self address environmental and ecological concerns as well.

It's like sailing, you can sail into the wind or with the wind to get to your destination on a sphere. One way beats the crap out of everyone and is expensive due to the high natural resistance to progress. The other way is a sled ride, and even though the distance may be longer, you get where you're going faster, comfortably, have a fun exciting run, and in the end spend less to get more.

As long as 2/3rds of the planet has insufficient access to food and clean water, as long as we tolerate institutional spread of misery and suffering to maintain access to cheap consumer goods, we are utterly and completely to any sense or standard failing to be decent human beings worthy of the planet we occupy.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, war is sort of societal "need". Frankly, I think its the leader's fault. But in some ways its like blaming the red ants for battling the black ants. I mean, they are just being ants. Its a sad state of affairs. Raise your hand if you think there is ever going to be another war.

The thing I object to. We have bombers. They will suffice. They arent the type aircraft needed in todays wars. MAD is over. The US rules now. NO ONE can take us on equally. Now its all about assymetrical warfare (terrorism). Highly accurate targeting. Like the bomb goes down the smokestack, takes a right hand turn and heads for the boiler. Sees a known terrorist along the route and diverts to blow him up. Ya gotta be IMPRESSED!

Theyve got some electromagnetic weapons that would blow their minds. Literally. Brains give off electromagnetic radiation from varying voltage in the nervous system and brain cell activity. The signal to noise ratio has gotten so high that they can detect that. YIKES! Its well PAST 1984 folks. Hope the leaders can keep the lid on.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
How???
Click to expand...

Help fund it. It's a proof of concept model to demonstrate that our natural resources can be more effectively and efficiently used by society, to fund society and generate multiple revenue streams as well as provide opportunity to everyone to be a productive participant at some level through agriculture.

Food and water... those are the big issues, and we can generate a whole lot of both using what we consider now to be the waste products of our energy and social systems. We can also create a parallel economy that makes this one irrelevant.

Donate, get your church to donate. There is nothing that is impossible, just what we believe is impossible.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/urban-agriculture-and-energy--2/x/10003213#/
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Help fund it. It's a proof of concept model to demonstrate that our natural resources can be more effectively and efficiently used by society, to fund society and generate multiple revenue streams as well as provide opportunity to everyone to be a productive participant at some level through agriculture.

Food and water... those are the big issues, and we can generate a whole lot of both using what we consider now to be the waste products of our energy and social systems. We can also create a parallel economy that makes this one irrelevant.

Donate, get your church to donate. There is nothing that is impossible, just what we believe is impossible.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/urban-agriculture-and-energy--2/x/10003213#/
Click to expand...

I wouldn't invest in it or send any money. It looks like a scam so someone gets a 93 acre property in upstate NY that was crowdfunded.

I'm partial to this company, which makes hydrogen generators and fuel cells. You'd do better buying their stock. It's proven technology, they sell it now.
http://www.teledyneenergysystems.com/
Parent company is Teledyne. Full disclosure: I work for Teledyne.
 
Why would I scam for a 93 acre property in BF New York? Please invest in that company, the co-op will probably be negotiating equipment from them if they have good gear. One of the major factors of this program is to develop companies like that into major producers of main line gear. I want people to know that these companies and equipment exists. This is about developing the economy and infrastructure that adds value to the hydrogen to make it the most economically beneficial transport energy source. It's about showing the social efficiency of allocating natural resources to the good of mankind rather than the good of the markets. It's about demonstrating a better model of resource management that leaves people with a lot more recreational time and capability under a cooperative model. It's basically a live test of Nash's Equilibium. We gave it a bunch of awards, but never really ever tried it in a situation to affect society for the better, instead we used it as justification to reverse anti trust sentiment and laws.

If you think it's a scam, so be it, but you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Hennings retirement estate being crowd funded.:D

So finding this pilot property gets the average citizen what? Your energy plans involve supplying free electricity to the surrounding town, state, country?
 
Actually, it would end up as everyone's retirement fund, as well as eliminate the system of funding society through taxes, letting natural resources fund it directly. The best way to assure you are taken care of is to make sure everyone is taken care of, then you can't not be.
 
So once again. I invest in this project, what do I get? It's a good Greenpeace sales pitch on the website but doesn't provide any definitive facts on what the property will be benefiting other than single mothers and ex-cons. Not sure how those two groups got priority over me but whatever. Does this program lower my electric bills down in GA or is it only affecting the people in NY? Is this project going to power the AF's next generation bomber or not? Because I can tell you, hydrogen has been tried before and it ain't going to work. What happens when this property if you don't come through with the promise of creating this new found energy source?

In reality, you want us to fund your "survivalist heaven."

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80143
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Why would I scam for a 93 acre property in BF New York? Please invest in that company, the co-op will probably be negotiating equipment from them if they have good gear. One of the major factors of this program is to develop companies like that into major producers of main line gear. I want people to know that these companies and equipment exists. This is about developing the economy and infrastructure that adds value to the hydrogen to make it the most economically beneficial transport energy source. It's about showing the social efficiency of allocating natural resources to the good of mankind rather than the good of the markets. It's about demonstrating a better model of resource management that leaves people with a lot more recreational time and capability under a cooperative model. It's basically a live test of Nash's Equilibium. We gave it a bunch of awards, but never really ever tried it in a situation to affect society for the better, instead we used it as justification to reverse anti trust sentiment and laws.

If you think it's a scam, so be it, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

People already know Teledyne exists. And other companies that make similar products. They make enough money that they stay in business.

The economy is too complex to be modeled by Nash'e equilibrium, so the experiment proposed really won't say much.

When fuel cells powered by natural gas, or hydrogen provide a better profit than what power generators use now, the power generators will change over to that technology. One of the reasons for using natural gas (and this opens another mix of economics and politics).
 
Henning said:
Actually, it would end up as everyone's retirement fund, as well as eliminate the system of funding society through taxes, letting natural resources fund it directly. The best way to assure you are taken care of is to make sure everyone is taken care of, then you can't not be.
Click to expand...

That is exactly right Henning!

But you are going to have to take this a bit further than the people at POA. If you want some serious funding you have to see Angel Investors, VC's...etc People that will invest in your dream, you will get rejected....a lot. IF you really believe in this dream you cannot let lack of funding stop you. If someone doesn't like the idea...NEXT!

I may or may not agree with you about what you are doing but I applaud you because you are doing SOMETHING. Instead of sitting back complaining about what could be. Keep up the good work!
 
Velocity173 said:
So once again. I invest in this project, what do I get? It's a good Greenpeace sales pitch on the website but doesn't provide any definitive facts on what the property will be benefiting other than single mothers and ex-cons. Not sure how those two groups got priority over me but whatever. Does this program lower my electric bills down in GA or is it only affecting the people in NY? Is this project going to power the AF's next generation bomber or not? Because I can tell you, hydrogen has been tried before and it ain't going to work. What happens when this property if you don't come through with the promise of creating this new found energy source?

In reality, you want us to fund your "survivalist heaven."

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80143
Click to expand...

$1000 buys a share in the co-op and share of the proceeds there of. I don't want a survivalist heaven, this life sucks bad enough.
 
Henning said:
Everybody is fed, watered, and sheltered.
Click to expand...

Making some one dependent upon you, does not help those who are.

There is now a whole generation of welfare dependent people who do not know how to work, care for them selves, they will fill the killing fields when this country fails.

Just like the 250,000,000 that Lennon killed when he took over Russia.

IMHO this bomber is not needed, or wanted by the military, but it will be built on the pretense of jobs, when we don't really need this type of job.
 
Tom-D said:
Making some one dependent upon you, does not help those who are.

There is now a whole generation of welfare dependent people who do not know how to work, care for them selves, they will fill the killing fields when this country fails.

Just like the 250,000,000 that Lennon killed when he took over Russia.

IMHO this bomber is not needed, or wanted by the military, but it will be built on the pretense of jobs, when we don't really need this type of job.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make them dependent on you, it provides an opportunity to be productive when no one else does. It's no different than your relationship with the military.
 
Buckminster Fuller had the same ideas but despite a lifetime devoted to it nothing ever happened. He wrote books, he invented things, he got funding. Most people don't much care about the big picture outside of themselves and their individual accumulation of "wealth"

How you're gonna change that :dunno:

Good luck though
 
Henning said:
It doesn't make them dependent on you,
Click to expand...

That's one of the biggest liberal lies.

Other wise we wouldn't have welfare dependent people who will not work.
 
Henning said:
It doesn't make them dependent on you, it provides an opportunity to be productive when no one else does. It's no different than your relationship with the military.
Click to expand...

My relationship with the military was based upon a work relation, I guess you don't know what that means.

Nothing in this world is free, except maybe your ramblings
 
Silvaire said:
Buckminster Fuller had the same ideas but despite a lifetime devoted to it nothing ever happened. He wrote books, he invented things, he got funding. Most people don't much care about the big picture outside of themselves and their individual accumulation of "wealth"

How you're gonna change that :dunno:

Good luck though
Click to expand...

By demonstrating that wealth is not necessary for recreation. Think if you wanted to use a plane or a boat, or even a race car, you just go use it as part of your co-op membership. Most people don't really care about being wealthy as long as they are enjoying life. You don't need money to enjoy life, you need access to resources. The model under which we allocate and manage resources is hugely inefficient, we can do way better by sharing our toys.
 
You know Henning it only takes a handful of asshats to cancel out the knoble intentions of the majority. Next thing you know you've got enforcers and some guy is getting sued for setting the burning man on fire. :rolleyes:
 
All you really need in life is about 93 acres, a nice house with a hanger and a grass strip to fly an LSA off of.:D
 
Silvaire said:
You know Henning it only takes a handful of asshats to cancel out the knoble intentions of the majority. Next thing you know you've got enforcers and some guy is getting sued for setting the burning man on fire. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not if you make them irrelevant, and give everyone a gun. The Asshat gene will breed out of the population in a generation or two. Anarchy is the only way to achieve a peaceful and productive society, and guns assure that the majority has the strength to win. That's why we have the Second Ammendment. The forecourt sized community plays well, and your neighbors are free to judge you on your actions. Without complete regards to free will, mankind cannot be what we are to be. Rule of law quashes free will, therefor always produces a sick society. The other thing rule of law does is bars human communication by settling grievances in place of the aggrieved. We now have the technology that our historic system of resource allocation is destroying our society.
 
I realize that many of us figure that we don't really need a military at all except for Air Force One.

Why not divert that money to California's high speed rail to nowhere and college gender studies departments?

I hope you guys are right about that. I disagree.

For those of us who do think there is some utility to having a military it is not unreasonable to fund a new bomber every 30 to 40 years.

This new bomber is going to be small compared to the B-1/2/52, probably only two engines and 2500 nm of range, rather than the ~7000nm range of the B-2. It's probable that this new bomber will be a follow on to the Northrup RQ-180 family of LO drones. It may even be optionally manned. A 21st century FB-111? :goofy:

The big technical driver is the proliferation of VHF band radars that have very significant detection capabilities against current low observable penetrating bombers.

Unlike the highly customized software architectures of the F-22 and F-35, the new bomber will be designed to have a modern flexible architecture so that hardware and software can be maintained, upgraded, and fixed with far less engineering effort

The new bomber is being managed by the USAF Rapid Capabilities Office, the fine folks who brought you the F-117, Orbital X-37B, and much more black equipment.

This new bomber program has a decent chance of success, and if we need an Air Force, we need a new bomber.
 
JimNtexas said:
I realize that many of us figure that we don't really need a military at all except for Air Force One.

Why not divert that money to California's high speed rail to nowhere and college gender studies departments?

I hope you guys are right about that. I disagree.

For those of us who do think there is some utility to having a military it is not unreasonable to fund a new bomber every 30 to 40 years.

This new bomber is going to be small compared to the B-1/2/52, probably only two engines and 2500 nm of range, rather than the ~7000nm range of the B-2. It's probable that this new bomber will be a follow on to the Northrup RQ-180 family of LO drones. It may even be optionally manned. A 21st century FB-111? :goofy:

The big technical driver is the proliferation of VHF band radars that have very significant detection capabilities against current low observable penetrating bombers.

Unlike the highly customized software architectures of the F-22 and F-35, the new bomber will be designed to have a modern flexible architecture so that hardware and software can be maintained, upgraded, and fixed with far less engineering effort

The new bomber is being managed by the USAF Rapid Capabilities Office, the fine folks who brought you the F-117, Orbital X-37B, and much more black equipment.

This new bomber program has a decent chance of success, and if we need an Air Force, we need a new bomber.
Click to expand...

Why? We have land, submarine, and surface ship missiles fully nuclear capable with the capacity to end all humanity and most life on earth. Why do we need another bomber? Regardless how many cool bombers we build, we remain impotent in our power. We couldn't beat Vietnam wit conventional bombs, we can't beat radical Islam with them either, we sure as hell aren't going to beat China, no chance in hell, not without going nuke, and we already won't do that and they know it, so why do we keep spending money pretending? Is ego really that important? The best way to manage both China and Islam is by being their chief food supplier. Eisenhower warned us not to buy into this lie, Kennedy warned us not to buy into this lie, Carter tried to reign it in. The Presidents with military leadership experience all have been against this crap, as were the founders. It's time to quit throwing good money after bad and admit we were played for suckers. It's time to change the game to one of production rather than consumption and gain real economic strength through the trade of actual resources instead of imagined money.
 
JimNtexas said:
...
Unlike the highly customized software architectures of the F-22 and F-35, the new bomber will be designed to have a modern flexible architecture so that hardware and software can be maintained, upgraded, and fixed with far less engineering effort
Click to expand...

good luck seeing that happen.

For decades I've heard about open architecture etc etc etc and yet we still see contractors managing to make the "open architecture" dependent on the original contractor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top