So we are building new stealth bombers

[tsig]

Hopefully the adults will continue to build our defense so as to actually perform the duties the federal government is suppose to do.

Just who are we defending against?

 

[tsig]

The United States was never supposed to have a huge standing army in the first place. Aren't you a strict constitutionalist?

No republic has ever survived it's own standing army. The last conquest of the Roman legions was Rome.

 

[Ziggurat]

I doubt they will look like WWII.

Is there an echo in here? And what exactly is your point? Stealth was developed long after WWII, to deal with problems that didn't exist in WWII. If you're trying to argue against incorporating stealth into the B3, this statement doesn't really suffice.

 

[theprestige]

You mean the US planned to lose most of it's battleships right at the beginning?

I doubt they planned for that specifically. War Plan Orange was actually a series of plans, developed at a high strategic level, and adapted and updated over time as new technologies emerged and new doctrines were formulated.

The overall strategic plan, however, was relatively consistent in its contours and commitments over time. And from almost the very beginning, it was robust enough to succeed even in the face of such major setbacks as the loss of most of its battleships.

 

[Bogative]

How are you supposed to carpet bomb cities with drones?

We no longer have to carpet bomb cities because the military had the foresight to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars on "new toys" like laser guidance systems, GPS satellite guidance systems and stealthy weapons platforms.

 

[twinstead]

We no longer have to carpet bomb cities because the military had the foresight to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars on "new toys" like laser guidance systems, GPS satellite guidance systems and stealthy weapons platforms.

Makes sense, but looking around at this country's infrastructure, I wish they would have earmarked some of those billions to fix a few roads, bridges, railroads, and air traffic control systems

 

[Bogative]

21.4 billion for design and engineering? How much? Can someone break that down a little? It seems preposterous.

Does it? The 787 cost Boeing $32 billion to develop, that's 11 billion more than this new Stealth bomber, and that was just to build a better flying spam can.

Compare this to what the US is getting ready to spend to replace the presidential helicopter fleet. 23 helicopters are expected to cost $20 billion. And that's for helicopters that are already designed and have been flying for nearly 2 decades. Each helicopter will be around $400 million, more than a fully equipped A380.

 

[Bogative]

Makes sense, but looking around at this country's infrastructure, I wish they would have earmarked some of those billions to fix a few roads, bridges, railroads, and air traffic control systems

I don't mind spending money to develop and acquire the world's most advanced weaponry, but I do have a problem with other first world nations expecting us to pay for their defense.

I read last year that the United States still has squadrons of F-15s in Great Britain. The British have aircraft that are just as capable as the F-15 at providing air sovereignty and yet we are there doing the job for them against an enemy that no longer exists. It wouldn't surprise me if we are paying rent for using their airbases. No wonder they have more modern infrastructure and better social benefits than we do, we're paying for their protection.

 

[theprestige]

Makes sense, but looking around at this country's infrastructure, I wish they would have earmarked some of those billions to fix a few roads, bridges, railroads, and air traffic control systems

The federal government is spending $93 billion on transportation this year (source). So there's some billions earmarked for you. But somehow I suspect that no matter how many billions they'd earmarked, you'd still want more. Is there some minimum number of billions you'd accept, for national defense? Is there some maximum number of billions you require to arrange the national infrastructure the way you'd like it? Are there any other necessary federal programs you'd like to see cut, to make up whatever shortfall you assume exists? Are there any unnecessary federal programs you'd like to see eliminated, in favor of more infrastructure spending?

I assume you'd rather fund Planned Parenthood than air traffic control.

Anyway, I think that number may be a little misleading, since the states also contribute to infrastructure spending, but only the federal government can spend on national defense. Regarding railroads, there's also this:

In the U.S., virtually all rail networks and infrastructure outside the Northeast Corridor are privately owned by freight lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport#Ownership​

And this:

The main source of income for railway companies is from ticket revenue (for passenger transport) and shipment fees for cargo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport#Financing​

We might get a better picture if we knew the total infrastructure spending from federal, state, and private sources combined, but I'm having difficulty finding this data quickly.

In any case, current US military spending today is lower as a percentage of GDP, and federal tax revenues are higher, than in 1957. And in 1957 the federal government even had a small budget surplus. It may not actually be military spending that's killing the infrastructure budget.

 

[Noztradamus]

You're aware that drones are actually piloted by humans, right?

If we can build self driving cars programmed to to cope with any eventuality, then self flying drones that can choose their own targets should be a doddle.


The Watchbird is coming.

 

[theprestige]

The Watchbird is coming.

Which answers NoahFence's question about what's wrong with using drones.

 

[tyr_13]

The KC-X program being a prime example of that

That program was extremely useful at proving that sometimes white-collar crimes do deserve and receive jail time.

 

[Noztradamus]

That program was extremely useful at proving that sometimes white-collar crimes do deserve and receive jail time.

Nobody was jailed over the KC-X program

 

[Aepervius]

Or you could simply state what would convince you.

Anyway, if your rebuttal depends on undermining the authority, then you should probably get started on that. Right now you've just got begging the question on top of ad hominem.

But like I told quadraginta, I'm already assuming that you've rejected the authority. I'm already not even bothering to make an argument from that authority.

So let's move on: What would convince you?

Better yet how about you bring evidence that such capability is needed ? That at the moment the current stealth fighter and bomber are not enough ?

Also may I remind you that the US military made up the russian nuke capabilities back in the 50ies to justify building lotta nuke. It was a lie. They started the nuke race.

 

[Aepervius]

It's a fact that today a B-52 could not penetrate Iranian airspace unscathed. There is a floor to how low Iranian vulnerability can be. That floor will undoubtedly get higher over time. It makes sense to keep as much space between floor and ceiling as possible.

Firstly why would you send B52 in Iran ? Secondely Why not other type of long range missile ? Thirdly how much unscathed are we speaking ehre ? 5% ? Finally , why would the B52 go in without first having HARM missile or similar launched by F117 first, then go with B52 ?

Frankly this is an empty rethoric based on the fear mongering of the right wing about a nuke iran. The truth is , there is so many alternative and practically null reason to have B52 operate on a country like Iran.

 

[Aepervius]

Is there some minimum number of billions you'd accept, for national defense?

Yeah how about taking the 4 country which would have the most probability to clash with the US, say china, north korea, russia, iran, sum their military budget and take that as a ceiling ?

I would come to maybe 250 billion at most, being generous (210 billion is about china and russia military budget together).

Funny how the US military is always pretending to be out of date, and yet has always the most recent toys, with no indication that rivals which have at most less than a quarter of the same budget have greater capabilities. That probably comes down to the same type of intelligence lies than 3 post above "but they will shoot down a few of our plane" yeah how many country do not accept anything but 100% survival of their bomber or fighter in a mission ? The US is probably the only one pretending at this point by your own word that mybe some of their bomber might come not come back unscathed. BOOOHOOO.


Just admit you have a military erection for new toys and complete military domination even while you already have it.

 

[Travis]

Of course there will be corruption, incompetence, and waste--there always is.

But I think that to within an order of magnitude, the cost of this program can be entirely explained by the fact that the goal is to build some really cool stuff, and really cool stuff really does cost that much to build.

I'll concede that is true. Cool and transformative things do cost a lot. I try and try to explain that to people about the high speed train project while also noting the alternatives would cost even more.

So, yeah, cool stealth will not be cheap.

 

[SezMe]

Better yet how about you bring evidence that such capability is needed ? That at the moment the current stealth fighter and bomber are not enough ?

Thank you. It has been bugging me as I read this thread that theprestige keeps requesting evidence that we don't need the new bomber. That's not how it's supposed to work, thepretige.

The military is proposing this new, expensive program. It is not the burden of detractors to make the case against it, it is the burden of the advocates that it is necessary. Not nice. Not cool. No, necessary.

You (the prestige) have cited the many studies and how they have progressed up the chain of command and into congress. I agree that that is the best that can be offered. I mean, what else is there. Nevertheless, ALL of that chain grew up in, depends on and gets its rewards from such massive programs. Reading stories about attempts to kill the VTOL efforts made my hair curl. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is alive and well. And I don't trust it - at all.

 

[SezMe]

Yes. The B52 is a 60 year old design, the B2 is too expensive to operate for most missions, and stealth is basically a requirement for all new military aircraft now.

Indeed. Is there any reason to think the B3 won't befall to the same fate?

China is expanding its sphere of military influence in southeast Asia. This includes modern air defense systems. The ability to counter this expansion if China becomes belligerent is one of the guarantors to world peace. South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan (among many others) rely in large part on US military capability to safeguard their sovereignty and trade routes against Chinese expansionism.

I have two objections. First, what's wrong with China expanding its sphere of influence in southeast Asia? After all, we've expanded our sphere of influence to cover nearly the entire globe and we've done it in some pretty belligerent ways at times. Who elected us guardian of every corner of the globe? And who ran it past the constitution?

Second, so we're the umbrella for all those countries you mentioned plus the many others. Fine. How much are they pitching into the pot to pay for the new bomber? Nothing, you say? No wonder other countries have better quality of life than we do - we piss so much of our resources away on military junk that we can't sustain other, necessary functions. Remember the attempt to audit the DoD? It couldn't be done. I say they can have their new bomber when they can produce and MEET an auditable (apparently not a real word - should be) budget.

 

[smartcooky]

The US military had been planning for war with Japan, for fifty years before Pearl Harbor. For most of that time, the plans were not needed. But when they were needed, they were already mature, and the capability was ripe.

Yet they were caught with their pants around their ankles at Pearl Harbour and Wake Island!