@windowi: If having weapons creates enemies, being unarmed will only make us a target.

Canthros

@Jesus Diaz: "As if throwing one nuclear bomb wasn't enough."

It isn't actually. If it were, we wouldn't still be using the B-52.

@Julien321: Here's hopin'.

Canthros

@scarbrtj: Yeeee haw!

Ridgerunner

More of my fuckin tax money pissed away on shit that is gonna wind up creating more enemies that want to kill us ... thanks government

windowi

@Optimus-Prime: @Dooosh: Damn damn damn.

LJN

@Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt:
How will they learn to fly, if they can't get into the bomber?

rexplex

@Dooosh: @LJN: Haha, well at least I beat LJN

Optimus-Prime

We need *another* bazillion dollar invisible bomber?

PastorDoodah

Needs to be at least 3 times this size.

LJN

Although you were more detailed so you get points anyways.

Dooosh

@Optimus-Prime: Wow... beat ya!

Dooosh

In the 10 to 20 year development to deploy time for a B3 we will likely switch to 100% UAV's for bomber missions.

Julien321

For some reason I really like how they shaped the air intakes for the engines...

J. Nadeau

Well boys, we've got three engines out, we've got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio's gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower, why we'd need sleighbells on this thing. But we've got one thing on those Russkies. At this height, why they might harpoon us, but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!

scarbrtj

@Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt: What is this? A stealth bomber for ants? How can we expect this to drop bombs if they can't even fit inside the plane?

The bomber has to be at least... three times bigger than this.

Optimus-Prime

@Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt: What is this a plane for ants?

Dooosh

@Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt: It's only a model.

(SHH!)

strider_mt2k

That thing is tiny, no?

Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt

What? No "Ant Overlord" jokes.....you folks are sliping.

I think I like Grummans look better. As for the UAV thng, I am SURE that there is some sort of UAV capabillity built into this design.

R2

rtwod2

@Julien321: I agree - UAV's are the future (removing pilots from risk, can sustain higher G-forces, don't fall asleep, don't need bathroom breaks, etc.).

That said, I think we have a LONG ways to go before people (i.e., the Pentagon) feel comfortable with a "model airplane" + multi-megaton nuclear bomb combination...

JacquesAss

@GizMadone: And we've just decited to keep them for anouth 4...

Dooosh

well.. we gotta stay ahead of those oil bearing countries equipped with home made explosives, camels, scud missles and russian surplus MiGs. an invasion isn't easy without a $2Billion plane.

fuzzymuffins

The likelihood of these things throwing nukes is obviously slim to none. What they bring to the table is the ability to carry shitloads of precision-guided conventional munitions to any conflict, anywhere, at will.

Jeb_Hoge

It will be fun to see photos of one of these refuelling from 75 year-old KC-135s.

GizMadone

I think we need to stop making more powerful and sophisticated weapons delivery systems, and make better use of the ones we've already got.

To paraphase Jack Handy.

jimothy

@Dooosh:
@Optimus-Prime:
I think you both win...and I'm pissed I didn't get to say it.

Ginsu

@eljefewatson: Duke Nukem would disagree.

zanella

Perfect for a stealth drop of Wii's to the local electronics store during the holidays!

zanella

$28 billion per copy and the best they come up with is mounting it on a beat up old wooden plaque from a garage sale. P'raps they're trying to save money.

Maybe this is prototype for a UAV carrying mininukes. Wait, mininuke. That's a contradiction in terms.

eljefewatson

@rtwod2: Everyone is too busy making Zoolander references to care about overlords.

Gas fight anyone?

Maxxofor

@windowi: As Bill Mahr Said: "They don't hate us for our freedom...They hate us for our airstrikes."

russdanger

@Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt: Interesting name. It made no sense to me till I said it out loud....

Curves

@JacquesAss: Yet hitting a bullet with a bullet (missle defense shield) is within they're reasonable expectation of reality?

How about intercontinental missiles? Are they not just a radio controlled UAV with a Nuke inside?

Jason

@scarbrtj: Oh how I love Dr. Strangelove...

MrPyro321

@PastorDoodah: And not even invisible since the "stealth" technology can be defeated by cell phone towers.

wjousts

@Curves: he's mike's brother...

sqeakytoy of the apocalypse

@fuzzymuffins: I love how everyone squawks about us invading for oil. Iraq is something like the #10 company we import oil from. Saudi is the only other arab country in the top 10. So, unless we're planning on invading Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela...

Elvisisdead

@wjousts: It's a good thing we have you around to enlighten the engineers at B/LM! There's no way they took into account dime-a-dozen technological threats.

Close call! *High five*

closhedbb

But can it be deployed from the underside launch bay of the new "Seaview" class nuclear submarines?

DarthSensate

Who are we going to bomb with these? Why can't the $500 billion budget be spent on something better, like TivoHD for every man, woman, and child? Jeez..

ddoughboy

@windowi: Your looking at this all wrong, weapons don't make enemies, stupid policies by politicians make enemies! @ddoughboy: No TV socialism for you!

Anyway, I doubt this thing will ever be built. Not just because UAV's are taking over, because I would have hoped we learned our lesson about overpriced bombers. Then again the Pentagon is still supporting the highest tech for a conventional war that will never come most likely (as long as we're vigilant anyway). The Pentagon should focus on the right balance between preparing for a conventional war and urban & guerilla warfare. Then again the Russians want to try again to keep pace with the US as far as military tech.

bbfreak

@windowi: "tax money pissed away on shit that is gonna wind up creating more enemies that want to kill us"

The only enemies this will create will be dead ones, you know, the good kind.

@eljefewatson: "Wait, mininuke. That's a contradiction in terms."

Why?

@russdanger: "As Bill Mahr Said"

Yeah, the great political philosopher. It's hatred first, then air strikes. Repeat as necessary.

GadgetPlay

meh. I don't like it that much. It looks like the bastard child of a Lear jet and a giant albino toad.

AeroBrat

Well, with the cost of a few of these Skynet machines, we could rebuild all the storm damaged towns, our infrastructure and free ourselves from the petrolium overlords. Or maybe not?

Dr.Remulak

one of these loaded with jericho missiles = win!!

godwhacker

@Optimus-Prime:

Great.. just great. I knew wiping out those ant colonies by my sidewalk in my front yard and out back by my shed was going to be bad karma..

stereobot

@Jesus Diaz:
"As if throwing one nuclear bomb wasn't enough"

Well if one gets jammed always good to have an extra 3.

mricyfire

@Jeb_Hoge: What they bring to the table is the ability to carry shitloads of precision-guided conventional munitions to any conflict, anywhere, at will.

Like weddings and schools.

crashfrog

@sqeakytoy of the apocalypse:
We don't speak to Michael anymore after that incident with Benjamin Dover.
Thanks for opening those old wounds though.

Rev. Eaton Yorke Hunt

We're so advanced that we already have one multi billion dollar plane that is completely invisible on all forms of radar, that we think we need something to one up that.

What's next?
Invisible planes.

nocturnus

so by lower costs they mean $1 billion not $2 billion...

crazy idea but what about building a stealth uav to deliver nuclear weapons and other large payloads

purple-pillows

@PastorDoodah:

You're right. Better we give that money to crack mothers.

spec24

DUDE!! If the govt wants an invisible plane I just so happen to have 2 sitting in my backyard right now!!! How fortutious is that? The best part is I'm selling mine for 10,000,000.00 each. But wait if you act now, I'll even throw in a Bridge!!!!!

ajax6969

@J. Nadeau: DAMN YOU FREUD!

Luizzle

If they can squeeze VTOL/hover capability into this thing, I'm getting one to fight crime in Gotham City.

halloweenjack

@windowi:
Don't be silly...He who has the most toys, wins!

I rather have the toys.... not them.

aec007

since these will give off a signature of a bee or small bird.. I really hate the Russians and Chinese will be shredding geese and swallows(I said swallows.. sorry)with AA and we won't get to watch them join their brethren get off'd by windmills.

mythicalcaesar

Worth every penny. These weapons are not being built to support the current war on terror. They're being built as a deterrent to countries who are developing advanced weapons. The US needs a sharp advantage in technology over countries like China who's man power and infistructure to run a war machine is far greater.

RyaninCalgary

"quick! get in to the spruce moose"

"but sir its thats just a model"

(mr burns pulls the hammer back on his gun"

"i said get in"

yungjerry703

@nocturnus: completely invisible on all forms of radar

Except you can see them, using radiation from cell phone towers.

[tech.mit.edu]

[www.popsci.com]

wjousts

@crashfrog: "Like weddings and schools."

Yeah. The enemy never lies. Only we do. We actually bomb weddings and schools just for the sheer enjoyment of it. America is evil, but our enemies are not. They're just misunderstood.

GadgetPlay

I like this plan better..

W.C. Fields was asked by the Saturday Evening Post, during World War II, to write a plan about how to end the war for an article they were planning.

He sat down, quite seriously, and proposed his plan, which was to get the leaders of the warring nations together, bring them to the Hollywood Bowl, and 'let them fight it out with sackfuls of dung.'

(Of course, the Saturday Evening Post never ran the article.)

EricAlder

"Please excuse the crudity of this model as I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it."

EricAlder

I hope Christian Slater doesn't lose this one.

suicide

Yea, I love Flight of the Navigator, good movie

Hand_O_Death

It looks like it came from the same designer as this:
[www.geocities.com]

macrumpton

Doubt those designs will be supersonic. Look at how useful the B-2 has been. What the USAF needs is a F-22 of the bomber world (and no, I dont mean the proposed FB-22).

Oroka

Lemme guess, this time they're a trillion dollars each.

Maxwells_Nylon_Hammer

So Northrop Grumman is basically proposing an enlarged version of the X-47B they're building for the UCAS-N program.

And the Boeing/Lockheed design looks very much like the original B-2 design - the extra saw-tooth on the B-2's trailing edge was a later refinement.

MegaZone

@aec007: don't need those kind of toys to cause terror. standart passenger plane suffices. right GadgetPlay?

Who let the Trolls out?

@bbfreak: and ignorant people... not calling names here.

Who let the Trolls out?

I am just curious to know if any of your like cheaper air transport? The money spent to create this aircraft did not go to waste. It has furthered the development of countless materials, processes, and gadgets that have numerous applications in everyday life. Too bad some are stuck on the fact that it carries weapons. Go Boeing and Northrup!

WwhawkwW

@Maxxofor: Right after my orange mocha frappuccino! Yay!!!

The Magnificen7

@ddoughboy: Hear hear!

Wait ... I'm Canadian, and one of these costs about 1.5 times what our overall defense budget is... hmm...

Could you guys not use these against us?

kthxbai

The Magnificen7