Comments on: NorGrum’s Secret X-Bomber

By: kjkjkk

kjkjkk — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:42:25 +0000

seo???
???
???????????
???????
??????

By: cheap rappelz rupees

cheap rappelz rupees — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:30:30 +0000

And I apply a new number, I prepared to play with her, upgrade and earn cheap rappelz rupees together. I felt she is a good girl, I decided I must change myself for her. Later, we often played together, and we are very happy. She also became my wife. But after a few time, I met many things, I was very sad, and I did not spent a long time to play the game. I did not often to play with her. Finally, I said to her, I will leave the game. I let her find another husband. She was very sad, when I left the game, she also left.

By: rohan money

rohan money — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:22:49 +0000

I felt you seems not as me to your wife, you called me wife is very rarely, although you often send rohan money to me. Every time you ask me, as I am very happy. I really think you are me, just my own, I do not want you leave me. I am afraid you forget me. I slowly understand, sister and brother in law why they will love so painful, why sister in the final will be sad to leave.

By: cheap rf gold

cheap rf gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:18:44 +0000

During the time pass, my union was larger; my union members are very solidarity, when some people have difficult, we all go to help. I also remembered once a people

By: cheap gw gold

cheap gw gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:46:14 +0000

Together and he is not a very long time, but I feel very comfortable. He was sometime as a child, lovely, simple, not too many worries, likes a fish in a pure travel freely in the sea. He often took his only cheap GW gold send to me. His world simple, but he is happy.

By: autonomous

autonomous — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:34:36 +0000

JP, keep in mind that these images were created by a non-Northrop Grumman artist, who derived the air vehicle configuration from official publicly released Northrop Grumman imagery. That imagery in itself is probably disinformation. Considering that the real air vehicle concept is secret, do you think they’ll let YOU take a look at it? Fat chance. Any air vehicle that is actually being developed probably looks nothing like this. I myself think that this configuration looks pretty cool.

By: JP

JP — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:21:21 +0000

On an unrelated note, way to take a beautiful aircraft like the B-2 and make a retarded looking cousin for it..one ugly as hell plane right there.

By: TB

TB — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:15:50 +0000

Regarding the 747-bomber comments, I don’t think we’re going to invade China with the American Airlines logo still stenciled on the tail. However, in a low surface to air threat warzone, the B-52 isn’t much more than a bomb truck. Doing close air support at 30,000 feet, it is slow, non-stealthy, and I doubt its ECM gets much exercise. The B-52 is a giant plane, with an insanely long loiter time, and circles the battlefield dropping dozens of JDAMs. Why not a 7X7-style aircraft to replace it?

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:22:35 +0000

“If that’s the case then how did we manage to fly humanitarian aid into Myanmar in C-130’s then? After all, we use C-130’s for AC-130’s and straight C-130’s have been known to drop bombs, MOAB ring any bells? Yet in spite of that we seem to be able to use them for humanitarian aid missions just fine with nary a complaint.“
Good point, I am not sure about the C-130, it is an older plane that serves multiple purposes. I’m still sticking to my point about 747 bombers though, they would at least have to change a lot about the plane, maybe take the wings back and get rid of the hump, call it something else.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 28 May 2008 22:46:21 +0000

Help me out here. What precisely would be the benefit to U.S. security from not disclosing the fact that it was spending $2.6 billion on a new bomber design.
To be clear, I’m not doubting the suggestion that it is, and that it would want to do so if it was doing so, but I just don’t get their motive.
How would threats to U.S. security act any different if they went public? Spys, for example, already know who the major defense contractors are, so the list of potential espionage targets wouldn’t be much different.
One wouldn’t, obviously, want to disclose detailed capabilities that could be defeated, but it is hard to imagine any counter-defense to the general idea of a next generation long distance bomber that current U.S. capabilities don’t already require them to take. Only Russia rivals the U.S. in that kind of capability right now.