An artist's rendering of the first image of a new B-21 Raider long-range bomber, released on February 26, 2016. Air Force/Handout via Reuters
Business Insider: The Air Force has picked bases to test its new advanced bomber — here's where the B-21 Raider is heading
* The Air Force expects to get the first of its new B-21 Raider bombers in the mid-2020s.
* This week, the Air Force named the bases that would support testing and maintenance for the new bomber.
* The service previously picked bases that would likely host the new bombers once the arrive.
On Friday, the Air Force announced the first two bases that will host its new, highly advanced bomber for testing and maintenance.
The service said in a release that Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma would coordinate maintenance and sustainment for the B-21 Raider and that Edwards Air Force Base in California had been picked to lead testing and evaluation of the next generation long-range strike bomber.
Read more ....
Update #1: Air Force announces bases that will test, maintain the new B-21 stealth bomber (Air Force Times)
Update #2: Two bases to lead B-21 bomber maintenance, testing (Inside Defense)
WNU Editor: The B-21 spotters now know where to go.
19 comments:
I sure hope they rake the forests around those bases first.
They use to do controlled burns outside of fire season.
They use to bulldoze fire breaks before fire season.
Logging in California is 10% of what it was. Now they import wood from China.
Thank you enviruMENTALists!
Logging equipment is such today that you can pick trees to cut and then cut and drag them out without clear cutting.
And yes California use to 'rake' the forest. They brush and other junk went into waste incinerator and were renewable energy.
But the enviruMENTALists did not like that type of renewable energy because of plant food (CO2).
If logging has given way to China for wood, so too, much of our industry has also done this: cheaper. But you prefer to blame California environmentalists...blame blame...and climate change? oh. Right. Trump does not believe in that.So then either do you.
There are about 132 waste-to-energy plants in California, with a total ... than 2,900 pounds of household garbage and industrial waste each and every second; ... and businesses was produced from biomass: burning forestry, agricultural, and ... use of biomass to produce clean, renewable transportation fuels or electricity.
Anon 1016 you did catch that forestry part?
How do you suppose they get that biomass from the forest?
By raking or the mechanical/machine equivalent.
PS They use to have more biomass generation of energy from forest products, renewable energy, in California, but along came Polly ... No along came a bunch of dope smoking environmentalists, who vote Democrat when they are not voting communist.
Anon 1016 you should sit on your hands and not type.
I doubt China has the wood to sell except for destroying their environment of that of SE Asia.
The environmentalists with other libtards passed laws until logging was uneconomical.
I doubt your average maggot infested liberal knows what species means in biology, but they are out there saving the spotted owl.
Your ideas intrigue me. Do you have a pamphlet or newsletter I may subscribe to?
Can I borrow one of your rakes?
Better yet, can you get me an interview for a job with one of the companies that make the industrial forest raking machines/collectors?
While I await your response I'll be shampooing my pet spotted owl.
The impact of ecological efforts to leave wildlands in a more "natural" state has contributed to the deaths of species members that were meant to be beneficiaries of these efforts.
Then, of course, we have the documented deaths of large numbers of various birds due to solar and wind energy technologies used to produce electricity in a laughable effort to reduce a substance that is essential for plant growth; CO2. Said substance allegedly causes a condition that leads to a life threatening heating of the planet. Or so I'm told.
Recently I read that Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Baily had left the circus business and this occurrence had caused me to wonder what would the clowns do with their idle time. Now I know.
See how a warmer world primed California for large fires
The state is just hotter and drier than it used to be, and that's driving a trend toward larger fires.
But no. Our president says no such thing as climate change, despite what UN, Pentagon, and 98% of weather science people say.
Anon 1117,
You did not touch on the topic of what a species is. I can see you have no idea.
Here is a little remedial reading for you. You will see the mechanical equivalent of a rake.
https://www.machinefinder.com/ww/en-US/markets/forestry-equipment
https://www.machinefinder.com/ww/en-US/articles/john-deere-expands-job-site-cleanup-solutions-lineup-with-new-grapple-buckets-6780
There are fewer biomass generators using branches and brush than a few decades ago because of liberals.
See the Sierra club
""A RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT POLLUTES
All biomass energy, including conventional incineration
of biomass for electricity generation, is classified by the
United States and the State of California as renewable
energy. Dissimilar to wind, solar or hydro generation,
conventional biomass incineration relies on combustion to
generate heat and electricity. Solid fuel biomass facilities
combust agricultural, yard and forest biomass""
So the Sierra Club and other tards want to not use biomass. They would rather skewer or burn ups birds and bats.
Anon 1209
You do realize the earth is coming out of an ice age.
When that happens things tend to warm up.
Fascinating info, Anon at 12:37.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to expatiate on the taxonomy of "tards", "libtards"; the various and sundry whale-humpers and such.
You are clearly a very learned individual.
Why not run for public office?
Anon 106,
There is no Anon 1237.
I gave you a direct quote from the libtard website known as the Sierra Club.
Now about your whale humping comment. Libs have been known to marry trees on more than one occasion so don't be giving them any ideas.
98% of climate scientists tell us that we are responsible--manmade--heating up of the climate. Trumptards reject this and tell us since prior to man there has been climate change. How do they know this? Well they believe the scientists on this part and Trump and the energy lobbies on the other part...
Anon at 2:02, your depth of knowledge is overwhelming.
I have been totally owned.
I will now go rake my Koi pond as punishment.
When I'm done with that I'm going to marry my toaster.
"98% of climate scientists tell us ..."
Honestly, you have to be told, because you simply cannot think for yourself. You might consider yourself smart because you are a beta and not a dumb epsilon, but nonetheless you do as you are told.
The number is 97% not 98% and that was a made up number. Throwing a white coat on a lab tech does not make them a climate scientist.
1) The rent seeking, where is my paycheck, scientists said that if we passed 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere that we were doomed. Now Jay Farquson may have many faults, but at least he had somewhat of a memory. Jay mention it a year ago about the surpassing of the 400 ppm threshold. Since then India and China have continued to build coal plants, hundreds of them. If it were that certain (or sort of certain) they would not be building those plants.
2) I am reminded about how the scientists have said they accounted for all the volcanic gas and then we find out years later hundreds of more volcanoes. then we find even more volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet lubricating it so that the glaciers more and the ice sheet calves large icebergs.
3) We were also told the the PhD meteorologists were crap even though 3 to 5 years later CERN backed them up in cosmic ray formation of clouds. So that is another thing the climate schmientists had wrong with their models.
I'll suggest that you take some calculus, statistics and physics courses.
"I will now go rake my Koi pond as punishment."
When your company diversifies and buys different products, you learn what is out there.
But you did not see it in a Hollywood film, so you don't know it exists.
Is that Aiz! My man is back!
Not a single G20 country has met the standards for reducing CO2 ...and they won't. It's all BS.
30 years ago scientists told us the world would run out of fossil fuels in 5 years.....now there is more than ever.....scientists are always right������
Post a Comment