That would make no sense as buying ammunition is not related to how many one can pack into a magazine.

Possibility of Fed. or State taxing ammunition to the extreme might be a reason but on the airwaves talk shows, many callers seem alarmed at the huge purchase of ammunition by a government agency as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

I believe price increase is the real reason, as in the past, not politically related, I have made large buys to avoid an increase. (In one case it was the company going belly up. Boxes of fifty I bought then for, to me, a very expensive 70 dollars, now, if you can find one on the net, goes for over a hundred to hundreds of dollars.)

just thought I’d throw this grenade in here.

http://rt.com/usa/fight-f-35-vulnerability-cyber-464/

Good point.

The vulnerability of current electronic aircraft due to being nearly useles sif a system goes pffft has been a concern of many military related persons for years already.

What this is all about I am not sure.
Last time brass, the metal, was so high priced per pound that people were buying, and stealing it, just to scrap it for the money. (lead was also very high then)

Now, who really knows.

Harassment, the new school standard.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virginia-teen-arrested-wearing-nra-shirt-school/story?id=19017896#.UXrZn8pW_NI

This is pure TROLLING. I am only commenting on OFFICIALLY RELEASED statements and data. The rest is SECRET and i am not even SPECULATING what the performance would be like. So who is DREAMING here? Seems you have contunous dreams about STAR WARS and bring up this non sense without any rhyme or reason. I have not mentioned a SINGLE CLAIM other then :————Yes sir bunky, I remember well the OFFICIAL ITEMS RELEASED on STAR WARS, oops, that puts it in the same category as the top secret weapons your rhetoric speaks of.

1) It would be a bomber : This i extrapolated from the program Name Long Range Strike Bomber———––No kidding, really?
2) It would be long range : This i also extrapolated from the program name Long Range Strike Bomber and the fact that a tactical bomber project (NGB) was canned in favor of this current project————-Again, no kidding really?

3) It would receive aproximately 6.4 billion dollars for R & D between now and 2017 . This i extrapolated from publicly available statements and financial records————--Yep and a lot of cancelled programs got x,y or z millions or were cancelled before getting anything. You’re spewing maybe kinda-sorta as a hard fact.

4) It would be MANNED , and later OPTIONALLY Manned : This from the official source, starting from the Secretary of the United States Airforce and reported by credible aviation magazines and journos such as the on posted in the thread starter. —————-GEE, yo want me to list all the things the Star Wars missile defense was going to be?
At the same time, the U.S. bureau that broadcast disinformation hopes that those they are aiming there disinformation at are a lot like you.

5) I have never Provided any speculation on performance on my own.————You speak, as said above, maybe kinda-sorta items are set in stone. I am only reacting to YOUR rhetoric, but then paper airplane wonder systems seem to be too common on this site.

Now either you are DELUSIONAL , confusing me with someone else, or simply a troll.——-NO I am calling out your dream land bs and you do not like it.

So Unmanned Combat vehicles are Only as real as REAGAN’s STAR WARS ??————-An unmanned combat vehicle is not an unmanned strategic bomber which cost billions in real money and would have to have tech. that could put any enemy on equal footing easily if acquired even in broken parts.

So the X-47, UCLASS, Global Hawk, Predator, Rq-170, Triton, etc etc are all also not REAL? and the US does not have an ability to fly unmanned? It seems someone is need of some treatment…———–Yes you do, as I did not mention those type of aircraft but you in desperation have. You cannot defend your rhetoric so you change the topic.

“

???

Most of the folks on this forum would know about Star wars program, and your attempt to bring it up here on this thread is only taking it away from the point being discussed and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand..

What does this have to do with anything??? So you are arguing against having a Airborne nuclear delivery mechanism? If you have a problem with nuclear delivery from bombers, kindly start a seperate thread talking about it , or the star wars…or about anything else you may wish…keep things relevant here…As per your claims regarding the capability of the LRS-B, my contention is that NO CLAIMS regarding its performance or capability have been made so far…Only that it EXISTS, IS BEING FUNDED, IS GOING TO BE A BOMBER, IS GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE, IS GOING TO BE MANNED, OPTIONALLY MANNED (future), AND NUCLEAR CAPABLE IN THE FUTURE (not initially)…

You are speaking of items as if they are fact when all they are is something you are hoping for in your dreams;

They are as real as Reagan’s Star Wars except in your dream world.

If you sere speaking of these as unknowns maybes, would be one thing, but you speak as if it is already done.

You do not know that is exists.
You do not know what is being funded.
Stop pretending you do.
All you have is intel of which the chance it is real is at best fifty-fifty.

DoD will get this thing because unlike almost everything else it has done over the last decade it is actually relevant to the long-term strategic interests of the United States.

Manned or unmanned makes little difference at such aircraft sizes and certainly no difference to threat perception. The analogy to Star Wars makes no sense — LRS-B is a relatively conservative extension of existing technology and capabilities and presents no new threat to China, Russia, or anyone else for that matter.

As far as Star Wars look up history on Pres. Reagan.
If you think, seriously, that even one-half of the intel they are floating on the airwaves is fact, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheaply.