/k/ - Weapons

USAF has already announced they're cutting back on F35 orders to buy more B21s. I think the per unit cost is something like $550 million.

kek/10

so is it literally just a b2 spirit with a new coat of paint?

or is it some super seekrit bomber that will end up costing a billion dollars each and will never end up being used. save to bomb mudslimes?

What benefits does it have over the B-2 or is it going to be F-35 2: Bomber Boogaloo?

this is the result of the LRS-B rfp that's been out since 2014. the request specified deep strike and reconnaissance duties so I expect budget overruns and Bradley delays.

>>323013

> so i literally can't differentiate things if they have vague similarities, I have the mind of a 6 year old

>>323018

>Unable to recognize when someone is speaking facetiously.

The better question is, who on the appropriations committee will be pushing for this bomber, such as the major donors of Grumman, congress critters in states where parts for this bomber would be manufactured

>>323019

> speaking in the 3rd person in defense of yourself

> I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE AN IDIOT

Apparently N-G has been prototyping it for a few years by this point so the odds of things going all F-35 are lower. It's one of the reasons they won the contract.

>>323020

I'm sorry I have to pretend, I'm just not a natural like you.

>>323023

Dunno,

As I understand It the bomber hasn't even been prototyped yet so it sounds like Grumman and the USAF are trying to suckle more money out of the teat of Washington

so, what is the point of a long-range bomber today? i thought everything became tactical range only with airstrikes from multi-role fighters and drone strikes.

>>323025

They haven't done a full flying prototype but part prototypes and scale models are better than the literally nothing that Boeing and LM did.

>>323026

B-2 is expected to lose the stealth/detection race by 2025.

100% of the missions this thing can do can be done with an UCAV. Just like 100% of the missions the F-35 can do can be done with a UCAV and the F-22. Why is the US military hell bent on creating extremely expensive redundant systems?

It's about half the size of the B-2 which is going to make it more visible in L band, it also means its carrying half the payload.

The bleeding edge trailblazer tech of B-2 cost 700 mil at only 20 constructed units, meaning no economy of scale. This thing is using ancient established technology yet costs 500 mil with 100 of them planned, meaning a significant improvement in economy of scale.

If the size of the thing is taken into account, if the economy of scale is taken into account, if the fact that it's capitalizing on mature B-2 technology is taken into account…. the price tag on this thing is unreal.

>>323018

>> so i literally can't differentiate things if they have vague similarities, I have the mind of a 6 year old

This thing is a miniaturized shape of what the B-2 was supposed to be originally.

Because bomb aiming technology was shit at the time, the air force demanded that the B-2 have low altitude capability, so the bombs it released actually hit something.

So the B-2 design had additional shapes added so it could fly low.

So yeah, it's kind of like the original high-altitude B-2 design, scaled down into a more tactical unit.

>>323023

B-2 with sunlight reflecting off the front.

>>323027

Perhaps, But we have an extremely large and diverse bomber fleet and this seems like a massive waste of money.

>>323029

Exactly, whats the point?

>>323032

Wait, that's what they look like in flight? You can barely see the plane itself.

>>323031

A large and diverse bomber fleet that's all some combination of expensive to fly, getting old, losing capability, or not particularly capable in the first place. You gotta buy new bombers eventually, and the only other heavy bomber project in the works is scheduled to start delivery in 2037.

>>323023

> what the fuck is this?

there's so few pixels in that picture it could be bigfoot

>>323030

yes, but general shape does not a design make. the engine placement, intake, exhaust is different from the B2. they're claiming this will replace the B52 fleet so this rendering might be a bit… small. I can't find a lick of public information about its intended range or capacity.

>>322997

>Will it be a worse financial fuckup than the F-35 or a most effective kebab remover?

Is Lockheed Martin involved in any way shape or form? If not? No!

That said, I wonder what this potential bloated runaway military budget could do?

>>322997

>a most effective kebab remover

What benefits does a new high price stealth aircraft bring to carpet bombing illiterate sand niggers using surplus cold war era soviet AA over a B1 or B2 or even a B52?

>>323023

Obviously aliums

How is it different from the B-2? Aside from the intake shape, it looks pretty much the same, if not a tad bit larger.

>>323029

No it can't. UCAVs are overrated and the technology has not matured yet. If you're an irrelevant shithole country and only want to keep bombing malnourished, underequipped rebels for the next 100 years then sure, UCAVs will be adequate. But if you want something that can actually compete and is useful outside of that, you're going to have to go with a better option. Besides, not much is known about the thing at this time.

>>323287

Why?

If you mean GPS jamming, it would be piss easy to make a UCAV which can terrain map and not need GPS.

If you mean control jamming, it would also be easy to make a UCAV with a dozen preset bombing runs if it can't communicate to the troops below.

Bombers don't have to "compete".

>>323343

>flying over friendlies

>controls jammed

>activate preset bombing run script

>???

>>323049

whats up with the color

>>323360

>preset bombing run script has it divert to a known enemy location behind enemy lines and drop the load there

>>323029

>muh economy of scale

Fuck off shill nigger, libertarianism can't build an air force.

>>323410

>libertarianism

What? Go back to /pol/ if you want to discuss politics.

Economies of scale apply to construction of military materiel.

>>323410

the fuck? mil procurement is one of the best examples of economy of scale, there are immense tool-up costs.

- and that doesn't even have anything to do with with Libertarianism.

jesus christ people that shout "lolbretarian" are mentally handicapped.

>>323029

> 100% of the missions this thing can do can be done with an UCAV.

speaking of dumb things, this. this is fantasy.

> It's about half the size of the B-2

this is also fantasy. we have a goofy marketing CGI picture and the few operation requirements they made public make an aircraft that size impossible.

Were are the other 19 bombers?

>>323875

That sounded pretty lewd anon.

>>323930

B-21, because it's the Bomber for the 21st century.

I fucking hate the air force.

>>323928

>advantage

I can't speak to that.

>terrifying aspects

-unshielded reactor pumping out radiation into all the land it flies over, for months

-continues to be dangerous even after it crashes, turning the crash site and much around it uninhabitable

-then add the 12-16 nuclear weapons

>>323928

What advantage does a manned bomber have over an unmanned one?

>>323938

Direct human control makes flying nuclear weapons around more politically palatable because there's someone to crucify if things go wrong

Crew can adapt to unexpected circumstances without a software update

Jamming and electronic warfare don't work on eyes

A manned plane has never been hacked and forced to land intact in Iran

What are the advantages to an unmanned bomber? It wouldn't really have more endurance, crews last long enough that engine maintenance is what's putting the limit on mission length as it is. It wouldn't be cheaper, the amount of engineering and quality checking that would be required to trust nukes to a drone would be insane. There are plenty of nations that don't allow overflight of US planes carrying nukes already, that would certainly increase if they were carried by drones because people just don't fucking trust drones. I'm not seeing any upside.

>>323956

>more politically palatable

An actual advantage please.

Keep in mind cruise missiles and ICBMs are unmanned, and very much in service.

>>324070

Ease of deployment is an advantage even if the only resistance comes from your own side.

Please explain what advantage a nuclear-capable bomber would gain by being a drone.

>>323410

Shut the fuck up D&C shill. Assholes like these are trying to sew discord on /pol/ and make the place uninhabitable. This one apparently got lost, or thought he could get some cross board shilling in.

>>324079

There is none, he's just one of those faggots that thinks everything should be a robot because that'll meme the singularity into existence quicker. He's also autistic enough to pretend he doesn't understand why everyone besides the russians is smart enough not to trust nukes to a fucking computer system.

>>324079

I think the drone experience in the past ten years has shown that drones have more deniability and can even indiscriminately bomb people in multiple countries without anyone complaining to America. So I'd say ease of deployment rests with the drone, not the manned jet.

>Please explain what advantage a nuclear-capable bomber would gain by being a drone.

There's no actual need to use a person because all bomber pilots do is sit on a chair for a really long time and take up space.

There's no need to have the weight of life support which takes away from the weight of fuel or bombs that might otherwise be carried.

There's no need to have a giant cabin ruining the RCS, when a directional satellite coms antenna is infinitely smaller and can be covered by RCS material/paint.

And there's very little chance the drone will be an Al Qaeda plant that hijacks a bomber and nukes Texas.

Meanwhile your arguments are retarded:

>the amount of engineering and quality checking that would be required to trust nukes to a drone would be insane

A tomahawk missile carries nukes and doesn't require an insane amount of engineering. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of our UCAVs can carry nukes right the fuck now.

>A manned plane has never been hacked and forced to land intact in Iran

It wasn't hacked. The signal to the satellite was interrupted and the drone did what it is programmed to do when the signal is interrupted, it circled. It circled until it ran out of fuel and it attempted to land.

It's easy as shit to program a drone to divert to another location or RTB when fuel gets low enough, this isn't an argument.

>>323928

Because thaat thing was radioactive as fuck by design and designed for multiple month long missions.

>>323026

It lets then live with their families in the middle of the US and still bomb people we aren't at war with.

>>324322

>There's no actual need to use a person because all bomber pilots do is sit on a chair for a really long time and take up space.

You could say the same about any other soldier. I could say the same about you.

>There's no need to have the weight of life support which takes away from the weight of fuel or bombs that might otherwise be carried.

For an aircraft the size of the B-21, the extra 2-3 tons from a pressurized cabin makes basically no difference.

>And there's very little chance the drone will be an Al Qaeda plant that hijacks a bomber and nukes Texas.

Yes, this is totally a real concern. Also drones are totally autonomous with no human operators

>A tomahawk missile carries nukes and doesn't require an insane amount of engineering.

A Tomahawk doesn't have to survive a nuclear explosion. A bomber does.

>It wasn't hacked. The signal to the satellite was interrupted and the drone did what it is programmed to do when the signal is interrupted, it circled. It circled until it ran out of fuel and it attempted to land.

And you know what it didn't do? Complete its mission. It might not be a huge issue when the mission in question is recon or a Hellfire strike, but it's entirely unacceptable for a strategic bomber.

>>323017

>What benefits does it have over the B-2

It's a whole new project so there will be all sorts of kickbacks and spending to go around the military industrial complex.

>>325110

>drones are totally autonomous with no human operators

Are you retarded? Modern AI can barely walk up stairs. All drones in use today have a remote operator, they're basically giant RC planes. Did you actually think they just tell them to go fuck up some pakis and let em loose?

>>325121

>what is sarcasm

>>325123

For what purpose? That doesn't have anything to do with having it be more likely to be controlled by a spy. Nobody is going to hand a drone with a nuke to one guy and trust him not to easy bake the white house, nuclear devices always have failsafes. Tell it to lock down controls and land, remove kebab infiltrator. Not hard.

Besides, the extra 2-3 tons of pressurized cabin is another 2-3 tons of bombs. It's not like the pilots are doing any kind of danger zone shit that requires quick decisions and reflexes, they're literally just there to press the "remove kebab" button and keep the thing pointed forwards. Countermeasures can be handled on-board automatically. Nobody needs to be there.

>>324322

>more deniability

We're talking about nuclear bombs. Deniability is not on the table.

>There's no need to have a giant cabin ruining the RCS

Please provide information on the RCS of the B-21.

>a directional satellite coms antenna

Is going to be talking to what, exactly, if the B-21 ever has to do its primary mission? Satellites are going to be the first thing targeted.

>And there's very little chance the drone will be an Al Qaeda plant that hijacks a bomber and nukes Texas.

Hey you remember like a fucking month ago when some hackers hijacked a NASA Global Hawk and tried to crash it into the Pacific?

>bu bu they can do better at security when it's important

Important like the identities and personal information of every single living person who has a DoD security clearance? Ha ha, remember that?

>A tomahawk missile

Doesn't do the same jobs as a penetration bomber. Tomahawks are used for what Tomahawks can be used for, which is killing third-world goat farmers because subsonic cruise missiles can be shot down by budget-grade SAMs. They don't have to make judgment calls on whether or not to end the world.

As far as I can tell the only complaint you have is that the USAF went with what they know works and are comfortable with instead of spending a bunch of money coming up with a new solution to a solved problem because practicality isn't futuristic enough for you.

We have SIXTEEN B-2 bombers, have we actually used any of them in combat?

>>327124

They flew from Missouri to Afghanistan regularly when we were bombing there. Cost a fortune on maintenance because they weren't meant to make daily runs like that.

>>323956

>A manned plane has never been hacked and forced to land intact in Iran

Neither has an unmanned plane, either

>inb4 propaganda

>>328379

The F-4 was originally designated the F-110 by the USAF (and the F4H by the USN/USMC). The whole reason why we restarted the sequence is because everybody got very confused when discussing that one fighter jet that's operated by three different branches under two different designations.

Speaking of Northrop Grumman. What's up with them making commercials?

>>327171

>Missouri to Afghanistan

FUCKING KEK

What kind of missions required that? Was that in 2001-2002, before any military bases were established? I suppose it's cheaper than launching ICBMs…

I assume that role has mostly been taken over by drones, except for very large payloads.

>>328409

Lockheed got a bunch of kids to shill for them online by putting F-35s in games and shit.

Guess Northrop wants the same.

>>328440

They're based in Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. I kind of suspect the Air Force leadership didn't want to park their super-secret ultra-expensive bombers they only have 21 of outside the US so they flew nonstop instead. Probably also to remind any potential enemies about the kind of range they have.

>>323045

Wasnt the aurora some bullshit project to get more monies for the B2?

>>328843

Nah it was a dual cycle jet/ramjet aircraft that failed because USA didn't have good scramjet technology until they pilfered it from the ashes of USSR.

Kind of like this

http://www.personal.psu.edu/cxc11/SR-71_Engines_J-58.ppt