User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:33:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. Per wiki the B-2 has a range of about 6,900 miles. That would put it needing to be gassed about at the Aleutians in order to reach Beijing. It seems like we could get tankers as far forward as Alaska. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:36:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm surprised they did it during daylight hours. It's the first publicized flight, and I bet they did it in daylight as a statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:39:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Im before the air force buys 5 , extends the life of the B-52 until 2112 and buys the new F-42 fighter jets
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:40:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn that is beautiful. I hope they buy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:40:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. Commie tears make my dick hard. It's like ambrosia. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:44:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've read 300 ordered. Quote HistoryQuoted: LordEC911 Quoted: When are they expected in service and how many ~100. Sources vary between 80-120. Only ~$600m each. 2027 is current projection. I've read 300 ordered. And once we're in NATO, the US will graciously donate a few to us. We'll have them flying lazy eights over the Baltic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:48:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Commie tears make my dick hard. It's like ambrosia. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. Commie tears make my dick hard. It's like ambrosia. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:52:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Launch missiles? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is awesome, but what does it do that missiles don't do? Launch missiles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:55:46 PM EDT
[#9]
That mother fucker right there....is not real!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 1:57:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you need it then. Take the money and buy missiles. No wonder why we are bankrupt. to extend the range and locations we can launch missiles from |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:05:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good craftsmanship. That belly looks super smooth like it was one piece of plastic. That is a feature that aids low RCS performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:06:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First *public* flight.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:11:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Will it carry a MOP?  Probably one, but that's an informed guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:15:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: B-2? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:21:05 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:24:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The nuclear mission defends us every day. But we would be better off maintaining two old airframes that cost about $60k per hour to fly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. The nuclear mission defends us every day. But we would be better off maintaining two old airframes that cost about $60k per hour to fly. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:25:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People would rather tax payers spend $70,000-$130,000 per hour of flight for a less capable system, just due to nostalgia, versus lack of nostalgia at $10k/hr to operate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The nuclear mission defends us every day. But we would be better off maintaining two old airframes that cost about $60k per hour to fly. People would rather tax payers spend $70,000-$130,000 per hour of flight for a less capable system, just due to nostalgia, versus lack of nostalgia at $10k/hr to operate. It's not nostalgia. It's because they're ignorant fools. Just like the A-10... Keep it flying! Why? Because reasons! Brrrrrrt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:25:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First *public* flight. Been a few moons ago, but we discussed the introduction of the B-2 in science class, shortly after the public flight. The teacher was adamant that it had been in development and testing, including flying, for a long time. Her grandfather had worked on the program and flying the plane from an island in the Pacific. Seemed a little outlandish, except when concerns about the YB-49 program are taken into account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:26:40 PM EDT
[#19]
What we really need is the R model of the B-1. This country needs the B-1R.
We need the BONER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:28:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. The nuclear mission defends us every day. But we would be better off maintaining two old airframes that cost about $60k per hour to fly. Nope this thing will probably do more work than F35 vs China. We are going to be really tight on keeping air bases inside missile range of China operational. Surface ships aren’t going to be in range to be launch platforms for cruise missiles until we can break the Chinese kill chains for their anti ship missiles. So our strike potential is limited to. The sub fleet and whatever our aircraft can launch. This will be a nice missile truck that even a single one likely will put more warheads on foreheads in a month than even a SSGN could. I’d be very interested in seeing if they could fill the weapons bay with a long range air to air missile that could be guided by F35, drive or AEGIS to help clear swarms of Chinese fighters. No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. JASSM-ER doesn't exist anymore? Damn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:28:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What we really need is the R model of the B-1. This country needs the B-1R. We need the BONER. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:31:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is a video lol  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:32:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: JASSM-ER doesn't exist anymore? Damn. Nope, they were all teleported away by the Asgard to be used to fight Replicators. We certainly can’t attach them to fighters, attack aircraft. Or hell even chuck them out the back of a C-130.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:35:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not nostalgia. It's because they're ignorant fools. Just like the A-10... Keep it flying! Why? Because reasons! Brrrrrrt. I’ve never met in person anyone who has a vested interest in any airframe the military deploys other than being tax payers. Outside of paying deeply out of my ass for taxes I don’t really care much if the AF keeps 10s and 52s until they run out of spare parts. Your taxes will never decrease. Why do you care what jet they fly on your dime? I’d rather fly antique jets than pay for any social programs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:38:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you need it then. Take the money and buy missiles. No wonder why we are bankrupt. You do understand there are different types of missiles with different ranges. Its cheaper to build smaller cruise missiles than large ones that fire from long distances which can be mistaken for nuclear delivery platforms. It does make sense to put more money into ssgn's. But having other diverse options to deliver missiles is ok too. I was surprised that we only have 4 SSGNs. It seems like that would be a really handy tool. I guess surface ships take up the slack though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:40:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were sending a message to someone.... Or we are sending a message to "them". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:40:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve never met in person anyone who has a vested interest in any airframe the military deploys other than being tax payers. Outside of paying deeply out of my ass for taxes I don’t really care much if the AF keeps 10s and 52s until they run out of spare parts. Your taxes will never decrease. Why do you care what jet they fly on your dime? I’d rather fly antique jets than pay for any social programs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's not nostalgia. It's because they're ignorant fools. Just like the A-10... Keep it flying! Why? Because reasons! Brrrrrrt. I’ve never met in person anyone who has a vested interest in any airframe the military deploys other than being tax payers. Outside of paying deeply out of my ass for taxes I don’t really care much if the AF keeps 10s and 52s until they run out of spare parts. Your taxes will never decrease. Why do you care what jet they fly on your dime? I’d rather fly antique jets than pay for any social programs. Problem being we've royally pissed off Russia and Iran now, and any potential conflict where the A-10's utility might be attractive would almost certainly be spiced up by the proliferation of MANPADS. The money that keeps those things flying could be better used in about a million ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:42:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Problem being we've royally pissed off Russia and Iran now, and any potential conflict where the A-10's utility might be attractive would almost certainly be spiced up by the proliferation of MANPADS. The money that keeps those things flying could be better used in about a million ways. True, but UAS-A-10 would create a hell of a headache at low cost. Remove cockpit and add a second GAU-8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:45:37 PM EDT
[#29]
 BREAKING: The B-21 RAIDER just made its FIRST FLIGHT |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:45:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryLook at all those (potential) doors in that belly ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:46:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. The nuclear mission defends us every day. But we would be better off maintaining two old airframes that cost about $60k per hour to fly. Nope this thing will probably do more work than F35 vs China. We are going to be really tight on keeping air bases inside missile range of China operational. Surface ships aren’t going to be in range to be launch platforms for cruise missiles until we can break the Chinese kill chains for their anti ship missiles. So our strike potential is limited to. The sub fleet and whatever our aircraft can launch. This will be a nice missile truck that even a single one likely will put more warheads on foreheads in a month than even a SSGN could. I’d be very interested in seeing if they could fill the weapons bay with a long range air to air missile that could be guided by F35, drive or AEGIS to help clear swarms of Chinese fighters. No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. When you have long range ALCM, you don’t need to get close, you don’t even need to go very far. And those ALCMs are very survivable. That is why I think they are keeping the B-52, it Carrie’s a massive amount of ALCMs and at the range off the coast they would be launched nobody cares about the B-52 not being stealthy, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:49:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Per wiki the B-2 has a range of about 6,900 miles. That would put it needing to be gassed about at the Aleutians in order to reach Beijing. It seems like we could get tankers as far forward as Alaska. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No aircraft is putting warheads on foreheads…none. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on it. You aren’t defeating China with a manned aircraft as you can’t keep an airbase close enough to make it work and refueling in the air is visible IE killable. The Pacific is a Navy fight where submarine launched weapons are the most viable delivery systems. A hypersonic missile from a submarine is likely the only viable strike option. Per wiki the B-2 has a range of about 6,900 miles. That would put it needing to be gassed about at the Aleutians in order to reach Beijing. It seems like we could get tankers as far forward as Alaska. Now add the range of the ALCM, they could probable get topped off before leaving the west coast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:51:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Problem being we've royally pissed off Russia and Iran now, and any potential conflict where the A-10's utility might be attractive would almost certainly be spiced up by the proliferation of MANPADS. The money that keeps those things flying could be better used in about a million ways. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's not nostalgia. It's because they're ignorant fools. Just like the A-10... Keep it flying! Why? Because reasons! Brrrrrrt. I’ve never met in person anyone who has a vested interest in any airframe the military deploys other than being tax payers. Outside of paying deeply out of my ass for taxes I don’t really care much if the AF keeps 10s and 52s until they run out of spare parts. Your taxes will never decrease. Why do you care what jet they fly on your dime? I’d rather fly antique jets than pay for any social programs. Problem being we've royally pissed off Russia and Iran now, and any potential conflict where the A-10's utility might be attractive would almost certainly be spiced up by the proliferation of MANPADS. The money that keeps those things flying could be better used in about a million ways. IMHO any environment where there are "modern air defenses" rule out any non-stealth aircraft flying over it. Helicopters, F-15s, F-16s, tankers, C-130s, all of the non-stealthy boys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:51:31 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 2:58:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do understand there are different types of missiles with different ranges. Its cheaper to build smaller cruise missiles than large ones that fire from long distances which can be mistaken for nuclear delivery platforms. It does make sense to put more money into ssgn's. But having other diverse options to deliver missiles is ok too. I was surprised that we only have 4 SSGNs. It seems like that would be a really handy tool. I guess surface ships take up the slack though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why do you need it then. Take the money and buy missiles. No wonder why we are bankrupt. You do understand there are different types of missiles with different ranges. Its cheaper to build smaller cruise missiles than large ones that fire from long distances which can be mistaken for nuclear delivery platforms. It does make sense to put more money into ssgn's. But having other diverse options to deliver missiles is ok too. I was surprised that we only have 4 SSGNs. It seems like that would be a really handy tool. I guess surface ships take up the slack though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:09:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, and I understand we can buy a shit ton of drones and missiles for 600 million a pop, which is 100% borrowed at 5% interest and going higher. I also worry with the lack of recruiting how hard will it be to maintain these planes out of the factory. The same issues with the F35. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why do you need it then. Take the money and buy missiles. No wonder why we are bankrupt. You do understand there are different types of missiles with different ranges. Its cheaper to build smaller cruise missiles than large ones that fire from long distances which can be mistaken for nuclear delivery platforms. It does make sense to put more money into ssgn's. But having other diverse options to deliver missiles is ok too. I was surprised that we only have 4 SSGNs. It seems like that would be a really handy tool. I guess surface ships take up the slack though. What are you worried about in terms of maintainability on the F-35? Im curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:11:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are you worried about in terms of maintainability on the F-35? Im curious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why do you need it then. Take the money and buy missiles. No wonder why we are bankrupt. You do understand there are different types of missiles with different ranges. Its cheaper to build smaller cruise missiles than large ones that fire from long distances which can be mistaken for nuclear delivery platforms. It does make sense to put more money into ssgn's. But having other diverse options to deliver missiles is ok too. I was surprised that we only have 4 SSGNs. It seems like that would be a really handy tool. I guess surface ships take up the slack though. What are you worried about in terms of maintainability on the F-35? Im curious. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105341 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:38:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was flying next to it? F-16 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:40:37 PM EDT
[#39]
We likely probably already have at least 10 of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:41:25 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:42:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the thing sticking out of the back for? Part of the test equipment. Something to do with the pitot system. It has a long probe in front, and this trailing cone that needs undisturbed air, not buffeting air from around the fuselage. wiki |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:43:03 PM EDT
[#42]
another video
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:53:02 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 3:55:07 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:02:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. Its a nuclear stealth bomber, dude. What exactly do you think the primary purpose of designing and building such machines is? Think about it for a minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:04:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Under budget and ahead of schedule.
NG should get more business, but they aren't dirty enough in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:04:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Wait till they activate the Romulan cloaking device
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:10:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And once we're in NATO, the US will graciously donate a few to us. We'll have them flying lazy eights over the Baltic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LordEC911 Quoted: When are they expected in service and how many ~100. Sources vary between 80-120. Only ~$600m each. 2027 is current projection. I've read 300 ordered. And once we're in NATO, the US will graciously donate a few to us. We'll have them flying lazy eights over the Baltic. No you can build a Gripenbom?ömben or whatever |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:13:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More multi billion dollar hardware for the MIC to justify their need for yet more money to defend every other country but ours. A modern bomber fleet is a much better use of military resources than pretty much anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2023 4:13:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under budget and ahead of schedule. NG should get more business, but they aren't dirty enough in DC. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
