User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:18:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The DOD's R+D and procurement system - the federal government in general, actually - is probably, pound for pound and penny for penny, the biggest boondoggle in the history of the human race. I don't know how much the Great Pyramid of Giza set back the ancient Egyptians, but it couldn't have been, comparatively, more than the F-35, F-22, et al. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm no expert: I'm just a layman.* However, I wouldn't think one would have to be an accountant or a high level executive of a defense contractor to see that there is something terribly wrong with the system. At the rate we are going, by 2050 the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America) Air Force will consist of 1 plane that took 50 years to build and costs $100 quadrillion per plane. The Army will consist of six queers, three she-males, and those two "Ranger" (lol) chicks. And they'll all be Generals. *A man who lays. That's all I am. I had an opportunity to bid on making the diesel exhaust fluid for an Army depot. I'm still pissed for not keeping a copy of the requirements. The specs were so detailed that it required the product to be manufactured in a specific building down to the size and even specifying the number of 110V outlets on the walls. Clearly it was put out for bid so that only one company could fill it and they specced it to fit their current facility. I know of at least one other contract written that way for a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:19:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see this thing orbiting troops for hours with a ton of JDAMs and dropping them when called. Why not? That's what we've been using the Spirit for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:19:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Meanwhile the Navy is Aegising their way to a better tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:23:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's where Real Global Strike comes in.
There's no such thing as limited strikes against China or Russia, that's all in. And a completely undetectable, nuclear armed bomber being sighted taking off from Whiteman while the tensions high? Launch on warning, perhaps? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
PGS is 10000% useless against China and Russia. That's where Real Global Strike comes in.
There's no such thing as limited strikes against China or Russia, that's all in. And a completely undetectable, nuclear armed bomber being sighted taking off from Whiteman while the tensions high? Launch on warning, perhaps? 
I'm pretty sure we all agree what's needed is to the bring the Megafortress into being: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:28:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryUAV or F-117?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:32:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UAV or F-117?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
UAV or F-117?? RQ-170, perhaps? Or Phantom Ray. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:32:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UAV or F-117?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
UAV or F-117?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:34:07 PM EDT
[#8]
The new stealth bomber has yet to be built < Bull shit. If the is a rendering out they have done flew the thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:36:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Maybe it's just me, but I think that thing is just fugly. It's important that our military aircraft be cool-looking, isn't it? I mean, give us something that looks like an airplane, with some neat fins and stuff. And maybe canards, too. Yeah, canards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:38:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The new stealth bomber has yet to be built < Bull shit. If the is a rendering out they have done flew the thing. hahahahahaha. No.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:38:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welp, not what I was expecting. Not that I should have actually know what to expect.
I did mention once that soon airframes would all eventually look the same in regards to stealth. Eventually the best possible design will be met that allows for a specific performance window. Unless new materials are invented/discovered. But that is a completely lay opinion. I want to see the claimed flight envelope, because I don't think that airplane meets the RFP requirements. One thing about it, there should be no load path surprises this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:39:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was expecting a joke pic something like this http://aviationhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/military-humor-funny-joke-airforce-next-generation-stealth-fighter.jpg "If we have stealth planes, why even bother building them? Just tell the bad guys we have thousands of them, and they're everywhere!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:39:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Is this a joke?
What is wrong with the B2 and F117 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:40:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, one thing for sure, it sure is fucking ugly.... I say bring back the B-36! 
Or better yet, the B-58 Hustler, there was a plane that looked like pure sex... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:40:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 The Nighthawk retired like 7-8 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:41:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 Well, the Nighthawks in the boneyard. Kind of. Preservation storage, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:41:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 F-117 is retired. B2s are from the 80s, and the Air Force thinks they're getting outdated wrt stealth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:42:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want to see the claimed flight envelope, because I don't think that airplane meets the RFP requirements. One thing about it, there should be no load path surprises this time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Welp, not what I was expecting. Not that I should have actually know what to expect.
I did mention once that soon airframes would all eventually look the same in regards to stealth. Eventually the best possible design will be met that allows for a specific performance window. Unless new materials are invented/discovered. But that is a completely lay opinion. I want to see the claimed flight envelope, because I don't think that airplane meets the RFP requirements. One thing about it, there should be no load path surprises this time. Load path surprises? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:42:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://i.imgur.com/2RURRup.jpg Maybe it's just me, but I think that thing is just fugly. It's important that our military aircraft be cool-looking, isn't it? I mean, give us something that looks like an airplane, with some neat fins and stuff. And maybe canards, too. Yeah, canards. Actually what it needs is larger than life pinup nose art. Back when our bombers had big ol' cartoon titties and suggestive names on them we won world wars. Coincidence? I don't think so.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:45:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Considering what the Air Force was asking for, this is the design I expected. Rather than designing an entirely new bomber from the ground up, they instead took the basic B-2 design and modified it a bit with the latest thinking and will use as many off the shelf parts as possible. This should keep both development and unit cost to a minimum. While some will be disappointed that they didn't request a stealthy supersonic or hypersonic aircraft design, to me the route they've chosen is the most sensible and lowest risk option. I liken it to the U.S. Navy developing the F-18 Super Hornet from the original Hornet. Though in many ways the Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft, it was similar enough to the legacy Hornet to keep development costs low while being on-time and within budget. It seems that the Air Force and Northrop have taken the safe approach here rather than shooting for the moon. Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 2:46:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. I'm probably missing something, but could you explain this need, please. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:08:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Will this bomber be tasked with standing off and launching hypersonic weapons?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:11:35 PM EDT
[#23]
WTF?
Are we sure this is not actually an article from The Onion or Duffle Blog? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:12:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did I miss the B-3 through B-20 somewhere? Exactly! Theyre stealth bombers- very stealth bombers |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:14:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the fucking geniuses at the usaf only want to buy 100. So the price will be astronomical, and they'll start to retire them early because they won't be able to afford the replacement parts. Sound familiar? *cough, cough* B-1B They'll be lucky to get 30. And its not out of the realm of possibility they get zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:14:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Considering what the Air Force was asking for, this is the design I expected. Rather than designing an entirely new bomber from the ground up, they instead took the basic B-2 design and modified it a bit with the latest thinking and will use as many off the shelf parts as possible. This should keep both development and unit cost to a minimum. While some will be disappointed that they didn't request a stealthy supersonic or hypersonic aircraft design, to me the route they've chosen is the most sensible and lowest risk option. I liken it to the U.S. Navy developing the F-18 Super Hornet from the original Hornet. Though in many ways the Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft, it was similar enough to the legacy Hornet to keep development costs low while being on-time and within budget. It seems that the Air Force and Northrop have taken the safe approach here rather than shooting for the moon. Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. Yep. It is almost identical in planform to the original ATB/B-2 design prior to DoD adding a low-altitude penetration role to the B-2 which, in turn, lead to the B-2's redesign (and enormous additional cost to the ATB/B-2 program). It will be worth it if we can build ~200 of them. Retire both the B-52H and B-2A, and use the B-1B in the "arsenal aircraft"-role. As for those asking, the LRSB/"B-21" (God, have the politicians and bureaucrats made a mess of the designation protocol) will have a significantly smaller payload than the B-2. However, if built in significant enough numbers, there is an incredible amount of versatility that can be built into the platform beyond the bombing role - say as an optionally-manned sensor node providing the targeting information to a whole host of other systems and platforms. The great Scott Lowther's illustration below, shows the evolution from the original Northrop high-altitude penetrator ATB to the B-2 (w/low-altitude penetration capability) ultimately produced.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:17:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welp, not what I was expecting. Not that I should have actually know what to expect.
I did mention once that soon airframes would all eventually look the same in regards to stealth. Eventually the best possible design will be met that allows for a specific performance window. Unless new materials are invented/discovered. But that is a completely lay opinion. Convergent evolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:25:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So initial estimates are $100 billion for 100 aircraft. What do with think the final numbers will wind up being? $320 billion for 40 delivered planes? $400 billion. 18 planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:28:22 PM EDT
[#29]
More like B-2.1
Needs a cool name though.. The B 2.1 Reaver |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:40:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welp, not what I was expecting. Not that I should have actually know what to expect.
I did mention once that soon airframes would all eventually look the same in regards to stealth. Eventually the best possible design will be met that allows for a specific performance window. Unless new materials are invented/discovered. But that is a completely lay opinion. Heard a story about a car manufacturer saying the same thing in regards to a lawsuit against them on the basis of looks. The name of the game is to be as aerodynamic as possible while meeting federal guidelines on safety and fuel economy. Aerodynamics and dealing with the effects will lead anyone to the almost identical results irrelevant of what logo is on the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:44:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-117 is retired. B2s are from the 80s, and the Air Force thinks they're getting outdated wrt stealth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 F-117 is retired. B2s are from the 80s, and the Air Force thinks they're getting outdated wrt stealth. Yea i know all that And the A10 is still flying around.. Pull them bitches out. Were dropping bombs on people who dont even have radars Update and retrofit |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:45:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B-52 readiness rate: 75% B-2 readiness rate: 46% Any bets on how much lower the B-21's rate will be? I get it... But those numbers are utterly useless without a cite or date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:45:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea i know all that And the A10 is still flying around.. Pull them bitches out. Were dropping bombs on people who dont even have radars Update and retrofit Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 F-117 is retired. B2s are from the 80s, and the Air Force thinks they're getting outdated wrt stealth. Yea i know all that And the A10 is still flying around.. Pull them bitches out. Were dropping bombs on people who dont even have radars Update and retrofit But downtown Beijing. What about downtown Beijing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:46:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://i.imgur.com/2RURRup.jpg Maybe it's just me, but I think that thing is just fugly. It's important that our military aircraft be cool-looking, isn't it? I mean, give us something that looks like an airplane, with some neat fins and stuff. And maybe canards, too. Yeah, canards. I think it's beautiful. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:48:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But downtown Beijing. What about downtown Beijing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this a joke? What is wrong with the B2 and F117 F-117 is retired. B2s are from the 80s, and the Air Force thinks they're getting outdated wrt stealth. Yea i know all that And the A10 is still flying around.. Pull them bitches out. Were dropping bombs on people who dont even have radars Update and retrofit But downtown Beijing. What about downtown Beijing? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:52:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Load path surprises? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Welp, not what I was expecting. Not that I should have actually know what to expect.
I did mention once that soon airframes would all eventually look the same in regards to stealth. Eventually the best possible design will be met that allows for a specific performance window. Unless new materials are invented/discovered. But that is a completely lay opinion. I want to see the claimed flight envelope, because I don't think that airplane meets the RFP requirements. One thing about it, there should be no load path surprises this time. Load path surprises? The B2 required redesign of the wing. A load path is like an electrical circuit, if there is no wire from here to there (or it is a crappy wire), then the signal (the load) can't get to where it needs to go. The original B2 wing layout caused aeroelastic problems. This new B21 is ... Ain't going to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:55:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering what the Air Force was asking for, this is the design I expected. Rather than designing an entirely new bomber from the ground up, they instead took the basic B-2 design and modified it a bit with the latest thinking and will use as many off the shelf parts as possible. This should keep both development and unit cost to a minimum. While some will be disappointed that they didn't request a stealthy supersonic or hypersonic aircraft design, to me the route they've chosen is the most sensible and lowest risk option. I liken it to the U.S. Navy developing the F-18 Super Hornet from the original Hornet. Though in many ways the Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft, it was similar enough to the legacy Hornet to keep development costs low while being on-time and within budget. It seems that the Air Force and Northrop have taken the safe approach here rather than shooting for the moon. Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. Speculation from end to end. Or baiting for information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 3:57:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Umm... It's a big ass B-2.
That's millions of dollars of research and development? If an Australian grabs one end and throws it, it comes right back. Oh hey, Pentagon? Welcome to 2016. Pointy angles don't make things invisible to radar anymore. But at least there's a new place for tax dollars to go. So... Mission accomplished? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:02:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is what I was wondering. No mention of payload. Is the B21 a ginormous B2? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, what is the payload capacity of this B-2 rehash compared to the B-52 or B-1? The B-2 failed to replace either plane already, how will this do the job? That is what I was wondering. No mention of payload. Is the B21 a ginormous B2? Smaller.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:02:40 PM EDT
[#40]
C130 should be able to replace all the bombers. Just build a ton of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:04:26 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:04:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The DOD's R+D and procurement system - the federal government in general, actually - is probably, pound for pound and penny for penny, the biggest boondoggle in the history of the human race. I don't know how much the Great Pyramid of Giza set back the ancient Egyptians, but it couldn't have been, comparatively, more than the F-35, F-22, et al. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm no expert: I'm just a layman.* However, I wouldn't think one would have to be an accountant or a high level executive of a defense contractor to see that there is something terribly wrong with the system. At the rate we are going, by 2050 the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America) Air Force will consist of 1 plane that took 50 years to build and costs $100 quadrillion per plane. The Army will consist of six queers, three she-males, and those two "Ranger" (lol) chicks. And they'll all be Generals. *A man who lays. That's all I am. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/achievementdemotivator_grande.jpeg?v=1416776101 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:06:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
C130 should be able to replace all the bombers. Just build a ton of them. For what we've been using our bombers for, that's not a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:06:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm probably missing something, but could you explain this need, please. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. I'm probably missing something, but could you explain this need, please. If we actually need to penetrate a well defended air space rather than standing off and lobbing cruise missiles from 500 or 1000 miles away, then the only bombers we have with the capability to do that are the 20 or so B-2s that are in the inventory. The B-2 is 1980s stealth, meaning it may no longer be sufficient against the latest technologies potential enemies have developed to counter it. Thus, if we wish to have an aircraft capable of hitting targets deep within countries like Russia or China, then an aircraft like the B-21 is necessary to maintain a credible deterrent as the bomber portion of our nuclear triad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:06:51 PM EDT
[#45]
The Horten brothers were ahead of their time
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:07:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOh bullshit. That doesn't have a pilot. How can the Air Force survive without pilots to lead it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:07:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we actually need to penetrate a well defended air space rather than standing off and lobbing cruise missiles from 500 or 1000 miles away, then the only bombers we have with the capability to do that are the 20 or so B-2s that are in the inventory. The B-2 is 1980s stealth, meaning it may no longer be sufficient against the latest technologies potential enemies have developed to counter it. Thus, if we wish to have an aircraft capable of hitting targets deep within countries like Russia or China, then an aircraft like the B-21 is necessary to maintain a credible deterrent as the bomber portion of our nuclear triad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. I'm probably missing something, but could you explain this need, please. If we actually need to penetrate a well defended air space rather than standing off and lobbing cruise missiles from 500 or 1000 miles away, then the only bombers we have with the capability to do that are the 20 or so B-2s that are in the inventory. The B-2 is 1980s stealth, meaning it may no longer be sufficient against the latest technologies potential enemies have developed to counter it. Thus, if we wish to have an aircraft capable of hitting targets deep within countries like Russia or China, then an aircraft like the B-21 is necessary to maintain a credible deterrent as the bomber portion of our nuclear triad. Oh, the triad. Right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:11:03 PM EDT
[#48]
100? really that's is real retarted sir!
Need at least 250 or more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:12:28 PM EDT
[#49]
that doesn't really look like a b52 replacement, what kind of payload does it have like 1/20th the b52?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speculation from end to end. Or baiting for information. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Considering what the Air Force was asking for, this is the design I expected. Rather than designing an entirely new bomber from the ground up, they instead took the basic B-2 design and modified it a bit with the latest thinking and will use as many off the shelf parts as possible. This should keep both development and unit cost to a minimum. While some will be disappointed that they didn't request a stealthy supersonic or hypersonic aircraft design, to me the route they've chosen is the most sensible and lowest risk option. I liken it to the U.S. Navy developing the F-18 Super Hornet from the original Hornet. Though in many ways the Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft, it was similar enough to the legacy Hornet to keep development costs low while being on-time and within budget. It seems that the Air Force and Northrop have taken the safe approach here rather than shooting for the moon. Considering our need for a new manned bomber that can operate in areas with sophisticated, modern air defenses, I am pleased that they have taken this approach. Speculation from end to end. Or baiting for information. Just my opinion based on what I've read about the project. If they wish to keep costs in the range they've specified, then they can't get too ambitious with the design. To me, that means they'll use as much existing technology as possible in this design to keep development costs to a minimum. Otherwise they will end up with another bomber they can't afford to build in any worthwhile quantity. |
|
|
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.
