|
Arglebargle III posted:I thought those were the surveillance drone that were all hush hush until Iran shot one down. They were WAY too big to be RQ-170s. At
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I thought those were the surveillance drone that were all hush hush until Iran shot one down. No, these were B-2 sized, and once spotted the Air Force then flew B-2's on the same path to throw a smoke screen. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Foxtrot Alpha did an article where they theorized that it was a rumored black project plane supposedly coded TR-3. So a newfangled U-2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:No, these were B-2 sized, and once spotted the Air Force then flew B-2's on the same path to throw a smoke screen. X-47B and theyre mistaken about the size maybe? I guess front shape isnt quite right. Also maybe some hypersonic test bed or something. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Here's a decent Russian Assault-engineer/Sapper photo set: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Warrior_(U.S._Army) quote:The Microclimate Cooling System (MCS) gives Army aircrews an increase of over 350 percent (from 1.6 hours to 5.7 hours) mission endurance while wearing chemical protective equipment or in other heat stress mission environments. The system features a vest and aircraft-mounted cooling unit that pumps chilled water via an umbilical to small tubes embedded in the vest. Because of its success as part of the Air Warrior ensemble, the MCS is also being used by crews in ground vehicle platforms in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including Stryker, Abrams, and Bradley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
B-21, better go full anime with the name and call it Spirit Lancer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
So this is awkward. It looks like the continued existence of ISIS is keeping the A-10's flying until 2022. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:This begs the question, what the gently caress were those flying triangles spotted a while ago then? Northrup did announce a few weeks back that they've been developing 6th gen stealth fighters and that they were only a years away from a finished product, could be early prototypes or test craft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I'm putting money on the B-21 designation being something to do with "TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BOMBER OF THE FUTURE." SSN-21 CG-21 DDG-21 There is precedence. Military and economic historians of the future are going to look at the US military in the immediate post-cold war to ~2020 period and laaaaaaaaugh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Sucks that the name "Blackjack" is already taken. MrYenko posted:I'm putting money on the B-21 designation being something to do with "TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BOMBER OF THE FUTURE." Hey, at least they aren't calling it "Bomber 2000" like it's a 90's flight sim game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Looks like a point release on the B-2 to me. B-2.1 But hey, there has been a lot of inflation since last time Northrop built a two billion dollar bomber we couldn't afford. [efb to the 2.1 joke] Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Hey, at least they aren't calling it "Bomber 2000" like it's a 90's flight sim game. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Looks like a point release on the B-2 to me. B-2.1 I can't wait for it to cost more than the B-2. This is going to be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I can't wait for it to cost more than the B-2. This is going to be amazing. I'm looking forward to the justification for the Trump wall to be "Its only 1 B-21 bomber"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/26/navy-will-not-buy-more-rmmvs-will-pursue-system-of-systems-approach-to-mine-countermeasures Clearly this modular solution is working - when it sucks - just cut it. Didn't they already cut another part of the MCM package?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'm putting money on the B-21 designation being something to do with "TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BOMBER OF THE FUTURE." From the article: "The Air Force settled on the B-21 designation as recognition that LRS-B is the first bomber of the 21st century, the statement noted." So yeah, you're right. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Y'all say B-2.1....I say B-2 RC1.... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
That Works posted:Some LRSB stuff released. Looks like just a render and the designation B-21 Why isn't it called the B-3. Edit: Damnit. Reminds me of how C&C Generals had bombers in it that were identical to the B-2 but called the B-3 and described as an upgraded version. Concordat fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
It's the B-21 because it's 18 better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Sucks that the name "Blackjack" is already taken. It is funny to me that the picture on this page is not the Hawkeye 2000. This is an E-2C Hawkeye 2000: Notice different propeller and dunce cap on dome. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Splode posted:From the article: The B-21 was built by North American in 1936.  This version is nothing moree than a terrible doppelganger that I shall heretofore refer to as The Boondoggle Bomber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:It is funny to me that the picture on this page is not the Hawkeye 2000. That is a really good looking plane, except for the bulbous cockpit
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
^^ You mean the glans ^^ Supposedly a T90 TOW strike. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=871_1456476988 Talk amongst yourselves. Dark Helmut fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
So I've been reading this monster of a thread on my commute. Thanks for all the effort posts guys, I've been sperging lots. Keep up the work plses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Concordat posted:Why isn't it called the B-3. Because that's being reserved for the B-1/B-52 replacement. Or they'll call that one the B-152. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
simplefish posted:That is a really good looking plane, except for the everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
They should have gone with the B-35 IMO. Would fit right in with the F-35, Su-35, and MiG-35.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Anyone else disappointed that Northrop wasn't making a 21st century stealth XB-70? I was really hoping for some Mach 2+ bomber that was stealthy and cutting edge and "out there", not a 650 mph rerun from the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
So my limited understanding is that the B-2 had a mainly nuclear mission? Did they ever get used for anything else considering their special snowflake price-tags? Although I guess the B-52 and B-1 also started with nuclear missions and have more or less ended up as conventional bomb trucks. I guess I'm mostly curious at what capacity the new bomber brings to the table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:So my limited understanding is that the B-2 had a mainly nuclear mission? Did they ever get used for anything else considering their special snowflake price-tags? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade So yes, they've been dropping JDAMs for a while...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I was really hoping for some Mach 2+ bomber that was stealthy and cutting edge and "out there", not a 650 mph rerun from the 90's. I know, all of these remakes, in movies and in aircraft, are boring. Generation Internet posted:So my limited understanding is that the B-2 had a mainly nuclear mission? Did they ever get used for anything else considering their special snowflake price-tags? I think the ambition is 1) affordability, and 2) relatively lots of 'em. Also not being special snowflakes means the USAF would actually risk them in combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Also the greatest advancements in air power lately have been in sensors and weapons and links as opposed to showing off high speeds and sick flips. F-22 does some pretty sick flips, but still. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I know, all of these remakes, in movies and in aircraft, are boring. The B-2 would've been relatively affordable per airframe but we had to buy something like 200 of them. There was absolutely ridiculous after the Soviet Union collapsed, which happened after all the major work in the B-2 program took place. So this thing is supposed to leverage what we've learned from three-to-four operational generations of low observability and make something that'll have a reasonable pricetag at useful numbers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also the greatest advancements in air power lately has been in sensors and weapons and links as opposed to showing off high speeds and sick flips. Nebakenezzer posted:I know, all of these remakes, in movies and in aircraft, are boring. I'd add 3) higher availability for each airframe. B-2 fleet readiness is below the USAF targets. A big push for this is that each individual plane has a significantly higher up time and doesnt need special air conditioned hangers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
The B-21 is going to benefit hugely from the past few decades of lessons learned from the Spirit fleet. There's shades of F/A-18C and F/A-18E development parallels already. Another thing I find interesting is obviously Northrop and the USAF found the B-2 to get so much right that there isn't a terrible demand for design revolution. Although we'll see how true that statement is in the following years if/when performance capabilities are publicly released.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
By reasonable pricetag, we mean 500+ million each, before any metal is bent. That is the number they are throwing around now. If it doesn't get to 2B from that starting point, I'll be stunned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
The only way you really get to $2B for the B-2 is by including the full R&D program, all facility construction, the purchase of the old Ford plant they were built in, and the maintenance & support costs (through the early 2000s) that were rolled into the program cost. Actual flyaway cost was less than half of that, and would've leveled out somewhere just under half a billion apiece had they not cancelled most of the order.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I think the fact that all of our next generation bombers will still have human pilots is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:I think the fact that all of our next generation bombers will still have human pilots is just dumb. Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Because drones are cheaper, have vastly longer loiter times, and don't put pilots at risk. You don't have to spend nearly as much on stealth. It might be a better strategy these days to build large numbers of cheap drones and expect a certain rate of attrition that would be unacceptable in manned aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:48
|
|