|
Phanatic posted:https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html Fascinating (and a great pun in the title)
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-ZFxxN5Bw
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
I could get behind this, but I have too many watches as it is  If you don't want to watch the whole vid, it's $690 for a limited edition (2001) made in Ukraine An225 watches, 15% goes to a charity fund for building a new one. https://mriya.kleynodwatches.com/en/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Can the average paying passenger in 2022 fit down that tunnel? I rode in a B-25 when I turned 40 and the passage to the nose was pretty tight. I was about 150# back then, might be a little bit of a problem now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzUeM1ppoAY
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
So I guess the B21 was unveiled yesterday? https://apnews.com/article/technology-china-business-air-force-palmdale-761db1dae42616181a2cc63966f43554
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Ooh, pretty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Well maybe it'll be better than the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Of course they did it at night and in a hangar so aviation week couldn’t get good photos again 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
I mean, you could, if you have a good throwing arm : https://www.jonaspfeil.de/panono/ I doubt the men in suits would appreciate it however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Will this plane also cost more than its weight in gold
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Will this plane also cost more than its weight in gold Its stealth characteristics are enabled by HP ink, so yeah, easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Will this plane also cost more than its weight in gold “The USAF expects it to cost $1 billion each with development costs factored in, and aims for a per-aircraft cost of $550 million, considered reasonable for a limited production run military aircraft” So at a flyaway cost of $550mil that’s about 21,000 lb of gold at current prices. The b-1 is 192k lb empty and the B-2 158k lb so probably not. In comparison to airliners in 2022 dollars Boeing wants 440mil for a 777-9 and 380mil for a 747-8f. On the airbus side an A350 in the $350mil range. The B-2’s flyaway was $737mil in 1992 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
So what’s the thing’s competitive advantage? Just a goddamn huge B-2 that is a little more sane to fly long hauls? Iirc the spirit didn’t have a toilet or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
I think the big two things are that it's supposed to be cheaper to maintain than the B-2, which is an enormous maintenance hog, and that it is designed to possibly eventually be "optionally manned."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So what’s the thing’s competitive advantage? Just a goddamn huge B-2 that is a little more sane to fly long hauls? Iirc the spirit didn’t have a toilet or something. Smaller than a B-2, easier to maintain, more ability to integrate current and future weapons, greater powerplant efficiency, stealthier, vague stuff about it having its own good sensor packages and ability to do battle management, but details are scant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
the current direction of peer air defense alone necessitates adaptation and is a massive value add all on its own existing LO on the B-2 doesn't help us much if it is true that peer states have spent 30+ years specifically considering it obviously anyone who actually knows how effectively Russian or Chinese defense systems can pick up a B-2 will probably straight up not post about the subject whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So what’s the thing’s competitive advantage? We'll probably learn in a few decades' time, but I imagine it's mainly centered in the its electromagnetic qualities, and ECM/sensor/avionics suite. vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Dec 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Don’t discount easier to maintain, either. Having been in an airplane situation (non-mil) where one aircraft type we had famously broke constantly, I’m sure the Air Force will be happy to have higher readiness for cheaper. 10 or 15 B-21s may have the same availability as 19 B-2s currently do, for the same costs. That alone can be worth a lot of developmental cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
They're also planning to buy ~100 of them vs 21 B-2s so they'll be more available and able to cover more mission areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:They're also planning before a future administration whittles the order down to buy ~100 of them vs 21 B-2s so they'll be more available and able to cover more mission areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Don’t discount easier to maintain, either. Having been in an airplane situation (non-mil) where one aircraft type we had famously broke constantly, I’m sure the Air Force will be happy to have higher readiness for cheaper. 10 or 15 B-21s may have the same availability as 19 B-2s currently do, for the same costs. That alone can be worth a lot of developmental cost. I absolutely guarantee that reliability was not a factor. How do you make money after the fact? Constantly sourcing labor and parts for the lovely airframe you sold the government. There is not a single airframe in existence (in the US mil) that is more reliable than the thing it replaced. Sorry, I’m a pessimistic mil end user
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I absolutely guarantee that reliability was not a factor. How do you make money after the fact? Constantly sourcing labor and parts for the lovely airframe you sold the government. There is not a single airframe in existence (in the US mil) that is more reliable than the thing it replaced. standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:There is not a single airframe in existence (in the US mil) that is more reliable than the thing it replaced. P-3 > P-2. And don't forget the F-16 was replacing the F-104, among others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:P-3 > P-2. And I'm positive that P-8 > P-3 as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:And I'm positive that P-8 > P-3 as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
I'll try and grab pictures of one when they're eventually doing pattern work over my house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:And I'm positive that P-8 > P-3 as well. P-8 is in a weird position, just from program age and adapting a civil aircraft to mil needs. Its availability rate is lower than the P-3 as they work through teething issues*, but each P-3 costs significantly more money to maintain and operate than each P-8. *These issues are less "broken aircraft" and more that as the fleet grows, the supply chain and inspection teams/facilities have not kept up. So you end up with aircraft deadlined for services, awaiting servicing personnel/facilities and parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So what’s the thing’s competitive advantage? Just a goddamn huge B-2 that is a little more sane to fly long hauls? Iirc the spirit didn’t have a toilet or something. Ironic username/post question The hope is that it will be a Stealth bomber in a mass-production package - it has to replace the B-2 and the B-1. The B-1s are basically done post operation useless dirt, and the B-2, I mean, costs more than the equivalent weight in gold?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
It will have the additional advantage of there being more than a squadron worth of the things in existence, too. Edit: lol I missed like nine people saying the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:obviously anyone who actually knows how effectively Russian or Chinese defense systems can pick up a B-2 will probably straight up not post about the subject whatsoever Well at least not until War Thunder adds the B-2
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 09:23
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Well at least not until War Thunder adds the B-2 Can't wait for the B21 leaks
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Well at least not until War Thunder adds the B-2 B-2 (early)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:B-2 (early) hahahaha, perfect
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Well at least not until War Thunder adds the B-2 Screenshot from a Canberra
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Screenshot from a Canberra From a Canberra  (satire) Humphreys fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:They're also planning to buy ~100 of them vs 21 B-2s so they'll be more available and able to cover more mission areas. The original B-2 order was also for upwards of a hundo before the wall fell and people saw the pricetag fwiw
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Was there ever a good number on the flyaway cost of a B-2? Most of the number for the program was the R&D divided by 20 airframes. I know I quoted the $700mil but is that right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
"Last month, some strange noises were coming out of one of the museum’s planes, which led to a member of the Hickory Aviation Museum investigating. This employee looked inside a Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star and found a furry surprise." https://simpleflying.com/kittens-born-inside-cockpit-lockheed-t33-shooting-star/
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
These should be the names (there were only five kittens and genders weren't listed): Lockheed (male), Electra (female), Connie (female), Hercules (male), Spooky (male), Lightning (male)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Now that is a JATO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:34
|
|
