B-21 Raider

Eurofag here. Please explain this to me. What is the fucking point in making B-21, when USAF already has Nighthawks and Spirits, and can't even afford to restart the production of either of those? Every 5-10 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft, makes like 20-30 of those, and then abandons it. Makes no fucking sense.

Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F22, before the last boomer engineers involved in the project die out and the technology is lost forever?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    F-117 have been retired for a while. Tech has moved on. This has a better payload anyway. As for why new planes every decade, you don't stay ahead of everyone by sitting around with your thumb up your ass. Not sure what you mean RE: 20-30 planes. There's like 1k F-35s in service now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Retired
      They're still in use afaik as aggressor aircraft for training purposes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I am continually hoping that the US donates its 42 F-117s to Ukraine so their ground attack capabilities can turn russians into cubes en masse.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Aren't F-117s incredibly finicky on ground crews with toxic stealth coatings?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Ukrainians have built up an immunity to cancer thanks to Chernobyl.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Not sure what you mean RE: 20-30 planes

      I mean strategic bombers, like B22 spirit, the US only has 21 of those.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You now realize why the USAF plans to build 200 B-21s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *B-2 spirit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Probably because, at the time, that number filled the doctrine needs of the US. Now that stealth is a more mature technology, the doctrine has embraced it and they want more stealth bombers. But the doctrine also suggests a different payload size is more useful, so you get a smaller version.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The only purpose of B-2 spirits is to drop B83 Hydrogen bombs on enemy's population centres in case of nuclear war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >B83

          If those aren't retired by that point.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I thought it also was intended to fly around the USSR searching for road mobile ICBMs to kill them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of that is due to budget cuts after the end of the cold war. They had originally planned on building hundreds of them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        B-2 was originally planned for a 100 aircraft original production run.

        Then it turned out that the Soviet Union was a house of cards and collapsed overnight. When the reason for your entire being is suddenly missing in the blink of an eye, funding gets changed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The US cancelled the order for more because more were viewed as unnecessary in the post-Soviet world. Simple as. There was no one to challenge it. It was a master artist without a suitable canvas, and now it's too old to paint quite as well as it did.

        Anyway, the B21 is restarting to not just replace the B2, but the B1 as well. We'll keep the B52 around because it is, per flight hour, the cheapest thing we have, but the B21 is meant to incorporate a lot of the advances that have been made since the B2s inception.

        >Why not restart the F22
        No point. the F22 has been upgraded as much as the software and hardware allows. It's a plane design that is fundamentally old by modern standards, whose conception goes back decades now to its infancy in the literal 1980s. Anything it can do mission-wise, the Sixth Gen will presumably do the job better.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >per flight hour, the cheapest thing we have
          Per flight hour per payload its cheap, straight flight hours it's quite expensive,

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And that's why the Buff lives forever. God bless that 60 year old flying brick and all the armaments she can lob at people.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              tbf the BUFF hasn't been properly replaced for the same reason the Deep Space Network never gets upgraded - it's BORING. Could you design a modern B-52 with lower flight hour costs and the same payload? Absolutely. Will you convince Congress to fund it without any fun buzzwords like network centric system of stealthy systems of systems? lol no

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The USAF are projecting that it will be in service until 2050. Yes it's boring but sometimes boring and serviceable is perfect.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it will be in service until 2050
                These things will be bombing the ayys on Alpha Centauri, just you wait.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know if you heard about this thing we call "the collapse of the USSR" but the U.S. kind of stopped building weapons for a while, and Europe destroyed all of theirs to make it easy for Totally Kind And Sane Putin to give you gas and invade.

        The B-21 is because the U.S. is beginning to realize it fucked up by only making enough B-2's to last a week in combat, because there are actually threats in the world. So now we're making stuff again.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth detection technology has improved massively since the F-117's day, truth is the older shit isn't super stealthy any more.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's cheaper to build new tech with new tech than revive antique production lines. It also produces a superior product.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theres 2 kinds of aircraft, the Gucci planes, like the B-2 and the SR-71 which are mind-blowingly expensive to build and develop, and the entire production run is in the dozens at most, and they represent marginal (if novel) capability.
    Then there are mature designs that will be procured by the hundreds, that form the backbone of the Air Force.
    The B-2 is the former, the B-21 is the latter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So B-21 is to B-2 what F-35 is to F-22

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        More or less. The B-21 is aiming for different optimization points than the B-2, particularly range. The B-21 is the only aircraft that can strike anywhere in the world from the Continental US without aerial refueling.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The B-21 is the only aircraft that can strike anywhere in the world from the Continental US without aerial refueling.
          Only because those fuckers retired the B-36. Can't have shit in the Strategic Air Command.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's more like what the F-35 is to the F-15 Eagle (i.e. the "low" and the "high" of the high/low mix, only from two different generations).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't forget the (redacted, shockingly high) quantity of "one-offs"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And "two-offs"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What is the fucking point in making B-21
      Range, range, range. And payload. But most of all range. A stealth heavy bomber, in sufficient numbers, is the pinnacle of modern force projection.
      >USAF already has Nighthawks
      Retired and outdated, with extremely limited payload and range.
      >Spirits
      Don't have enough of them. IMO we should be making more modernized B-2s instead of wasting money on a clean-sheet design but whatever
      >Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F22
      The F-22 doesn't have nearly as much range/combat radius as the B-2 or B-21 even with external fuel, let alone without it.

      >the B-2 and the SR-71 which are mind-blowingly expensive to build and develop
      The B-2 would have been a lot cheaper per-unit if Bush Sr. and Congress hadn't rug-pulled the production numbers like they did.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        B2 would always be limited by the design though. The B21 has a lot of key systems taken out of the F-35 like its engines, which logistically make it much, much simpler and efficient to manage when you are looking at a whole air force. The F35 exists purely to replace all the Teens fighters (and the F22 the F15 to a degree). In the Air Force's perfect world, they'd have only F-35s and NGAD and B21 (and I guess B52s since they are so damn cheap to fly), and the rest would all be drones.

        The early cold war era of having a half-dozen distinct fighter frames with hyper specialized roles is all gone. They don't want that. They want the leanest logistical and fuel supply possible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *Drones and cargo planes, of which they have like 3 designs

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >B2 would always be limited by the design though.
          Somewhat, but it still has no equal. Modernization could help matters while still being less costly than tooling up for a clean-sheet design.
          >The B21 has a lot of key systems taken out of the F-35 like its engines
          The F118 has commonality with the F110, which in turn shares a core with the incredibly ubiquitous CFM56. I would argue it's less troublesome to let GE to continue supporting F118s, or develop a new equivalent derived from LEAP, than to develop a new engine from the much smaller F119/F135 family.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the EWC aircraft are pretty useful for spying on people, can we keep them too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        B-21 isn't that much of a risk tbh, at lot of the stuff it's using is also used in the F-35. It's not much of a stretch to say the B-21 is a 2 Engine F-35 with a larger bomb bay (ya it's a huge stretch but still)

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit read a wikipedia article

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm thinking this is the "budget" variant of the B-2, just like the F-35 being a cheapo alternative to the F-22.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I would say there has been made significant progress in sensors, material science etc, aswell as evaluation of the b2 to improve the b21 and reduce cost

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ten years separate the F-117 and the B-2 bomber.
        Thirty years separate the B-2 and the B-21. I can't begin to imagine the gulf between their capabilities.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          True, though less than you might think honestly. The F-117 was an incredible project but done on a relative shoestring budget in the face of a skeptical government (stealth really new) and back then it was insanely early in the computer revolution and crunching the stealth equations was crazy hard. That's why it had that angular shape and surfaces, it was all the computers could do. In the 70s and 80s though computer power was advancing exponentially and even a few years made a huge difference, plus by that point the value of stealth and the budget was not a question anymore. The shape of the B2 is a lot closer to what came after than the F-117.

          B-21 will absolutely be a humongous improvement but it's also pretty crazy how a few years difference means the B2 still flies today whereas the F117 had a noble career but was retired for very good reason ages ago.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair, that's more because the F-117 was replaced by other multirole aircraft that just happen to do it's job by accident, while a strategic bomber requires a completely different design and so there wasn't a plane that just happened to do it's job better. Similar reason the B-52 still flies.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >To be fair, that's more because the F-117 was replaced by other multirole aircraft
              No, read the Skunkworks book (it's super fucking awesome anyway, great book on an amazing bit of cold war history). They knew the F-117 had a sell-by date as radars kept improving and once the first shootdown happened they were hitting the end point in terms of value. It could still be used (and was) but doctrine had to change where it could no longer be used for certain targets. Thing was also really heavy on the maintenance vs newer designs.

              It was an incredible project but the devs were always thinking in terms of "how many years does this aircraft buy before the enemy catches up", F-117 was no different from the SR-71 in that regard which was no different than the U-2. Each was a stunning engineering achievement, each performed incredibly and did extremely valuable real work for the US, each was done for real value on top, and in the end each had opposition tech catch up with it. Life moves fast at those levels. Damn were they great though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that book is half good and half boomers whining about the government. super fucking annoying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >whereas the F117 had a noble career but was retired for very good reason ages ago.
            they keep saying that and then they keep flying F-117s

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              becasuse other country's stealth planes are only as stealthy as the first generation F-117.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's true they're cheaper but saying the F35 or B21are the 'budget' versions is completely misleading.
      first of all they've both got the benefit of ~40 years of tech inprovements that let them do stuff neither of their predecessors are at all capable of, and second, they aren't designed for exactly the same roles.
      F35 is the new NATO workhorse that's good enough at everything and sneaky enough to survive in modern wars. The sensors alone on the 35 let is fill in as a spy plane or AWACS for forces to poor to afford the real deal. F22 is the apex predator who's sole purpose is to swat everything with a red star on the tail the fuck out of the sky. It's not a ground pounder. It's not for SEAD. It's not for Naval Interdiction. The 35 is.
      B21 is a lot more similar to the B2 than the 35 is to the 22, but its primary purpose is to sneak around over the Pacific ocean and chuck standoff munitions at china. The B2 was meant to go in low and quiet over the Soviet Union and nuke the shit out of the place and then have enough gas to get back to the US. Different roles that have similar requirements.
      Also, don't get confused by what these planes were MEANT to do vs what they've actually done. B2 for example turned out to be pretty good at going very long distances and dropping a couple bombs over the middle east without being spotted to the DOD didn't have to write another fucking press release. The F22 hasn't actually been used for much so they threw it a balloon and let it drop a bomb on some north african who-cares-istan like 10 years ago.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      B21 is even stealthier and goes all in for stealth. afaik B2 had some manueverability added in but it cost it some stealth.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    B21 offers similar capabilities but is cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain (and can be maintained at a greater number of bases), and WAY cheaper to manufacture. It’s also better optimized for LRASMing the entire Chinese fleet.

    If B2 = F22
    B21 = F35

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The F-117 was shot down and subsequently retired.
    The B-21 is a massive improvement over any previous platform

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I judge military aircraft based on how cozy the cockpit looks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What do you rate most and least cozy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the B-2 is the coziest aircraft of all time

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao just wait until you find out what the "UAP/UFOs" are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A lie.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the fucking point in making B-21, when USAF already has Nighthawks and Spirits
    30 year old planes
    >Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F22
    30 year old plane. if think F-22 is a superplane compared to F-15, what do you think NGAD will be to F-22?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >30 year old plane

      F-22 has only been introduced in December of 2005.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's 10 years of development AT LEAST before a plane is introduced into service.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        F-22 had its first flight in 1997, so 26 years ago
        B-2 had its first flight in 1989 so 34 years ago
        F-35A first flew in 2006 so 17 years ago in December
        F-35B First flight in 2008 so 15 years ago
        F-35C first flight in 2010 so 13 years ago

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Doesn't matter, the F-22 is still the best/most advanced fighter on the planet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            well sure for now, NGAD will surpass it though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Honestly anon. That's a pretty retarded statement.

            Avionics and sensor-wise, the F-35 is leagues above the F-22. The F-35 got everything the F-22 was supposed to receive, but was cut because of budget issues, and MORE. The only thing the F-22 wins out on is maneuverability, but it has been shown that the F-35 is not very bad at that either.

            Seriously, think for a moment. Lets just say in fantasy land the F-22 and the F-35 face off in a one on one. The F-35 wins, not because it can out turn the F-22, but because it doesn't need to. The F-35 can launch heat seekers from any direction, reportedly. That alone is a capability that would turn the tide in a battle like that.

            So take into account your calling the F-22 the "best". Best how? It costs a fortune to maintain, is a pain in the ass to maintain, and because of that has way less strategic capabilities than the F-35. It costs twice as much to operate an F-22 for the same amount of time as an F-35, because the air frame itself was built before the technologies it uses were matured. The F-35 is the product of over two decades of refinement on everything that made the F-22 great.

            RCS argument does not hold much water, as that is heavily dependent on RAM coatings. The effective RCS with RAM coatings on both the F-22 and F-35 are completely unknown, but there is no reason to believe the F-22 has more effective RAM for any reason.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's a fucking fact. F22 is the only operational plane capable of supercruising.

              F22 is still leagues above F35

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but there is no reason to believe the F-22 has more effective RAM for any reason.

              The congres has literally banned export of F-22 because the tech is too advanced.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Congress banned export of the F-22 before the F-35 even flew retard
                >this tech was TOO ADVANCED to export in 2004 that means it's better than what's being built 20 years later
                that's a stupid argument before we even consider you just used the single most hated political body in the US as an appeal to authority, do you really believe the average congress critter understands the difference between an F-35 and an F-22?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That doesent mean shit you dolt. F22 is a superior fighter to F35, and that is a fact. I think that Pentagon knows better than soma guy from 4chin. F22 stealth technology is unrivaled, and so is Its speed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The F-22 is kinematically superior and probably a better air superiority platform. The F-35 is better at literally everything else. It's like comparing the OG "not a pound from air to ground" Eagle to an F-16C. And if the Pentagon agreed the F-22 was super future tech, they wouldn't be replacing it with NGAD.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Pentagon didn't ban export of the F-22.
                A guy on the House Appropriations Committee who introduced an amendment to the 1998 Defense Appropriations Bill banned export of the F-22.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Congress banned export of the F-22 before the F-35 even flew retard
                >this tech was TOO ADVANCED to export in 2004 that means it's better than what's being built 20 years later
                that's a stupid argument before we even consider you just used the single most hated political body in the US as an appeal to authority, do you really believe the average congress critter understands the difference between an F-35 and an F-22?

                It's a fucking fact. F22 is the only operational plane capable of supercruising.

                F22 is still leagues above F35

                The f22 is air to air with untouchable stealth, it's a victim of its own success because US air dominance was never challenged, the f16s and f15s did a good enough job, it's job is to double our air control, bringing us from 98% effective to 99% effective
                The f35 can take out ships radar ground based systems work in all kinds of environments jam missiles better costs a lot less to operate and the fucking fact america sold like a trillion dollars of them to its allies to fund other research, the f35s radar array alone is better than the dedicated surveillance aircraft of 90% of notable powers

                The f22 is perfect at what it was designed for, everyone was already so scared of f16s they never had to deploy a squad of them against Iran china or rus. It has a substantially smaller radar signature than the 35, which has itself a smaller signature than the j20 and su57 prototype(literally only a dozen of these, including beta test ones, exist)

                Why doesn't the US build more f22s?
                The current fleet of them is dominant enough, and the production of it's air superiority successor is nearly done, when the f22 was being developed you'd rightly be allowed to say the f16 and f15 were untouchable "just build more of those" the NGAD project fill fulfil the dreams of your air specialist boner, relax
                Ssshhh let us sell 1000 more f35s to nato so we can fund the f22 successor and loyal wingmen drones

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh shit, congress says so? Man those guys are so smart if they think so, man, it must be true.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                F22 is a top tier tech still

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The F-35 wins, not because it can out turn the F-22, but because it doesn't need to. The F-35 can launch heat seekers from any direction, reportedly. That alone is a capability that would turn the tide in a battle like that.
              >So take into account your calling the F-22 the "best". Best how?

              If you're doing everything right modern air combat should never even get to the point where your high off boresight missiles come into play. The goal is to destroy the enemy in beyond visual range combat with long range missiles like meteor and AMRAAM.

              The F-22 would dominate the F-35 in a legitimate air to air engagement because it has roughly equivalent radar, better stealth, and most importantly WAY better kinematics. The F-22 makes the F-15 look like a fucking mig in air to air combat. The speed and altitudes the 22 can reach mean it is gonna be launching MUCH more dangerous missiles from further away than the F-35.

              The toss up in that situation is of course sensors which the F-35 definitely beats the 22 in. It's got better situational awareness thanks to the built in IRST sensor. But again, chances are they both see each other at roughly the same time and that means the Raptor is gonna launch longer ranged more dangerous missiles.

              At the end of the day I think the F-35 is arguably the better jet for combat. If I had to pick one to fly into a warzone it would absolutely be the F-35. BUT the F-22 would beat the F-35 in air to air.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              F22 has alot of resricted and top secret tech not allowed for export.
              F35 has alot of improvements but no NOFORN tech to enable better economies of scale and global export plus no other military can afford a pure airsupremacy platform and would rather have a all mission bird.
              The F-35 is a multirole instead of air supremacy so it gains and loses alot compared to a air superiority fighter.
              F-15 was replaced by the F-22 and its replacement is the NGAD
              The F-16 is replaced by the F-35 and will be replaced by w/e the 6th gen export ends up being in the multirole export market.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >F-15 was replaced by the F-22 and its replacement is the NGAD
                1) As of now the F-15 is doing just fine as the second air superiority fighter of the US.
                2) Since the Air Force has ordered The F-15EX (goes by the name Eagle II now) the AF will receive about 100 more F-15s over the next few years.
                F-22 production has ceased many years ago while the F-15 is still going very strong both as a classic air superiority fighter and a multirole capable strike plane.
                The F-22 has replaced nothing but a handful of old F-15As

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                F-15 squadrons are being replaced by F-35

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            F-35 is a better multirole, the F-22 doesn't have an organic targeting pod or IRST

            The F-22 is probably still the best air superiority fighter in the world until NGAD

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Development

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >YF-22
          >F-22

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You do realize that the leading "Y" prefix means "pre-production prototype of", right? Sorta like a leading "X" means "experimental/test prototype"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The f117 was being designed in the 70s, it's 50 years old tech, which is amazing if you think about it

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Every 5-10 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft, makes like 20-30 of those, and then abandons it. Makes no fucking sense.
    that's the point of the B-21, they intend to shit out a whole bunch to replace B-1 and B-2

    >Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F22, before the last boomer engineers involved in the project die out and the technology is lost forever?
    because most of the technology from the F-22 and more besides is integrated into F-35 and NGAD

    what OP is REALLY asking
    >why can't I just have my cold war nostalgia airframes reeeee

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why can't I just have my cold war nostalgia airframes reeeee

      Those were kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F22, before the last boomer engineers involved in the project die out and the technology is lost forever?
      >because most of the technology from the F-22 and more besides is integrated into F-35 and NGAD
      Also just in general, "restarting production lines" is completely retarded and undoable. There is an enormous amount of institutional knowledge and networking involved in this kind of manufacture, once things are shut down it evaporates very, very quickly. It can be worse than starting from scratch, or close to it. You've got all these old assumptions baked into the design, without the ability to learn lessons and apply new tech. But you've got none of the infra it was built around. There's endless suppliers for components that go into this stuff and everything has to be specified. What happens when the supplier for that one little critical power circuit chip or capacitor is gone, or no longer makes those? Substitutes can have ripple effects and need to be recertified. There may be NOBODY making them anymore since there was no more customer. And on and on.

      People who've never been involved in manufacturing have very strange high level ideas of how it works when one gets down to the nitty gritty. It's not simple to restart production of complex high tech and is almost universally better to start fresh so that all the effort yields appropriate payoff.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s especially annoying regarding space stuff, eg. ”why can’t we just rebuild moon landers using old blueprints” etc. It’s so dumb to assume that producing something conplicated is just a task to start and finish on a cinch, when it is always a huge and slow process.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>why can't I just have my cold war nostalgia airframes reeeee

      This is an entirely legitimate question.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Restarting production of the B2 comes with significant costs, and lessons have been learned and technology has progressed since the B2s were designed in the 1980s and 1990s. The Air Force spent the money in building something new instead of resurrecting something old.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dude the F-117 is hilariously obsolete are you retarded?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, they aren't you asshat. Just like B-52s aren't obsolete, despite being made in the early 50s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The US didn't bother recovering F-117 wreckage in Serbia because it was already old tech back then. Stealth tech has changed a lot since then, and the B-52 is still around because it doesn't have a mission more sophisticated than "Carry a large payload very high and very far."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        B-52s are obscelescent and with the introduction of Rapid Dragon can't do anything a C-5 Galaxy can't do better

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          B52 can fire cruise missles. C5 is a fucking cargo plane.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did you just glass over the part of my post where I mentioned the system the USAF developed to drop hundreds of cruise missiles out of cargo planes? Anything with a ramp can fire packets of LRASM.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Whoever got that idea deserves a fucking medal and the privilege of pulling the trigger on the first one to be fired in anger against the chinks. It's such an obvious yet brilliant idea.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They don't deserve a medal because the idea has been around for decades. The real question is why it took so fucking long.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That they managed to get it into production is exactly why they deserve that metal. Whatever stood in their way was overcome.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The pacific is a big place. You need aircraft with a lot of range. The B-21 can carry a large weapon load and strike targets thousands of miles outside of the range of something like an F-35. A bunch of B-21s full of LRASMs roving over the pacific is a terrifying concept for any enemy surface warships. They also have enough range to be based outside the range of nearly all ground launched Chinese weapons.

    The B-2 is only 1 gen of stealth tech beyond the original F-117. It's constantly falling apart without huge amounts of maintenance and is absurdly expensive and difficult to maintain. For an organization with a budget like the USAF this is manageable with a force of only 20 of them but with a new focus on the pacific the USAF wants many many more airframes with that kind of range. The USAF wants at least 100 B-21s and up to 200. The B-21 as an extremely modern medium bomber with the F-35s baked-in durable stealth tech is perfect for this. The B-21 is going to be the backbone of the USAF's strike capability in the pacific.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The pacific is a big place.
      You don't have to fly through the pacific ocean to reach asian continent
      Due to curvature of earth flying upwards and then crossing at a smaller point makes for a shorter distance.
      Also US can just station their shit in Alaska and be done with it.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    F 117s are being put into storage and will be upgraded slowly over time and if needed in an emergency pulled out.
    B 2s are 50 year old planes that do all the missions efficienctly
    B 21 will step in slowly probably 5 years our from really being up and produced. By the time that's happening the next couple of bodies will be up and replacing probably the b 2.
    The ngad is mostly done but it's still 10 years from real production because they'll have it near perfect in 5 but technology will have advanced they'll do a reset while they build up production ability and 3 years later production will start then 2 years it will be at pace.
    The f 35 will be the same airframe mostly but within 10 years completely rebuilt. F 22 will keep getting extended unt ngad us almost ready. F 35 will start being retired by 2033 and gradually be phased out until 2043 and it will have it's little niche for a awhile.
    It's not going to get like the b 52. It's going to run 20 more years tops with the f 35. My guess is by 2028 they will have it's variants replacements built already and we won't know it

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because all those old planes you mentioned are... drumroll... ancient.
    Might as well ask why we don't start up assembly lines for cars designed in the 80s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Motor vehicle design peaked aesthetically in the 1980s, anon, I would unironically buy a new production pickup made in the style of the 80's or 90's. All the trucks are so fucking big these days for no reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This, cars then had a soul. Now they all look the same and boring.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine getting into that motherfucking fishtank after leaving it on a blacktop lot for a couple of hours in the summer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine getting into that motherfucking fishtank after leaving it on a blacktop lot for a couple of hours in the summer.

          Imagine chaining your enemy spread-eagled across the hood of that, then smashing his chest open and ripping his still-beating heart out as a sacrifice to Huītzilōpōchtli and eating it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh there's a very big reason for it. In the US fuel efficiency standard are based on size primarily so bigger vehicles have lower standards. Recently those standards started going up to the point where making a light trick is almost impossible

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I want my 2023 Mercury Grand Marquis please and thank you!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Speak for yourself. I want gen 3 preludes around again

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Motor vehicle design peaked aesthetically in the 1980s, anon, I would unironically buy a new production pickup made in the style of the 80's or 90's. All the trucks are so fucking big these days for no reason.

      I want my 2023 Mercury Grand Marquis please and thank you!

      Speak for yourself. I want gen 3 preludes around again

      Unironically in 10 years time there might be a market for mid-to-high end EVs designed to look like older cars. When you remove fuel efficiency from the equation, consumers don’t have to worry about mileage and governments aren’t going to get pissy about emissions. When you take that into consideration, there’s a lot less incentive to prioritise aerodynamics over aesthetics.

      Of course, for military aircraft that means nothing because they have to account for capabilities and military budgets, but if designers can account for crumple zones we might start to see better looking cars sooner rather than later.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Modern cars look like shit due to pedestrian and crash safety requirements, aerodynamics plays a minimal part in that

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Might as well ask why we don't start up assembly lines for cars designed in the 80s.
      I wish they would, I hate modern cars

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They wanted to make an airplane that looks like the Masonic square and compass so they could laugh at the goyim who think this crap is actually useful and not just a way to steal money

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The last one didn’t look enough like a square and compass so they put in a few billion to achieve their goal so that they could laugh at stupid goyim

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      are the Freemasons a gnomish thing? I thought they were their own weird (based) death cult

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No they’re a satanist thing. Lots of garden gnomes are Freemasons but not all Freemasons are garden gnomes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, think of them as the 1800s white version of garden gnomes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          fuck that's based, how do you join

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Be a tradee, find your local lodge and talk to people.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            literally go to a lodge and ask to join. if you're willing to pay your monthly dues and you're not an atheist you can join

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >pay
              >not an atheist
              shit

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They're letting Catholics in nowadays?!?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no women, no atheists, no politics.

                unless you're a filthy euro, in which case enjoy your pozzed lodge

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                they always let Catholics in, but Catholics were not permitted to join by the Vatican

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and you're not an atheist
              Well fuck those guys then.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Generally it's an old farts drinking club with weird rituals because they didn't have burning man a thousand years ago, were bored, and oppressed by monarchists. Like all fraternal networking groups it's filled with men that like money and don't like competition. This is mysterious to retards so they in-fight on the "conspiracy" when obviously grifting is the norm in this world to begin with.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They were originally bong thing. Created by mason guild in London.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Goes back even further, think Ancient Egypt, and even Ancient China, during Confucius times, theres a School of Though called the "Mohism", its pretty similar to what the masons believe, on top of that the founder was said to be "Black skin coloured" which was why its named "墨", "ink"
          https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hundred_Schools_of_Thought#:~:text=The%20Shiji%20(%E5%8F%B2%E8%A8%98)%20lists%20Confucianism,(%E5%8D%81%E5%AE%B6%3B%20Shijia).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't be so sure, though the Masons (or at least the alchemists) did claim a tie to ancient Egypt through Hermes Trimegustis (probably spelt that wrong) but I'd say that's dubious at best
            Not to derail this stealth bomber thread into an occult mysticism one, but I think there's a huge difficulty in telling which religions, traditions and sects are derived from or influenced by each other, and which simply arrived at the same points on their own (convergent theology), complicated by strong reasons to claim both lineage and independence.
            For example Hindu probably did develop a lot due influence from (yet also opposition and competition with) Buddhism, but I strongly doubt the idea that early Christianity was derived from Buddhism with some tale of Jesus learning secret healing powers from the east, especially considering that Neo-Platonism was a far more obvious influence that was right there, with a strong lineage going back through the Pythagoreans to the Dionysian mystery cults, with roots in at least the Greek dark age before Buddhism even existed, let alone had any influence along a then collapsed silk road.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are the Freemasons a gnomish thing
        Alright, I'm fucking sick and tired of the vast gnomish conspiracy bullshit that keeps getting thrown around. The source of that is Imperial Russian propaganda done to justify their pogroms in the late 19th and early 20th century. The whole 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is completely fabricated bullshit and there's a vast amount of scholarship on this topic done by historians without a single drop of gnomish blood that traces the development of this whole thing.

        Anyway, no, the Freemason's aren't gnomish. The Freemasons are one of those fun secret societies that originated in the UK and across Europe during the early modern period (Late 1400's to 1700's) as the development of a middle class began. Before we had unions but also as the guild system died, these social clubs functioned as networking and job security programs. They'd do fundraisers to set up new businesses, ensure widows and children of members didn't go to the poor houses, and help members who got robbed or their shops burned down. The Freemasons are a continuation of the old masons guilds in this regard, but also brought in other middle class merchants, lawyers, bankers, clergymen, and so on. By the 1700's, these groups develop into their more modern forms as guilds are pretty much entirely gone. The Freemasons were just one of the wider spread fraternal orders - they're like the Elks or Shriners. Half the point of all the ritual mumbo-jumbo is because it's fun, and the other half is because mysterious initiations adds to the appeal of joining. It's just LARP really.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russia ruins everything.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Freemasons is like a golf country club. Except instead of playing golf it's just men hanging out in a club house in a "platonic" manner.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >men
          All qualified architects regardless of sex have membership

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          garden gnome Yorker here. I see Freemason bumper stickers all the time. 99% of the time it is a black boomer behind the wheel- never seen a white guy with a Freemason sign on their car.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Studies showed that the B2 rarely used more than half of its potential payload on missions, so why not build a smaller plane that's stealthier and does the same job?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >so why not build a smaller plane that's stealthier and does the same job?
      More importantly that is on top of that much cheaper, much more modern, and you can build like 200 of this time around so that you can use them harder and not treat each one as a precious irreplaceable lostech treasure.

      And now we're looking at peer war again and detection systems keep advancing. If we use them for serious jobs the day will come when we WILL lose a B-2, the endless cat and mouse game means no airframe is going to stay on top forever. Better to get out ahead of it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but how else are we going to have enough space for bunks, chow and the backup crew?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The B-2 has a crew of two.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah and they have a kitchen and a bed in there

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the fucking point in making B-21
    Stop being a fagtard

    btw kys

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can understand your confusion...but, as a recipient of our world-wide police services, and since European military might hasn't been a thing since we declared independence from you, I think you should be less worried about the costs and why, and more worried about what would happen if we weren't spending all that money.

    Please go back to watching Dr. Who now, and don't worry about it.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Every 5-10 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft
    Oh, you're retarded, that explains this thread.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can't even afford to restart the production of either of those?
    Why would we restart production of a 1st or 2nd-generation stealth bomber when we now have a 3rd?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's cool and we can

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The reason we only made 21 B-2s was that the Cold War ended. We were initially planning on a fleet of 132 of them, but by the late 80s there was a thaw in relations and another round of arms limitations agreements, so we cut back the orders to just 75. Then the USSR collapsed and stopped production at 21. We didn't need scores of stealth strategic bombers to penetrate Soviet air defenses because the Soviets weren't a thing anymore. Those twenty-one B-2s were enough to handle any foreseeable threat for a quarter century after the Cold War ended.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Power projection, you wouldn’t know her she goes to another school

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ywn see the B-2 dropping 500lbs JDAM-ERs (in anger) on 80 different targets fifty miles distant in a single sortie, each hitting with 5m of the aim point.

    ?si=v5K66ATPSUQhPgV0&t=37

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this but with B61s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This but with nuclear-armed AGM-181 LRSOs on a rotary launcher.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This but with CBU-97 cluster bombs each containing 40 smart anti-tank munitions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this but each submunution is a W54, but keep the smart guidance package so you can contact-detonate a dozen nukes against a dozen tanks with one bomb

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This but it's just tens of thousands of completely unguided nerve gas bomblets scattered from 40,000 feet up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why not both? a mixture of conventional cluster and fission cluster submunitions to break every NBC seal in the target area, and then saturation with sarin and caesium-137 salt water?

                I don't have an image at this point because we're dealing with warcrimes inside warcrimes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > a mixture of conventional cluster and fission cluster submunitions
                >warcrimes inside warcrimes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Perturabo also approves.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      USA
      USA
      USA

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can't even afford to restart the production of either of those
    Low quality bait.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Smaller, cheaper, lower RCS, can carry long range AA missiles and serve as command center for drone swarms.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >6th gen stealth bomber
    >why
    >fuck the enemy
    AMERICA NUMBAH WON AND TWO! TAIWAN NUMBAH 3

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a THIRD generation stealth bomber.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well according to NG they're 6th gen

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          because you'll be able to fly unmanned B-21s as NGAD drones, so it's part of the 6th generation system of systems of systems

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          6th gen jet, 3rd gen stealth bomber jet

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Eurofag here. Please explain this to me. What is the fucking point in making B-52, when USAF already has Stratojets and Peacemakers, and the Soviets can't into bombers? Every 2 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft. Makes no fucking sense.

    Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F-86 Sabre Dog, before the last Nazi engineers involved in the project die out and the technology is lost forever?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why won't they just focus on restarting production line of tactical aircraft like F-86 Sabre Dog
      Because we are innovating. We could make F-86 Sabre Dog just as an exercise in manufacturing and engineers interpreting the blueprints, but that's about it, it's obsolete compared to what it's going up against.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The B-52 is the single most erection-inducing plane that America has, even more so than the A-10...... but let's be honest we need to start looking at a replacement seeing as the youngest ones are 60 years old this year.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >B-52
      >erection-inducing
      I got u senpai watch this

      ?t=70

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You got more? I'm almost there

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do all our bomber look like compass and square?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Physics.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nighthawks
    old tech
    >spirits
    aging airframes, old tooling processes, and electronics that are too old to upgrade and too of their era to be effectively modular

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why B-21
    We want to fly farther and cheaper.
    >Why not F-22
    We're making its replacement, the NGAD.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You fucking retard, why would you even consider restarting production of the F-117? And the entire point of the B-21 is to be cheaper than the B-2.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because F-117 was a good plane, you retard.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So was the deHavilland Mosquito. Your point?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >was

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >old is... LE GOOD
        not when it comes to stealth aircraft idiot

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon its my favorite plane, but if im buying an AF fighter in 2023 its going to be F35s

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >was
        And technology hasn't improved since then, right?
        A plane from 40 years ago will still perform just the same with all the improvements to radars and missiles, right?
        moron

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because they understand you need to keep your engineers busy and in shape
    you lose institutional knowledge if you don't do anything

    if you spend 30 years between each generation, your designers and production engineers that design machines to build the machines will be clueless amateurs ordered around by senile geezers who vaguely remember that one time in their youth when they were allowed to build stuff.
    if you just keep updating old tech, nobody will know how to build new tech from scratch - tech with much steeper learning curve.
    And note that Eurofighter was never seriously upgraded since late 80s, so we lack even that absolutely rudimentary know-how. That's why everyone is buying F-35s instead of Eurofighter II or whatever the fuck.

    The entire EU put together cannot build anything like F-22 - 30 year old technology, let alone SR-72 and whatever they are cooking up for the future
    we are not half a generation behind or whatever the cope is, were are 2 generations behind

    I fucking hate the people who let EU stagnate this much and what's worse - they think they are doing fine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Eurofighter was never seriously upgraded since late 80s
      Wrong

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        those upgrade packs were mostly British made and developed, and brits are no longer in EU
        also I meant more deep upgrades like EF-18, F/A-18 EF andF-16V
        new radar and update to communicate with newer missiles are relatively modest improvements

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >relatively modest
          dude, smart bomb integration, electronic countermeasures and AESA radar is a big fucking deal

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nighthawk
    Not in active service anymore. Also kinda dated.
    >Spirit
    Only a handful have been built. Expensive to operate and also kinda dated.

    The B21 is an approach to get a much larger fleet of state-of-the-art strategic stealth bombers that are both cheaper to buy and to operate than especially the B2.

    >Every 5-10 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft, makes like 20-30 of those, and then abandons it. Makes no fucking sense

    That's why there WILL be a much bigger Fleet of B21s. They will also use off-the-shelf stuff so they can be upgraded for cheap (sorta).

    Both the F-117 and the B-2 are several decades old. Avionics, engines, stealth-techniques and radars have seen lots of development sinc these planes got fielded.

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >just, yknow, make old shit
    yuros literally don't know how to develop new tech any more, it's so sad

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ''yuros'' (but Germans really) literally created the fucking basis for every modern weapon you know, you retard. Everything the Americans have, they owe to them. From Jet engine, your fucking ICMBs, Assault rifle, Sub-machine gun, the first decent LMG, the concept of a Main Battle Tank, the concept of a combined arms warfare first used in practice by Wehrmacht.

      Even your B-2/B-21 is nothing but a fucking copy of Ho-229. Sit the fuck down.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Jet Engine
        Brits and us both had our own engines that came online within 1-2 years of the Jumo 004 and we had the industrial capacity to, ya know, actually produce jet aircraft in more than artisanal quantities.
        >ICBMs
        Robert Goddard did just as much, if not more work on rocketry compared to von Braun.
        >Assault Rifles
        Lol
        >Submachine Guns
        Lmao
        >The first decent LMG
        Was the Lewis Gun
        >the concept of the MBT
        The Brits got to that one with the Centurion first. No, the Panther is not an MBT, you fucking retard.
        >The concept of combined arms warfare
        Was first used by the ALLIES in the Summer Offensive of 1918 in the first world war.
        Now get the fuck out of here ESL brownie, and fuck ya mudda.
        Total Zigger Death.
        Muscovia Delenda Est.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Panther WAS the MBT you retard, and it was the best tank of WW2 you idiot, it shits all over centurion. Also, you have no argument about Germans making the first SMG and Assault rifle.

          >Lewis gun is somehow better than MG42
          Lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Panther was a medium tank disguised as a heavy tank, not an MBT. The MBT did not exist in German doctrine during WW2. The Panther was also shit, as were the crews who used it. As for assault rifles, sure. It wasn't a good one and it didn't change anything about the outcome of the war though. Same with the SMG. The MP-18 was a really shit design, and they never made enough to matter. And the MG42 was a MMG, not an LMG you fucking retard.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Panther was the best tank of WW2, and it's not even up for debate. Just like MG42 was the best machine gun, and Stg44 was the best infantry weapon. You can seethe all you want, but those are the facts.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>Jet Engine
          The first jet engine was build by Hans von Ohain and the He 178 the first jet propelled plane.

          The V2 was the first strategic missile even if it had no intercontinental range. Both Aggregat 9 and 10 were, indeed, truly intercontinental ballistic missiles.
          Rifles
          By definition the Stg 44 was the first assault rifle if you're not some sperg who calls a light submachine gun like the Villar Perosa an assault rifle
          Guns
          Berman MP18, indeed the first submachine gun.
          >>The first decent LMG
          >Was the Lewis Gun
          True. But when we're talking about belt feds it's the MG08/15
          >>the concept of the MBT
          >The Brits got to that one with the Centurion first. No, the Panther is not an MBT, you fucking retard.
          The Panter combined firepower and (frontal) armor of a heavy with the mobility of a medium, so it was, indeed, the first MBT. The Centurion's approach was just the same. Only that the Centurion was still in use when someone actually called such tanks MBTs. Doesn't change the fact tho. And if we're being autistic, the Tiger 1 was an MBT too since it had a very good, medium-like mobility.
          >>The concept of combined arms warfare
          >Was first used by the ALLIES in the Summer Offensive of 1918 in the first world war.
          Bullshit, was used since 1915 by german Sturmtruppen under command of Willy Rohr
          >Total Zigger Death.
          >Muscovia Delenda Est.
          True and seconded.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a light submachine gun like the Villar Perosa
            Typo. I meant "a light machine gun like.."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No one cares when you rush an immature technology into service if you did it 'first.' Especially when designs that were being worked on at the same time by other countries, with little or no inter-mingling of concepts, also produced results.

            >Bullshit, was used since 1915 by german Sturmtruppen under command of Willy Rohr
            People generally understand combined arms warfare as involving motorized units. Germans wouldn't have tanks till the tail end of the war. Rohr was responsible for the developing of stormtrooper tactics, not combined arms warfare. The panther was not a main battle tank. Mainly on account of the fact that it co-existed with many, many other German tank designs. Neither was the Tiger. "Main Battle Tank" is a specific designation, you can't just say, "It operates like a medium but has a heavy gun on it so it's an MBT." Also, the Panther was complete shit, and easily the worst mass-produced German tank of the war.

            https://i.imgur.com/2YqYDzJ.jpg

            ''yuros'' (but Germans really) literally created the fucking basis for every modern weapon you know, you retard. Everything the Americans have, they owe to them. From Jet engine, your fucking ICMBs, Assault rifle, Sub-machine gun, the first decent LMG, the concept of a Main Battle Tank, the concept of a combined arms warfare first used in practice by Wehrmacht.

            Even your B-2/B-21 is nothing but a fucking copy of Ho-229. Sit the fuck down.

            The Ho-229 has fuck all to do with the B-2 or the B-21, Germany didn't invent the flying wing concept, claims of it's supposed stealth capabilities were complete after-the-fact bullshitting involving a coating that Germany didn't have and never applied to the designs.

            Panther WAS the MBT you retard, and it was the best tank of WW2 you idiot, it shits all over centurion. Also, you have no argument about Germans making the first SMG and Assault rifle.

            >Lewis gun is somehow better than MG42
            Lol

            The Panther's gun specifically precludes it from being an MBT. Sure, it was effective against other tanks, but it achieved this at the expense of a good all-around gun. And tanks need to fight things other than tanks. The Panther was such a bad design that the Germans already had concepts in early prototyping for it's replacement before it hit full production. Even the French, who had all the time, money, resources, and access they needed to build and operate theoretically ideal Panthers thought the design was shit, and they used it longer than the Germans did.

            >Also, you have no argument about Germans making the first SMG and Assault rifle.
            The Thompson massively out-produced the MP-18. No one cares.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Robert Goddard did just as much, if not more work on rocketry compared to von Braun.
          Goddard refused to publish anything because of his distrust that people would steal his work. I don't know how much theory he produced, but his hands-on work was pretty limited and hobbyist-tier.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but German jets were produced in numbers that were too small to matter. Other nations has experimental jets too, there was just no reason to push them into service.

        The German assault rifles were important because they were a starting point for later quality designs but were themselves not great weapons due to reliability issues and availability of ammo. The Garand and M1 carbine were both better for the fact that they were widely available and reliable.

        The fact is that the Super Wermacht is a myth, one propped up by a few factors:
        >French efforts to excuse their political collapse and lack of zeal in defending and bad strategy
        >The Western allies need to excuse allying with the Soviets and allowing them to enslave half of Europe and the betrayal of the Poles.
        >Cold War era maneuvering by the US Army for funding as money poured into nukes and the Air Force (which has become its own service). The Army made up bullshit about how "really, if you take away the massive US advantage in mechanized supply lines, logistics, artillery supremacy, and fire power advantages, all things we organized all our doctrine and strategy around, then the Wermacht was more effective then the US, and so our army is lagging and needs more funding!!!!!!!"
        This last is retarded because all US doctrine centered around using infantry just to find and pin forces for artillery destruction. In the real world, the US has a casualty ratio in its favor almost as large as the German advantage over the Soviets, often inflicting 4-7 times the casualties of their opponents in major battles with the Germans.

        The fact is that, while the Soviets continued to take lopsided losses against the Germans through 1945 and Berlin, the Americans quickly came to deal absolutely lol lol lopsided losses to the Germans and Japs as soon as they got their logistics stood up.

        As it turns out, super tough guy culture and wunderwaffen mean less than simply building way more artillery systems and trucks.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          TL;DR is as follows:
          YOU HAD HORSES! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not that anon, but can you which battles are those?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            First one, 25,000 casualties vs 160,000 for the Germans is the invasion of Southern France. It's worse than it looks because the Americans were making an amphibious landing against well prepared defenses and still shattered a formation of like 300,000 Germans, a number with Eastern Front experience.

            Americans got such huge surrenders because they treated prisoners well and because they made resistance futile. Germans resisting out East got to kill wave after wave of infantry and feel like they were contributing. Germans out West for encircled and bombed and shelled to oblivion without every seeing the enemy aside from occasionally being able to take pot shots at forward observers and aerial recon planes.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And the other three?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well

        >Jet Engine
        Brits and us both had our own engines that came online within 1-2 years of the Jumo 004 and we had the industrial capacity to, ya know, actually produce jet aircraft in more than artisanal quantities.
        >ICBMs
        Robert Goddard did just as much, if not more work on rocketry compared to von Braun.
        >Assault Rifles
        Lol
        >Submachine Guns
        Lmao
        >The first decent LMG
        Was the Lewis Gun
        >the concept of the MBT
        The Brits got to that one with the Centurion first. No, the Panther is not an MBT, you fucking retard.
        >The concept of combined arms warfare
        Was first used by the ALLIES in the Summer Offensive of 1918 in the first world war.
        Now get the fuck out of here ESL brownie, and fuck ya mudda.
        Total Zigger Death.
        Muscovia Delenda Est.

        did a good job of handling most of this retardation but;
        >Ho-229
        That piece of shit wasn't even close to being complete and it was another desperate scramble for a war winning weapon which went nowhere. As for it being the genesis for the B-2/B-21, FOOL! BEHOLD!
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M
        Northrop had been working on flying wing designs before the Horton's glider-addled brains even cottoned onto the idea they could get rich and not be sent to the front lines by mooching off the Luftwaffe's research budget. These Northrop designs lead directly into the Northrop YB-35 heavy bomber designs he worked on for the USAF during the war and then the YB-49 jet conversion to the 35. These Northrop designs are the genetic legacy that informs the B-2/B-21, not the Horton's failure.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks anon, I totally overlooked the Ho-229 shit until after posting and then couldn't be bothered to do a follow up. I seem to recall hearing about an interview where Jack Northrop, on his deathbed, got to see a mockup of the B-2 Spirit design even though it was extremely classified at this point and had tears in his eyes when he realized that his life's work had finally born fruit, then he died a few months later.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're quite welcome. That's a great story too, one of the best ways to go, seeing the culmination of your life's work carrying on to the next generation.

            Oh and regarding your note on rockets, if you haven't read it yet, Ignition! deals mostly with cold war rocketry but it also goes into early pre WW2 and during WW2 rocket programs and the development of the early hypergolic mixtures used in those. If you have even a passing interest in chemistry it's a fascinating read.

            https://i.imgur.com/MinO2jD.jpg

            Yes, but German jets were produced in numbers that were too small to matter. Other nations has experimental jets too, there was just no reason to push them into service.

            The German assault rifles were important because they were a starting point for later quality designs but were themselves not great weapons due to reliability issues and availability of ammo. The Garand and M1 carbine were both better for the fact that they were widely available and reliable.

            The fact is that the Super Wermacht is a myth, one propped up by a few factors:
            >French efforts to excuse their political collapse and lack of zeal in defending and bad strategy
            >The Western allies need to excuse allying with the Soviets and allowing them to enslave half of Europe and the betrayal of the Poles.
            >Cold War era maneuvering by the US Army for funding as money poured into nukes and the Air Force (which has become its own service). The Army made up bullshit about how "really, if you take away the massive US advantage in mechanized supply lines, logistics, artillery supremacy, and fire power advantages, all things we organized all our doctrine and strategy around, then the Wermacht was more effective then the US, and so our army is lagging and needs more funding!!!!!!!"
            This last is retarded because all US doctrine centered around using infantry just to find and pin forces for artillery destruction. In the real world, the US has a casualty ratio in its favor almost as large as the German advantage over the Soviets, often inflicting 4-7 times the casualties of their opponents in major battles with the Germans.

            The fact is that, while the Soviets continued to take lopsided losses against the Germans through 1945 and Berlin, the Americans quickly came to deal absolutely lol lol lopsided losses to the Germans and Japs as soon as they got their logistics stood up.

            As it turns out, super tough guy culture and wunderwaffen mean less than simply building way more artillery systems and trucks.

            American Logistics is a war winning weapon in and of itself.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >American Logistics is a war winning weapon in and of itself.
              Burgers not even won this game but took it to another universe.
              Example a: 1968, during the battle of khe sanh, these madmen managed to deliver ice cold coke into the encircled firebase on a thrice a day base. Not just coke, not just a few cans, but ICE COLD coke by the fucking crate.
              US logistics is just a completely different breed.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Oh and regarding your note on rockets, if you haven't read it yet, Ignition! deals mostly with cold war rocketry but it also goes into early pre WW2 and during WW2 rocket programs and the development of the early hypergolic mixtures used in those. If you have even a passing interest in chemistry it's a fascinating read.
              Based. Ignition! is such a good book, and honestly very readable even if you only took chemistry decades ago. That and Skunkworks should be amongst the required PrepHole Cold War reading.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Northrop had been working on flying wing designs
          If you want to dig up Northrop, he got his inspirations from Prandtl.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No he didn't? Stop trying to steal the credits for American inventions krauts.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Of course he did, and I'm an Amerifat, not a Kraut.

              For that matter, everyone all the way back to the Wright Brothers built on Cayley's work.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Even your B-2/B-21 is nothing but a fucking copy of Ho-229. Sit the fuck down.
        holy retard

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >copy of hortens' garbage boomerang
        >not part of Jack Northrup's long involvement with flying wings that began in the 1920s and predates the Hortens' first glider
        Wehraboos to the wall.

        >By the late 1970s a variety of illnesses left him unable to walk or speak. Shortly before his death, he was given clearance to see designs and hold a scale model of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which shared design features of his YB-35 and YB-49. The B-2, for example, has the same 172-foot wingspan as the jet-powered flying wing, YB-49. Northrop reportedly wrote on a sheet of paper "Now I know why God has kept me alive for 25 years".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >From Jet engine, your fucking ICMBs, Assault rifle, Sub-machine gun, the first decent LMG, the concept of a Main Battle Tank, the concept of a combined arms warfare first used in practice by Wehrmacht.
        Who won the war? Who made nukes and proximity fuses? 2 WORLD WARS MOTHERFUCKER!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And 1 world cup

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh it's this retard again
        Leck mich arsch, hurensohn

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why are German so likable

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the fucking point in making B-21, when USAF already has Nighthawks and Spirits
    Because "new" aircraft are already 20 years behind. You need to keep advancing to stay ahead of the curve.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you want to stay ahead of everyone else you need to invest billions in research and development anyways.
    Why not cash out occasionally by actually buying a few of the bloody things.
    Of course you need to buy more than a few dozen to make setting up the production line worth it, but they probably will do that with the B21.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth bombers can hit targets in enemy nations without those enemy nations ever figuring out they were there to begin with.
    This would be very important in fighting an enemy like China because these bombers can take off and land from the continental U.S. and have one aerial refueling before return.
    Stealth fighters are more tactical and we have a metric fuck ton of F35s so there is no reason to restart F22 production when we have a NGAD program in active development making Gen 6+ fighters that are going to dwarf what the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan have planned.
    We quit making the F22 because they were too expensive to produce any meaningful benefit back when China and Russia were pretending to be friendly to gain access to our markets.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The boomers that designed the f-22 already retired years ago. People forget that development of the f-22 happened in the late 80s/early 90s.

    Same story really with the f-35 - that design was finalized in the mid 90s.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I could fuck a plane I'd fuck the b2

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dat gape doe

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That image

        suddenly i want to fuck a plane...

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Retard bait thread
    >Why are we upgrading to the Abrams, the M60 works just fine!
    >Why are we upgrading to the Nimitz, the Kitty Hawk was just fine!
    >Why are we upgrading to the MRAP, the hummers worked just fine!

    You're just a moron. If you seriously think the F117 has a good RCS for the modern day then its lost on you from the start.

    >Every 5-10 years USAF begins a project for a a state of the art strategic aircraft, makes like 20-30 of those, and then abandons it.

    The initial designs of the Nighthawk are nearly 50 fucking years old.

    Do you think the P-51 Mustang and the F-14 Tomcat are anywhere remotely comparable? Because they're only 30 years apart.

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because she's CUTE.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah why, when all you need is a balloon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And corrupt leadership in the country you want it to fly over...

      That shitshow never should have gotten anywhere near as bad as it did and the balloon never should have been allowed to float across the entirety of the US before finally being shot down. "It might fall on someone" is a piss poor excuse when it's flight path takes it over some of the most empty regions in both the US and Canada.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How does the American economy work to produce and spend so much on these things? Do I fail to understand how much tax is generated? I do not understand how one nation can have so much economic power. I am glad it rests in US hands rather than Soviets or Chinese, but I do not understand where the wealth comes from.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From what i can tell Fiscal Year to Date (well as of July 31st with 2 months left in the Fiscal year) the US had revenue of 3.7 trillion dollars. As of December 2022 the Air Force was planning to spend $203 billion to Develope, Purchase and operate a fleet of 100 B-21s...... but that's spread out over 30 years.
      If we assume all 203 billion was spent in a single year that fleet of 100 next gen stealth bombers would be equivalent to about 5% of the national budget, of course since it's spread out over 30 years that's closer to $7 billion per year which is merely 0.175%

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are probably not quite grasping that wealth is not equal to money, but rather, the circulation of money. If I spend 5$ to buy a burger, the restaurant spends my 5$ to buy ingredients from a produce supplier, and the produce supplier pays me 5$ to stack boxes - we've actually all got 15$ of goods/services from the same five dollar bill.
      Each person added to this chain means that people are actually creating more things - so long as people are actually delivering the services or goods asked for (this is why corruption, counterfeiting, theft, and so on is an immense drain on economies). The theoretical limiting factor on the number of links you have in the economic chain is your population - and globalization pushes that further. The US has a population of ~330 million and is relatively prosperous and connected enough that a lot of people participate in the economy, and in addition demand for US products is high across the world, creating an even larger population engaged in the US economic chain.
      A large European country like France is ~60-70 million people - and the worldwide market for French products is also lower. Other nations like China or India have larger populations, but do not have their populations as completely engaged in the economy and still suffer from drains like corruption and so forth.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "These things" are bought using money set aside by the Govt for defence.
      The Govt allocates money to defence from the Budget.
      The budget is paid out of Taxes.
      Taxes are taken from the Economy.
      Thus, bigger economy = bigger taxes = bigger budget. Got it?

      The US sells goods and services to many citizens, 330 million.
      Compare against Germany (80 million), France (65 million), and UK (65 million).
      These people also work within the nation, mostly, and pay taxes within the nation.
      They are also generally rich; about 9.5% of the US population are millionaires, compared to just 4.4% in France and Germany, and 5.3% in the UK. Rich people pay more taxes. In general, the median salary earner and below pays less taxes than they consume in services, and is a net loss to the country.

      The US has so many rich people because it hosts many companies selling goods and services to the entire world - the private sector - and they are generally cutting-edge. What you see in the defence sector is replicated in many other industries as well.
      One good measure of the size of the US private sector is the market capitalisation of the stock market, which is a snapshot of performance AND future prospects as determined by investors around the world. The total US market cap is $46 trillion. Germany: $2.2 trillion, France: 3.9 trillion, UK: 3.1 trillion. Thus you can see that despite having only 4 times the population of Germany, US companies sell a lot more stuff and are more trusted by global investors than German companies. Broadly-speaking.

      All this is summarised in the median average salary and mean GDP per capita of each country:
      >USA - $45,000 / $70,000
      >Germany - $28,000 / $51,000
      >France - $25,000 / $44,000
      >UK - $40,000 / $46,000

      In general the US spends more on defence, but not much more in terms of % of GDP, which is about 3.5%, compared to roughly 2% for France and UK, and 1.5% for Germany. % is used because the more you earn, the more you need to invest in security.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      P.s.
      The combined aerospace and defence industry in the US has a market cap of $1 trillion.
      Compare against the $46 trillion shown above.
      It is rank nonsense that the US's business is "war", as it profits far more from peace.

      You are probably not quite grasping that wealth is not equal to money, but rather, the circulation of money. If I spend 5$ to buy a burger, the restaurant spends my 5$ to buy ingredients from a produce supplier, and the produce supplier pays me 5$ to stack boxes - we've actually all got 15$ of goods/services from the same five dollar bill.
      Each person added to this chain means that people are actually creating more things - so long as people are actually delivering the services or goods asked for (this is why corruption, counterfeiting, theft, and so on is an immense drain on economies). The theoretical limiting factor on the number of links you have in the economic chain is your population - and globalization pushes that further. The US has a population of ~330 million and is relatively prosperous and connected enough that a lot of people participate in the economy, and in addition demand for US products is high across the world, creating an even larger population engaged in the US economic chain.
      A large European country like France is ~60-70 million people - and the worldwide market for French products is also lower. Other nations like China or India have larger populations, but do not have their populations as completely engaged in the economy and still suffer from drains like corruption and so forth.

      >demand for US products is high across the world
      This is the main factor.
      >people are actually creating more things - so long as people are actually delivering the services or goods asked for (this is why corruption, counterfeiting, theft, and so on is an immense drain on economies
      But this is also an excellent point.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its both easier and better to start production on a new aircraft than it is to restart production of an old one. The B-21 likely has superior capabilities compared to its predecessors. The F-117s in particular are old trash and were made outdated by the F-22, which itself is being replaced by newer upgrades to the F-35 and eventually the NGAD.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *