Isnt the Pentagon having to fearmongering Congress into giving them more money a sign of weak corruption? If they were really corrupt the military would have a blank check
American "corruption" is funny >CONGRESS PLEASE HELP US THE BADDIES ARE DESIGNING A BIG BAD NEW THING WE NEED MORE MONEY >OK HERE'S A TRILLION DOLLARS
BRRRRRRRRR >five years later America has the super ultra death bringer 5000 mk4
To be fair, it all starts because the baddies said they already had a big bad new thing that made our stuff useless. You figure the Soviets would have learned after the M-4 Bison bomber, but no, they went ahead and overhyped the Mig-25 and fifty years later upgraded F-15 sill mogs on anything the Russian Air Force has. Now the Chinese have gotten us to build this thing with the endless "muh unstoppable hypersonics" shilling.
I have no idea how these morons still don't understand that lying about your capabilities to make the other guy think he can't conquer you is different from lying about your capabilities and making the other guy think you can conquer him. The first is deterrence (good), the second just sparks him to develop things you won't have a counter to (bad).
>I have no idea how these morons still don't understand that lying about your capabilities to make the other guy think he can't conquer you is different from lying about your capabilities and making the other guy think you can conquer him. The first is deterrence (good), the second just sparks him to develop things you won't have a counter to (bad).
Not that bad actually. You con the other guy into spending large money for R&D. Remember Reagan's Star Wars Program? It was a lie to make the Russians spend more money for their military. the other nails in the coffin were their Afghanistan war and Reagan's deal with the Saudis to flood the world with cheap oil, depriving the Russians from earning money with theirs.
A couple years later, the Soviet Union is no more.
Pretty good if you ask me.
>America is corrupt >And yet were still producing incredible feats of technological engineering
If we were giving them funding with nothing to show for like Russia or China then sure, I'd agree but the US has consistently proven it self to be at the cutting edge of military tech.
Pocketed money. No transparency plus corruption at all levels means that it's not a question of whether that money for winter uniforms gets stolen, but what the split between you and the guy you report to as you sell them off will be.
so american corruption leads to cutting edge technology? what does russian or chinese corruption lead to?
I feel like we're in the same boat as Russia before the Ukraine war, but we don't want to admit it. I mean, only 2 years ago a LHD burned down in the docks and people still don't have answers or if they do, they are covering themselves.
American corruption is like lobbying for the government overpaying for stuff that still actually works, or giving politicians and their families cushy jobs/contracts so they can buy out the companies that will actually end up doing the work
Chinese/Russian corruption looks like replacing ERA with egg cartons and "tofu dreg" infrastructure projects (literally a Chinese term for shoddy build quality coined to refer to said infrastructure projects)
Every penny spent on the MIC is a penny not spent on fat girlbosses of color who are too strong and independent to hold down a job. It's a penny not funneled into some NGO used as a sinecure farm for the moronic daughters and gay sons of Democrat politicians so they can agitate for more refugees to come here. It's a penny not spent on gay-ass windmills and solar panels. Don't spend money on the poors, spend money to flex on them. That's what being white is all about.
>people still don't have answers
The Navy released a massive, self-effacing document on the mistakes that happened, how they happened, and why they won't happen again.
There's literally a fricking multi-volume investigation report of every fricking little detail of teh whole thing avaiable under FOIA. You could have all the fricking answers, if you just weren'tt too fricking lazy to go and get them.
Russian Corruption: >Help! All our uniforms are missing and none of the tanks work!
Chinese Corruption: >Help! Someone keeps selling all our ammo and we have to photoshop fake projects!
Indian Corruption: >Help! We lost a million billion dollars for no reason and some horny guy just sold our nuclear codes!
American Corruption: >Help! We just built a cutting edge stealth jet despite already being four generations ahead of anyone else and we have as any fleet carriers as everyone else on earth put together!
>doesn't fly the same route repeatedly with the bomb bay open
Problem solved.
iirc if it's anything like the b-2, computing hundreds of micro adjustments per second to keep it airborne.
This is the only way to fly "clean" flying wings, they trade minimum drag and radar return for being inherently aerodynamically unstable until you have a computer to shunt you from metastable state to metastable state so fast you think it's moving smoothly.
You realize every single fighter plane since the F-16 is also nearly unflyable without the computer? Negative stability means sharper turns but well... negative stability...
But yes, the B-2 can fly "clean" with the split flaps closed (as you can see in pic related they're slightly open even in straight and level flight at cruise altitude in order to use differential drag for yaw control) but it has very limited maneuverability and likely uses some form of hyper-classified boundary layer control system to vary drag and lift across the wings in lieu of the control surfaces when flying in such a configuration.
I still remember one time way back in the 90s my i bore witness to a B-2 doing a low over pass over my grandparents house and it was probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen. They lived like a mile and a half away from some major airport in Brandon Mississippi and we would always watch the air shows from the back yard, getting to watch the thunderbirds do their shit was cool as frick BUT man I'll never forget that B-2
>likely uses some form of hyper-classified boundary layer control system to vary drag and lift across the wings in lieu of the control surfaces when flying in such a configuration.
They positively charge the ions going over the leading edge. They also negatively charge the exhaust flow to reduce IR signature. That's where the whole B-2 is antigravity tech comes from.
>that pic
My God what a bunch of moronic nonsense.
1 year ago
Anonymous
How so? The A-12/SR-71 used a cesium fuel additive called A-50 to ionize the exhaust plume to reduce RCS [1]. Along with project Kempster, which used an electron cannon to ionize the intake charge ahead of the inlet, which also reduced RCS [2]. Ionization of the flow field over the leading edge has shown to lead to a more uniform lameness flow field over the upper wing surface, reducing drag and increasing subsonic efficiency [3][4].
Did you miss the last sentence claiming the b2 can supercruise with the engines switched off, Mr. Galaxybrain?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I thought it was clear that the antigravity tech schizo's ramble on about is a system to reduce radar RCS, IR signature, a long with improving the airfoil efficiency. Has nothing to do with Ayy shit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Look at those trailing edge control surfaces working overtime in the banked turn, that's really cool.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Now explain the antigravity part.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I thought it was clear that the antigravity tech schizo's ramble on about is a system to reduce radar RCS, IR signature, a long with improving the airfoil efficiency. Has nothing to do with Ayy shit.
't fly the same route repeatedly with the bomb bay open
this
you have to be really moronic to say that the F117 thing in any way invalidates stealth
if anything it lends it credence to it since the Air Force assumed they COULD do that and they almost got away with it
https://i.imgur.com/ZElaoan.jpg
Also, split flaps.
But yes, the B-2 can fly "clean" with the split flaps closed (as you can see in pic related they're slightly open even in straight and level flight at cruise altitude in order to use differential drag for yaw control) but it has very limited maneuverability and likely uses some form of hyper-classified boundary layer control system to vary drag and lift across the wings in lieu of the control surfaces when flying in such a configuration.
wonder if its simpler than that and they just use satellite style SAS reaction wheels when they absolutely must fly clean
>wonder if its simpler than that and they just use satellite style SAS reaction wheels
Reaction wheels are extremely heavy and need to be pretty large in diameter. B-2 doesn't have the space for them, B-21 is too light based on the landing gear wheel count
You can compensate for that by running them at unbelievably high speeds. Remember, a jet bomber has a lot more spare power than a solar powered satellite.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's where it gets "hyper-classified".
1 year ago
Anonymous
You can only run them so fast before they rip themselves apart or the axle starts wobbling. It's just a bad idea man
1 year ago
Anonymous
THE MAGIC OF FLUID BEARINGS WILL SAVE US!
unironically though
Reaction wheels don't work IRL like they do in KSP. They're good for making very small, precise adjustments on space telescopes and satellites in a vacuum. Less good for controlling a 70-150 ton aircraft in atmosphere.
Horten brothers showed that you don't need aero instability to make flying wings without vertical fins, making it aerodynamically unstable has more to do with increasing efficiency and allowing a larger variation in center of gravity position.
>Horten brothers showed that you don't need aero instability to make flying wings without vertical fins, making it aerodynamically unstable has more to do with increasing efficiency and allowing a larger variation in center of gravity position.
Does the b21 look like it has the horten style wing design? The outer wingtips do appear twisted forward to me.
Serbian Black folk are literally proud of shooting 1 aircraft after letting thousands or bombing sorties go through and letting their entire country get bombed into submission.
You don't have healthcare because quality of life is not as much of an american value as consumer rights are. If you wanted free healthcare you could afford it ezy, with no issue for your MIC.
It's a nonstarter if you know anything about US politics. Whether you want it or not is moot if you know in your heart that the US version would make the Canadian version look efficient and transparent.
>free
Free healthcare is an unsustainable meme even IF you gut your military. It's not a coincidence why the places with free healthcare are also all instituting government assisted suicide, it's cheaper and they're already recommending it more and more strongly over various expensive procedures and gear. Some poor Canadian veteran who needed a chairlift to get around her house, still young enough for blonde hair, was told "if having to climb up and down the stairs with your arms dragging your chair is so painful and depressing, have you considered killing yourself?" By the Canadian health service. Nothing is free.
>elimination of ‘le preexisting conditions’ loophole bad
Obamacare is worth it just for eliminating the most vile of scams the insurance companies were pulling
>i know we have been taking your money for decades when you were healthy >and know you need expensive treatment >lucky for you there is nothing stopping us from- >WHOA WHOA WHOA >HOL UP >is that- >is that a fricking nosebleed from 1991 that you didnt disclose? >how DARE you >fricking sneaky frick, you almost had us payong for your expensive brain cancer treatments
The biggest companies were literally using up to ONE THIRD of their workforce to comb over medical records to try and weasel out of paying big money for seriously (re: expensively) ill patients.
Frick insurance companies. The increasing access to mental healthcare was great too. Change was needed; it may have not been pretty but it was adequate to address the problems it was designed to fix.
no we don't have good healthcare because our government and corporations are a mix of corrupt, incompetent, or uncaring of health.
You're gays. American healthcare is unironically the best in the world. Rich people in other countries come HERE for treatment when they get sick, and only go elsewhere if a procedure is so unethical or dangerous that American doctors won't do it. However, it costs money. If you have a job, you have health insurance and won't be getting the crazy fees you see memed by people who don't have insurance and try to use an ambulance as a taxi. All those countries with "free healthcare" don't have a military, you can wait in line for a lifesaving surgery for weeks if you're unlucky, the care in their hospitals is demonstrably lesser grade (when was the last time you heard of an American dying of a broken leg?), and increasingly the Health Services in those countries won't let you get more expensive procedures and will instead try to strongarm you into worse solutions, including assisted suicide. USA #1, unironically.
if the enemy figures out through intelligence or through getting really lucky or the raider is sent on a moronic and reckless mission, that there's "something vaguely in this area" and sends interceptors, it needs to be able to run
Yup, they're fairly simple to fly, as long as everything goes right on the software side. Wing planes just require plenty of gyros for autopilot to keep auto correcting flight.
By being a very stable design. Yaw is controlled by differential drag from the split drag rudder/split ailerons or 'clamshells'. Open the clamshell to increase drag on the wing on the side of the B-2 you wish to turn towards.
>By being a very stable design.
wat
isn't one of the big things about flying wings with radical geometry like the b-2 that they need to be fly-by-wire because they're inherently unstable(by design)
A flying wing with sufficient wing sweep will be statically stable in yaw. Combine that with a flight computer and split flaps or differential thrust that can deal with some of the other negative flight characteristics of tailless flying wings and you can dump those draggy vertical surfaces.
I would love to see a forward sweapt flying wing (entirely unstable) kept in check by a good flight control computer. Would make for a real difficult RC modeling challenge.
There’s a reason coke has distributed bottling plants around the U.S. we can’t trust you to produce it and we will never allow ourselves to be fooled again.
>Has obviously been in a coma for the last 9 months.
homie, seeing how poorly russian designed shit is faring next door to russia (getting mogged by our old shit from the Cold War and old Soviet stocks) and china being very closely connected tech-wise to the russians, it is going to take both nations combined over 60 years to even get close to competing with the B-21.
It's an F-15E or F-111 class aircraft that costs as much as a B-1. It's a piece of shit and you government suckpoppets are posting these damage control threads because of it.
>guys WHATABOUTRUSSIA???
Analysts have said that it likely has a similar payload to the F-111 based on its smaller size and two wheel front landing gear. And yes, payload really does matter, because real bombers (not fake bullshit like the B-21) carry enough ordnance to strike *multiple* targets on a single bombing run. In a peer war against China, the B-21 can only launch a single tactical strike on a specific target, and then it has to fly *ALL THE WAY BACK ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN* to re-arm. Its slow speed and low payload means that it's not capable of the operational tempo needed to significantly impact an enemy's operations in a peer war.
Can you fed shills please frick off from /k/? Pic related.
Post a link to one single time where I was """"""""""caught """""""""" you lying shill. >please dox yourself so I can extrajudicially persecute you IRL ;_;
Get fricked, glowBlack person. Prove you're even American and not another one of these outsourced eastern European shill farm workers.
>B-1 payload: 125,000 pounds >B-21 payload: 30,000 pounds
Both of these aircraft cost the same when adjusted for inflation. It will take 4X as many B-21s to match the operational capability of the B-1s that it's replacing. (The B-21 is a B-1 replacement, not a B-2 replacement.)
https://i.imgur.com/EUs5FoU.jpg
I don't have to prove shit
No timestamp = not your gun. You know the rules, fed.
the b1 isnt stealth and has no survivability
it has no use outside of being a long range missile truck
all that lost capability is replaced by rapid dragon
1 year ago
Anonymous
>B-1s with their currently deployed low observable coatings and ECMs, which were specifically designed for survivability, are going to be less survivable than mexican women pushing bombs out of a C-17
This is your brain on glowBlack person propaganda.
1 year ago
Anonymous
thats not what i said moron
the b1 doesnt have the survivability to perform deep strikes inside heavily defended territory like the b2 or b21
its only use in a peer war would be acting as a standoff missile truck which is something that can be done by b52s or rapid dragon
the b21s lower payload compared to the b2 (which it is also replacing) is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
the air force has determined that numerous smaller bombers is superior than very few larger bombers
1 year ago
Anonymous
B-52s and rapid dragon cannot operate in contested airspace whatsoever. They're only useful for bombing third world countries. There will be a lot of ship-based AA aircraft activity over the western Pacific that will deny them the ability to operate there, to say nothing of CAP. >is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
Now you're just straight up lying. Current plans call for producing the same number of B-21s as B-1s. Even if they did 5X the production run, that would still mean 5X the cost of the B-1 program. The cost is the same, so you could have had 5X the number of large bombers instead of 5X of these dumbed down B-21 strike fighters. You will also probably try to misconstrue this as me arguing for a B-1 production restart, but I'm simply using it as a benchmark here.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>>is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
im talking about the b2
the b21 is replacing both the b1 and b2
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's replacing the B-1 and supplementing the B-2. You're intentionally ignoring the larger implications for the degradation of our strategic bombing capability.
1 year ago
Anonymous
the b1 isnt capable of performing the same mission as the b21
the b1 is useless in a peer war outside of firing missiles from standoff range which is something that can be done by b52s or rapid dragon
1 year ago
Anonymous
>cannot operate in a contested airspace
isn't the whole point of rapid dragon to have enough range that you don't need to do that?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>isn't the whole point of rapid dragon to have enough range that you don't need to do that?
That is exactly the point of Rapid Dragon, it's a pallet of cruise missiles that have between 600 and 1200 mile range depending on the exact model so you can just kick them out of the back of a C-17 instead of having to tie up a dedicated bomber for that mission
1 year ago
Anonymous
>B-52s cannot operate in contested airspace whatsoever.
The B-52 can carry things besides gravity bombs, anon.
1 year ago
Anonymous
ok ok think about it this way >use honduran femoid as counterweight to launch super long range rotary detonation engine cruise missiles >instead of 1 b1 flying the same path low and fast, there are 10 cruise missiles >b1 gets shot down, permanently affects strategic reserve >cruise missile gets shot down (smaller target too), who gives a frick
1 year ago
Anonymous
>mexican women pushing bombs out of a C-17
I'm sure this made sense in your head.
>guys WHATABOUTRUSSIA???
Analysts have said that it likely has a similar payload to the F-111 based on its smaller size and two wheel front landing gear. And yes, payload really does matter, because real bombers (not fake bullshit like the B-21) carry enough ordnance to strike *multiple* targets on a single bombing run. In a peer war against China, the B-21 can only launch a single tactical strike on a specific target, and then it has to fly *ALL THE WAY BACK ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN* to re-arm. Its slow speed and low payload means that it's not capable of the operational tempo needed to significantly impact an enemy's operations in a peer war.
Can you fed shills please frick off from /k/? Pic related.
Post a link to one single time where I was """"""""""caught """""""""" you lying shill. >please dox yourself so I can extrajudicially persecute you IRL ;_;
Get fricked, glowBlack person. Prove you're even American and not another one of these outsourced eastern European shill farm workers.
>Amerimutt simping for Russia >Buys a SIG >obsesses over glowBlack folk
Fricking poetry
>peer war against china
China is not a peer nation. Having smaller ordinances means frick all if you have the numbers to make up for the amount of bombs drop. Along with it having better stealth, better eletronics/avionics, better engines and so on. The b2 also been proven to need less bombs than what it can carry in every operation. Why drop X amount of bombs/missiles when you can precisely destroy the same targets for less? Quantity doesn't mean shit if you're not able to hit anything and the off chance that the bomber gets shot down would result in another bomber fulfilling its role.
>B-1 payload: 125,000 pounds >B-21 payload: 30,000 pounds
Both of these aircraft cost the same when adjusted for inflation. It will take 4X as many B-21s to match the operational capability of the B-1s that it's replacing. (The B-21 is a B-1 replacement, not a B-2 replacement.)
[...]
No timestamp = not your gun. You know the rules, fed.
https://i.imgur.com/hL6auqY.jpg
>B-1s with their currently deployed low observable coatings and ECMs, which were specifically designed for survivability, are going to be less survivable than mexican women pushing bombs out of a C-17
This is your brain on glowBlack person propaganda.
The b1 is not a stealth aircraft. The plane has been stated to be able to fly at high speeds and fast enough to penetrate through air spaces while flying low. It fufills a different purpose than what the b2/b21 does. The b21 is mainly there to replace the b2, which is aging.
>guys WHATABOUTRUSSIA???
Analysts have said that it likely has a similar payload to the F-111 based on its smaller size and two wheel front landing gear. And yes, payload really does matter, because real bombers (not fake bullshit like the B-21) carry enough ordnance to strike *multiple* targets on a single bombing run. In a peer war against China, the B-21 can only launch a single tactical strike on a specific target, and then it has to fly *ALL THE WAY BACK ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN* to re-arm. Its slow speed and low payload means that it's not capable of the operational tempo needed to significantly impact an enemy's operations in a peer war.
Can you fed shills please frick off from /k/? Pic related.
>B-1 payload: 125,000 pounds >B-21 payload: 30,000 pounds
Both of these aircraft cost the same when adjusted for inflation. It will take 4X as many B-21s to match the operational capability of the B-1s that it's replacing. (The B-21 is a B-1 replacement, not a B-2 replacement.)
[...]
No timestamp = not your gun. You know the rules, fed.
>i just know the exact payload of aircraft just by looking at it. >I just know, ok, because it's central to my argument.
Can you go be a schizo elsewhere?
>Can easily defeat rusBlack folk and chinkoids with 11 gorillion gen wunderwaffe >Said wunderwaffe could easily be controlled by a few dozen morons with PSA ARS
USA USA USA USA USA
This shiny toy won't help america in a war against China and Russia. Your economy will collapse sooner than you make a dozen of these, and then a civil/racial war will be the final nail in the coffin lid of the dying american empire. You will no longer threaten the world, your time is over, Pax americana is no more. Pax Multipolaris, led by China, Russia, India, Iran and Brazil is ascending.
>See there the Ukrainian blood you have spilt, on the plains of Crimea >Blyat, I'm guiltless they voted wrong, I must shoot >Now you would add conscripts blood to your guilt, end Russia by B21? >My banan rights are clear!
>You can lie to yourself and your minions! You can claim that you've done no warcrime! >But you never can run from the new stealth top gun and AI! The long range Raider B21!!!!!!
>Now here is a riddle now guess if you can, who'll end first by the B21? >Which power was shittier, ended by Afghaaaaaaans? >Drop the shells shells shells shells >SHELLS SHELLS SHELLS SHELLS >RAIDER B TWENTY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not so much scared as they just want to keep China from doing anything stupid. Mainly the constant threats to Taiwan. If for some insane reason they decide to go through with it, frickton of disruption all over the world, they're the top chipmaker, and if Japan and South Korea have to get involved as well to help they are also big suppliers. China won't conquer the region or anything, but if they're insane they'll cause a lot more chaos than Putin's stupid invasion of Ukraine.
Because China will soon be the world's biggest economy, which means it gets to call a lot of shots, the regime there is pretty unpleasant, and they are rapidly building their military capabilities. I don't know why this wouldn't worry you, especially if you live in Asia.
>will soon be the worlds largest economy
You should follow the news more, Chinese long term growth projections have been slashed since 2020, most now think china won’t over take the us
Well, they're expected to have as many nukes as Russia in about a decade, and their new nukes are more likely to work than Russia's old nukes. That's a valid cause for concern.
No one is scared of China per se. Maybe the less savvy of the legislature who consume fear-mongering reports on Chinese military capability. have you read these things? They push all Chinese propaganda as if it's factual. I believe the more experienced politicos even know that it's all or mostly BS to secure budget, but they need to have something they can use to explain to the media that the money needs to be spent.
More of them should be major advantage. Future warfare demands connected planes with drones. it will also be better at low altitude because of weight alone. Drone version will be even lighter. Finally, it's more optimised for regular warfare, b2's primary role was primarily nuclear deterrent.
data linking and management is going to be a huge one. The more efficient higher bypass motors will reduce IR signature too. Mostly, though, the more durable newer generation stealth technology means that it will suffer less degradation of performance with use and weather.
>implying improved readiness rates and lower maintenance costs is not a huge benefit already
Lower production cost, better sensor package, designed using computers many times more powerful than back in the day, more powerful flight computers with room for upgrades (“open architecture” is the marketing term, just means they’ve thought about making sure plugging in something new into the plane is slightly less painful than before). Unless you believe engineers just sit with their thumbs up their asses while pocketing the defense budget this thing is at bare minimum an iterative improvement to the B-2. And it’s smaller size, unlike what this “muh Pattun better than Abrum and F-16 should only have gun and AIM-9s”-tier moron having more of a smaller plane that can still carry the bombs you need it to carry, just less of them is advantageous in a peer-conflict. Putting all your eggs in one basket vs dispersing them so only a few break if one basket gets smacked instead of all of them.
>one plane out of 20 gets shot down, lose 5% of your total bombload >one plane out of 40 gets shot down, lose 2.5% of your total bombload
Even assuming the B-21 is only about as stealthy as the B-2 and carries 1/2 of the payload, and only twice as many are built you still are better off with the B-21 than the B-2, assuming the B-21 can carry the same types of bombs as the B-2 can. The B-21 comes even further ahead if it’s nukes they’re dropping because you can hit twice as many targets simultaneously given the assumptions I gave and losing a B-2 means you are unable to hit twice as many targets as compared to losing a B-21. Sorry I’m not a drooling moron who thinks >big plen = better plen
There is a bare minimum size of course but as long as you can carry any bomb in the US arsenal the B-2 could with the B-2s range and can fit the avionics in there the issue of how small you make them is purely a budgetary issue
Lower RCS
Remotely Operating capabilities.
ISR Node/Networking improvements.
Probably can mount a direct energy weapon for point defense(ventrally) and sensor blinding.
>Holy frick… why were the analyst scared of China again???
Why are we pretending like this picture of an airplane is impressive? It's literally just a stealth bomber, we already have those.
Does it turn invisible?
Does it go into space?
Does it transform it into a robot like a veritech fighter?
I'm sick of this MIC bullshit.
We literally know nothing about this plane.
We literally know nothing about what it can do.
For all we know, it's a worse plane than the old B-2 bomber.
to get more funding
america is corrupt af
Isnt the Pentagon having to fearmongering Congress into giving them more money a sign of weak corruption? If they were really corrupt the military would have a blank check
These things are unrelated to corruption you sheltered homosexuals. If high corruption then the US military would be mothballed
American "corruption" is funny
>CONGRESS PLEASE HELP US THE BADDIES ARE DESIGNING A BIG BAD NEW THING WE NEED MORE MONEY
>OK HERE'S A TRILLION DOLLARS
BRRRRRRRRR
>five years later America has the super ultra death bringer 5000 mk4
To be fair, it all starts because the baddies said they already had a big bad new thing that made our stuff useless. You figure the Soviets would have learned after the M-4 Bison bomber, but no, they went ahead and overhyped the Mig-25 and fifty years later upgraded F-15 sill mogs on anything the Russian Air Force has. Now the Chinese have gotten us to build this thing with the endless "muh unstoppable hypersonics" shilling.
I have no idea how these morons still don't understand that lying about your capabilities to make the other guy think he can't conquer you is different from lying about your capabilities and making the other guy think you can conquer him. The first is deterrence (good), the second just sparks him to develop things you won't have a counter to (bad).
>I have no idea how these morons still don't understand that lying about your capabilities to make the other guy think he can't conquer you is different from lying about your capabilities and making the other guy think you can conquer him. The first is deterrence (good), the second just sparks him to develop things you won't have a counter to (bad).
Not that bad actually. You con the other guy into spending large money for R&D. Remember Reagan's Star Wars Program? It was a lie to make the Russians spend more money for their military. the other nails in the coffin were their Afghanistan war and Reagan's deal with the Saudis to flood the world with cheap oil, depriving the Russians from earning money with theirs.
A couple years later, the Soviet Union is no more.
Pretty good if you ask me.
>America is corrupt
>And yet were still producing incredible feats of technological engineering
If we were giving them funding with nothing to show for like Russia or China then sure, I'd agree but the US has consistently proven it self to be at the cutting edge of military tech.
so american corruption leads to cutting edge technology? what does russian or chinese corruption lead to?
They give a sergeant 100 rubles a week and then put him in charge of an AK47 warehouse with no oversight
Pocketed money. No transparency plus corruption at all levels means that it's not a question of whether that money for winter uniforms gets stolen, but what the split between you and the guy you report to as you sell them off will be.
This
I feel like we're in the same boat as Russia before the Ukraine war, but we don't want to admit it. I mean, only 2 years ago a LHD burned down in the docks and people still don't have answers or if they do, they are covering themselves.
that just means the brass is moronic
happens in peacetime
You don't understand how bad russia/china is regarding corruption. They are far more damaging than American corruption.
American corruption is like lobbying for the government overpaying for stuff that still actually works, or giving politicians and their families cushy jobs/contracts so they can buy out the companies that will actually end up doing the work
Chinese/Russian corruption looks like replacing ERA with egg cartons and "tofu dreg" infrastructure projects (literally a Chinese term for shoddy build quality coined to refer to said infrastructure projects)
Every penny spent on the MIC is a penny not spent on fat girlbosses of color who are too strong and independent to hold down a job. It's a penny not funneled into some NGO used as a sinecure farm for the moronic daughters and gay sons of Democrat politicians so they can agitate for more refugees to come here. It's a penny not spent on gay-ass windmills and solar panels. Don't spend money on the poors, spend money to flex on them. That's what being white is all about.
>I feel like we're in the same boat as Russia before the Ukraine war
Is that why a dozen HIMARS turned the war around?
>people still don't have answers
The Navy released a massive, self-effacing document on the mistakes that happened, how they happened, and why they won't happen again.
>and people still don't have answers
There's literally a fricking multi-volume investigation report of every fricking little detail of teh whole thing avaiable under FOIA. You could have all the fricking answers, if you just weren'tt too fricking lazy to go and get them.
Russian Corruption:
>Help! All our uniforms are missing and none of the tanks work!
Chinese Corruption:
>Help! Someone keeps selling all our ammo and we have to photoshop fake projects!
Indian Corruption:
>Help! We lost a million billion dollars for no reason and some horny guy just sold our nuclear codes!
American Corruption:
>Help! We just built a cutting edge stealth jet despite already being four generations ahead of anyone else and we have as any fleet carriers as everyone else on earth put together!
You are projecting again, Pidor.
Budgetary concerns.
>Pwetty pwease congrwess, for just 100 billion more dollars can we defend America.
It's cheaper than a war with China.
* gets shot down by fifty year old junk…..sorry we didn’t know it was invisible *Serbian giggling
>doesn't fly the same route repeatedly with the bomb bay open
Problem solved.
This is the only way to fly "clean" flying wings, they trade minimum drag and radar return for being inherently aerodynamically unstable until you have a computer to shunt you from metastable state to metastable state so fast you think it's moving smoothly.
Well that sounds like a dubious tradeoff
Nah, modern computers can be made reliable and powerful enough to handle it, it's only a tradeoff if your avionics suck.
You realize every single fighter plane since the F-16 is also nearly unflyable without the computer? Negative stability means sharper turns but well... negative stability...
It's pretty similar to what people do instinctively to ride a bike or even just stand up straigh
Also, split flaps.
But yes, the B-2 can fly "clean" with the split flaps closed (as you can see in pic related they're slightly open even in straight and level flight at cruise altitude in order to use differential drag for yaw control) but it has very limited maneuverability and likely uses some form of hyper-classified boundary layer control system to vary drag and lift across the wings in lieu of the control surfaces when flying in such a configuration.
The flaps are just to hide the Area 51 ayylium tech inside.
I still remember one time way back in the 90s my i bore witness to a B-2 doing a low over pass over my grandparents house and it was probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen. They lived like a mile and a half away from some major airport in Brandon Mississippi and we would always watch the air shows from the back yard, getting to watch the thunderbirds do their shit was cool as frick BUT man I'll never forget that B-2
Same. Really weird to see fly.
>likely uses some form of hyper-classified boundary layer control system to vary drag and lift across the wings in lieu of the control surfaces when flying in such a configuration.
They positively charge the ions going over the leading edge. They also negatively charge the exhaust flow to reduce IR signature. That's where the whole B-2 is antigravity tech comes from.
>that pic
My God what a bunch of moronic nonsense.
How so? The A-12/SR-71 used a cesium fuel additive called A-50 to ionize the exhaust plume to reduce RCS [1]. Along with project Kempster, which used an electron cannon to ionize the intake charge ahead of the inlet, which also reduced RCS [2]. Ionization of the flow field over the leading edge has shown to lead to a more uniform lameness flow field over the upper wing surface, reducing drag and increasing subsonic efficiency [3][4].
[1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29787/the-sr-71-blackbirds-predecessor-created-plasma-stealth-by-burning-cesium-laced-fuel
[2]https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/project-kempster-lockheed-a-12-and-plasma-stealth.2533/
[3]https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=discovery-day
[4]https://www.electrofluidsystems.com/news/Goeksel-Abstract-Euromech2004.pdf
Not my problem you're a brainlet.
Did you miss the last sentence claiming the b2 can supercruise with the engines switched off, Mr. Galaxybrain?
I thought it was clear that the antigravity tech schizo's ramble on about is a system to reduce radar RCS, IR signature, a long with improving the airfoil efficiency. Has nothing to do with Ayy shit.
Look at those trailing edge control surfaces working overtime in the banked turn, that's really cool.
Now explain the antigravity part.
If this were true then Darkstar would also be anti-gravity
't fly the same route repeatedly with the bomb bay open
this
you have to be really moronic to say that the F117 thing in any way invalidates stealth
if anything it lends it credence to it since the Air Force assumed they COULD do that and they almost got away with it
wonder if its simpler than that and they just use satellite style SAS reaction wheels when they absolutely must fly clean
>wonder if its simpler than that and they just use satellite style SAS reaction wheels
Reaction wheels are extremely heavy and need to be pretty large in diameter. B-2 doesn't have the space for them, B-21 is too light based on the landing gear wheel count
You can compensate for that by running them at unbelievably high speeds. Remember, a jet bomber has a lot more spare power than a solar powered satellite.
That's where it gets "hyper-classified".
You can only run them so fast before they rip themselves apart or the axle starts wobbling. It's just a bad idea man
THE MAGIC OF FLUID BEARINGS WILL SAVE US!
unironically though
You'd need a big fricking reaction wheel to control an aircraft that size, lol.
Reaction wheels don't work IRL like they do in KSP. They're good for making very small, precise adjustments on space telescopes and satellites in a vacuum. Less good for controlling a 70-150 ton aircraft in atmosphere.
Horten brothers showed that you don't need aero instability to make flying wings without vertical fins, making it aerodynamically unstable has more to do with increasing efficiency and allowing a larger variation in center of gravity position.
>Horten brothers showed that you don't need aero instability to make flying wings without vertical fins, making it aerodynamically unstable has more to do with increasing efficiency and allowing a larger variation in center of gravity position.
Does the b21 look like it has the horten style wing design? The outer wingtips do appear twisted forward to me.
Serbian Black folk are literally proud of shooting 1 aircraft after letting thousands or bombing sorties go through and letting their entire country get bombed into submission.
Frick around and find out. Again.
You don't have healthcare because quality of life is not as much of an american value as consumer rights are. If you wanted free healthcare you could afford it ezy, with no issue for your MIC.
It's a nonstarter if you know anything about US politics. Whether you want it or not is moot if you know in your heart that the US version would make the Canadian version look efficient and transparent.
>free
Free healthcare is an unsustainable meme even IF you gut your military. It's not a coincidence why the places with free healthcare are also all instituting government assisted suicide, it's cheaper and they're already recommending it more and more strongly over various expensive procedures and gear. Some poor Canadian veteran who needed a chairlift to get around her house, still young enough for blonde hair, was told "if having to climb up and down the stairs with your arms dragging your chair is so painful and depressing, have you considered killing yourself?" By the Canadian health service. Nothing is free.
i love how americans really believe that lie
Their defense spending is only 3.3% of the their GDP
3.3% of US gdp is more than 100% in most of the world
i know but it's not a constraint
americans don't have good healthcare because obamacare is moronic
3.3 also doesn't even include the private industry which the military mooches off of.
no we don't have good healthcare because our government and corporations are a mix of corrupt, incompetent, or uncaring of health.
>elimination of ‘le preexisting conditions’ loophole bad
Obamacare is worth it just for eliminating the most vile of scams the insurance companies were pulling
>i know we have been taking your money for decades when you were healthy
>and know you need expensive treatment
>lucky for you there is nothing stopping us from-
>WHOA WHOA WHOA
>HOL UP
>is that-
>is that a fricking nosebleed from 1991 that you didnt disclose?
>how DARE you
>fricking sneaky frick, you almost had us payong for your expensive brain cancer treatments
The biggest companies were literally using up to ONE THIRD of their workforce to comb over medical records to try and weasel out of paying big money for seriously (re: expensively) ill patients.
Frick insurance companies. The increasing access to mental healthcare was great too. Change was needed; it may have not been pretty but it was adequate to address the problems it was designed to fix.
American government also spends more on healthcare than most of the world
because the healthcare system was designed by the insurers and the government is happy to invite foreigners in to take advantage of it.
You're gays. American healthcare is unironically the best in the world. Rich people in other countries come HERE for treatment when they get sick, and only go elsewhere if a procedure is so unethical or dangerous that American doctors won't do it. However, it costs money. If you have a job, you have health insurance and won't be getting the crazy fees you see memed by people who don't have insurance and try to use an ambulance as a taxi. All those countries with "free healthcare" don't have a military, you can wait in line for a lifesaving surgery for weeks if you're unlucky, the care in their hospitals is demonstrably lesser grade (when was the last time you heard of an American dying of a broken leg?), and increasingly the Health Services in those countries won't let you get more expensive procedures and will instead try to strongarm you into worse solutions, including assisted suicide. USA #1, unironically.
No Americans believe this, we just like explosive stuff
>they
>their
>forgetting that 3.3% of our gdp is 760 B
>china, the runner up, spends 230B
nominal amounts isn't a great comparison though
they can get more for their money because their salaries are what, 1/10 what we're paying our dudes?
Wait, you actually think most of the cost comes from baseline grunt worker salaries?
>manned
lol
>subsonic
lmao even
>muh supersonic
Get the frick out of here Sonichu
Please tell me why a stealth bomber should be supersonic.
if the enemy figures out through intelligence or through getting really lucky or the raider is sent on a moronic and reckless mission, that there's "something vaguely in this area" and sends interceptors, it needs to be able to run
Part of me wants to know the context of that gif, and another part of me doesn't want to know.
Have ever heard the tale of Darth Sanoichu the Motherfricker? It is not a tale the /k/ommando's would tell you...
>stealth bomber
>supersonic
lol moron
also
>unmanned
oh no no no
How quickly will China manufacture infinity copies?
When do they usually harvest bamboo?
One gets hit by a lucky shot…..
China has a hundred by the end of the week
very organic
it doesn't drop unguided bombs, morons.
China doesn't have working jet engines yet.
Ballistic missiles made bombers obsolete, this is nothing but dying empire clawing for some relevance of prestige
>Ballistic missiles made bombers obsolete
You do realize that modern bombers carry big fricking missiles and not dumb bombs right
America makes the most advanced ballistic missiles, you stupid chink
So how do these craft maintain stability without vertical control surfaces? The central body?
iirc if it's anything like the b-2, computing hundreds of micro adjustments per second to keep it airborne.
Yup, they're fairly simple to fly, as long as everything goes right on the software side. Wing planes just require plenty of gyros for autopilot to keep auto correcting flight.
Multi engine aircraft can use asymmetrical engine thrust for yaw control.
By being a very stable design. Yaw is controlled by differential drag from the split drag rudder/split ailerons or 'clamshells'. Open the clamshell to increase drag on the wing on the side of the B-2 you wish to turn towards.
>tail
Wtf, I love the B-2 now
>By being a very stable design.
wat
isn't one of the big things about flying wings with radical geometry like the b-2 that they need to be fly-by-wire because they're inherently unstable(by design)
A flying wing with sufficient wing sweep will be statically stable in yaw. Combine that with a flight computer and split flaps or differential thrust that can deal with some of the other negative flight characteristics of tailless flying wings and you can dump those draggy vertical surfaces.
I would love to see a forward sweapt flying wing (entirely unstable) kept in check by a good flight control computer. Would make for a real difficult RC modeling challenge.
Because...the Chinese, they play jokes...and they go pee pee in OUR cokes. There's our reason to fear them
Are you serious?
There’s a reason coke has distributed bottling plants around the U.S. we can’t trust you to produce it and we will never allow ourselves to be fooled again.
Can these be filled with anti air?
No, it's a bomber, not a fighter. Morons keep doing misleading cring shit like OP.
>anons somehow draw conclusions about capability from mere pictures
we truly have the greatest experts browisng /k/
>Has obviously been in a coma for the last 9 months.
homie, seeing how poorly russian designed shit is faring next door to russia (getting mogged by our old shit from the Cold War and old Soviet stocks) and china being very closely connected tech-wise to the russians, it is going to take both nations combined over 60 years to even get close to competing with the B-21.
It's an F-15E or F-111 class aircraft that costs as much as a B-1. It's a piece of shit and you government suckpoppets are posting these damage control threads because of it.
haha yes all of those aircraft are literally the same
you're lucky this board doesn't have flags
>guys WHATABOUTRUSSIA???
Analysts have said that it likely has a similar payload to the F-111 based on its smaller size and two wheel front landing gear. And yes, payload really does matter, because real bombers (not fake bullshit like the B-21) carry enough ordnance to strike *multiple* targets on a single bombing run. In a peer war against China, the B-21 can only launch a single tactical strike on a specific target, and then it has to fly *ALL THE WAY BACK ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN* to re-arm. Its slow speed and low payload means that it's not capable of the operational tempo needed to significantly impact an enemy's operations in a peer war.
Can you fed shills please frick off from /k/? Pic related.
You've been already caught multiple times with your fake as frick passport. Open it or gtfo
Post a link to one single time where I was """"""""""caught """""""""" you lying shill.
>please dox yourself so I can extrajudicially persecute you IRL ;_;
Get fricked, glowBlack person. Prove you're even American and not another one of these outsourced eastern European shill farm workers.
I don't have to prove shit
Ahahahaha he bought the fricking sig
It's the most American/least likely to have been recently exported gun that I own.
it doesn't matter man you came out as a SIGGER infront of the whole board!!
>imagine buying a sig
lol homosexual alert, 100% mossad agent trying to derail, nice try fed, we see past your projection
>he bought into the sig
homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT homosexual ALERT
Hapanda is that you? I remember your notoriously terrible taste in firearms you showed off claiming to own.
>Bought a Sig
>Bought the worst Sig
Oh god, I'm so sorry. I didn't know you were genuinely special needs.
so if it has half the payload they can just send 2 bombers
they are building over 100 of em compared to the measly 20 b2s they currently have
>B-1 payload: 125,000 pounds
>B-21 payload: 30,000 pounds
Both of these aircraft cost the same when adjusted for inflation. It will take 4X as many B-21s to match the operational capability of the B-1s that it's replacing. (The B-21 is a B-1 replacement, not a B-2 replacement.)
No timestamp = not your gun. You know the rules, fed.
the b1 isnt stealth and has no survivability
it has no use outside of being a long range missile truck
all that lost capability is replaced by rapid dragon
>B-1s with their currently deployed low observable coatings and ECMs, which were specifically designed for survivability, are going to be less survivable than mexican women pushing bombs out of a C-17
This is your brain on glowBlack person propaganda.
thats not what i said moron
the b1 doesnt have the survivability to perform deep strikes inside heavily defended territory like the b2 or b21
its only use in a peer war would be acting as a standoff missile truck which is something that can be done by b52s or rapid dragon
the b21s lower payload compared to the b2 (which it is also replacing) is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
the air force has determined that numerous smaller bombers is superior than very few larger bombers
B-52s and rapid dragon cannot operate in contested airspace whatsoever. They're only useful for bombing third world countries. There will be a lot of ship-based AA aircraft activity over the western Pacific that will deny them the ability to operate there, to say nothing of CAP.
>is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
Now you're just straight up lying. Current plans call for producing the same number of B-21s as B-1s. Even if they did 5X the production run, that would still mean 5X the cost of the B-1 program. The cost is the same, so you could have had 5X the number of large bombers instead of 5X of these dumbed down B-21 strike fighters. You will also probably try to misconstrue this as me arguing for a B-1 production restart, but I'm simply using it as a benchmark here.
>>is made up by having over 5 times the amount of b21s
im talking about the b2
the b21 is replacing both the b1 and b2
It's replacing the B-1 and supplementing the B-2. You're intentionally ignoring the larger implications for the degradation of our strategic bombing capability.
the b1 isnt capable of performing the same mission as the b21
the b1 is useless in a peer war outside of firing missiles from standoff range which is something that can be done by b52s or rapid dragon
>cannot operate in a contested airspace
isn't the whole point of rapid dragon to have enough range that you don't need to do that?
>isn't the whole point of rapid dragon to have enough range that you don't need to do that?
That is exactly the point of Rapid Dragon, it's a pallet of cruise missiles that have between 600 and 1200 mile range depending on the exact model so you can just kick them out of the back of a C-17 instead of having to tie up a dedicated bomber for that mission
>B-52s cannot operate in contested airspace whatsoever.
The B-52 can carry things besides gravity bombs, anon.
ok ok think about it this way
>use honduran femoid as counterweight to launch super long range rotary detonation engine cruise missiles
>instead of 1 b1 flying the same path low and fast, there are 10 cruise missiles
>b1 gets shot down, permanently affects strategic reserve
>cruise missile gets shot down (smaller target too), who gives a frick
>mexican women pushing bombs out of a C-17
I'm sure this made sense in your head.
The point of the B21 is once you engage targets you blow up the enemy radar and they now know where to look for you.
B2s don't use most of their payload ability because of this, which is why the smaller lighter harder to find B21 did not have this as a priority.
First don't be where they expect you
Second don't be seen
Third don't be targeted
Fourth don't get hit
Fifth don't be downed.
see
Wtf does a passport prove you huge homosexual?
>YOU'RE A VATNIK!!! GUISE WHATABOUTRUSSIA???
>*posts passport*
>t-this doesn't mean anything
you do not need to be russian to be a vatnik.
>Amerimutt simping for Russia
>Buys a SIG
>obsesses over glowBlack folk
Fricking poetry
>peer war against china
China is not a peer nation. Having smaller ordinances means frick all if you have the numbers to make up for the amount of bombs drop. Along with it having better stealth, better eletronics/avionics, better engines and so on. The b2 also been proven to need less bombs than what it can carry in every operation. Why drop X amount of bombs/missiles when you can precisely destroy the same targets for less? Quantity doesn't mean shit if you're not able to hit anything and the off chance that the bomber gets shot down would result in another bomber fulfilling its role.
The b1 is not a stealth aircraft. The plane has been stated to be able to fly at high speeds and fast enough to penetrate through air spaces while flying low. It fufills a different purpose than what the b2/b21 does. The b21 is mainly there to replace the b2, which is aging.
>American passport
Our most prolific chink shill has one of those.
You realize they can land on carriers, right?
>i just know the exact payload of aircraft just by looking at it.
>I just know, ok, because it's central to my argument.
Can you go be a schizo elsewhere?
>suckpoppets
what did they mean by this
>succ
>you government sockpuppets
You're a government sockpuppet even in your state, Chang.
>suckpoppets
Not even trying to hide it anymore, Chicom?
>Can easily defeat rusBlack folk and chinkoids with 11 gorillion gen wunderwaffe
>Said wunderwaffe could easily be controlled by a few dozen morons with PSA ARS
USA USA USA USA USA
Isn’t there a thing called Vera Radar that can detect stealth planes? It’s NATO tech, but the Chinese can copy it or develop their own eventually.
Fearmongering makes money, next
it wasnt scared so much as warning to keep an eye on china because they are beginning to actively try and unfrick their shit
This shiny toy won't help america in a war against China and Russia. Your economy will collapse sooner than you make a dozen of these, and then a civil/racial war will be the final nail in the coffin lid of the dying american empire. You will no longer threaten the world, your time is over, Pax americana is no more. Pax Multipolaris, led by China, Russia, India, Iran and Brazil is ascending.
>Pax Multipolaris
So the world in the first half of 1914?
You slightly overdid it but I can't hate you for baiting for (You)s.
>Morning in Moscow, the city awakes; to the raids of B21
>Moskva crewmen? Fishes. The tankerman bakes; In the raids of B21
>From the big bombs as loud as the thunder!
>To the stealth turbines soft as a psalm...
>And some say the soul of America lies in the bombs....
>The bombs of B21!
>Dark was the night when the sorties began, from Montana, B21
>Two pinko powers slept silently under the sights of B21!
>But a trap had been laid for the Luyang
>And they gazed up in fear and alarm
>At a bomber whose ranges were unfair as their wieners,
>The Raider B21!
>Monke Vlad longed to purge the world of gays and westernism
>And he saw corruption everywhere except within
>Blyat suka, blyat suka
>HATO TRANNIES
>Blyat suka, blyat suka
>HATO TRANNIES
>Blyat suka, blyat suka
>HATO TRANNIES
>Blyat suka, blyat suka
>HATO TRANNIES
>See there the Ukrainian blood you have spilt, on the plains of Crimea
>Blyat, I'm guiltless they voted wrong, I must shoot
>Now you would add conscripts blood to your guilt, end Russia by B21?
>My banan rights are clear!
>You can lie to yourself and your minions! You can claim that you've done no warcrime!
>But you never can run from the new stealth top gun and AI! The long range Raider B21!!!!!!
>Now here is a riddle now guess if you can, who'll end first by the B21?
>Which power was shittier, ended by Afghaaaaaaans?
>Drop the shells shells shells shells
>SHELLS SHELLS SHELLS SHELLS
>RAIDER B TWENTY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok nato desk jockey, chill. You guys are always silent on the chink threat.
B-21bros, how is she so damn SEXY
Not so much scared as they just want to keep China from doing anything stupid. Mainly the constant threats to Taiwan. If for some insane reason they decide to go through with it, frickton of disruption all over the world, they're the top chipmaker, and if Japan and South Korea have to get involved as well to help they are also big suppliers. China won't conquer the region or anything, but if they're insane they'll cause a lot more chaos than Putin's stupid invasion of Ukraine.
It'll be hilarious when China releases an inferior B-2 clone after the B-2's replacement has already been released.
Because China will soon be the world's biggest economy, which means it gets to call a lot of shots, the regime there is pretty unpleasant, and they are rapidly building their military capabilities. I don't know why this wouldn't worry you, especially if you live in Asia.
>will soon be the worlds largest economy
You should follow the news more, Chinese long term growth projections have been slashed since 2020, most now think china won’t over take the us
Well, they're expected to have as many nukes as Russia in about a decade, and their new nukes are more likely to work than Russia's old nukes. That's a valid cause for concern.
Because chinks are Black folk that steal shit from others. Design your own shit, dipshits
No one is scared of China per se. Maybe the less savvy of the legislature who consume fear-mongering reports on Chinese military capability. have you read these things? They push all Chinese propaganda as if it's factual. I believe the more experienced politicos even know that it's all or mostly BS to secure budget, but they need to have something they can use to explain to the media that the money needs to be spent.
Quick rundown on why it is better than the B-2 apart from readiness rates and maintenance?
More of them should be major advantage. Future warfare demands connected planes with drones. it will also be better at low altitude because of weight alone. Drone version will be even lighter. Finally, it's more optimised for regular warfare, b2's primary role was primarily nuclear deterrent.
data linking and management is going to be a huge one. The more efficient higher bypass motors will reduce IR signature too. Mostly, though, the more durable newer generation stealth technology means that it will suffer less degradation of performance with use and weather.
It's also probably optionally manned.
>implying improved readiness rates and lower maintenance costs is not a huge benefit already
Lower production cost, better sensor package, designed using computers many times more powerful than back in the day, more powerful flight computers with room for upgrades (“open architecture” is the marketing term, just means they’ve thought about making sure plugging in something new into the plane is slightly less painful than before). Unless you believe engineers just sit with their thumbs up their asses while pocketing the defense budget this thing is at bare minimum an iterative improvement to the B-2. And it’s smaller size, unlike what this “muh Pattun better than Abrum and F-16 should only have gun and AIM-9s”-tier moron having more of a smaller plane that can still carry the bombs you need it to carry, just less of them is advantageous in a peer-conflict. Putting all your eggs in one basket vs dispersing them so only a few break if one basket gets smacked instead of all of them.
Fug I meant its not it’s
>a smaller plane that can still carry the bombs you need it to carry, just less of them is advantageous
Is this shill serious?
>one plane out of 20 gets shot down, lose 5% of your total bombload
>one plane out of 40 gets shot down, lose 2.5% of your total bombload
Even assuming the B-21 is only about as stealthy as the B-2 and carries 1/2 of the payload, and only twice as many are built you still are better off with the B-21 than the B-2, assuming the B-21 can carry the same types of bombs as the B-2 can. The B-21 comes even further ahead if it’s nukes they’re dropping because you can hit twice as many targets simultaneously given the assumptions I gave and losing a B-2 means you are unable to hit twice as many targets as compared to losing a B-21. Sorry I’m not a drooling moron who thinks
>big plen = better plen
There is a bare minimum size of course but as long as you can carry any bomb in the US arsenal the B-2 could with the B-2s range and can fit the avionics in there the issue of how small you make them is purely a budgetary issue
Sweet, someone with a working brain.
Lower RCS
Remotely Operating capabilities.
ISR Node/Networking improvements.
Probably can mount a direct energy weapon for point defense(ventrally) and sensor blinding.
>Holy frick… why were the analyst scared of China again???
Why are we pretending like this picture of an airplane is impressive? It's literally just a stealth bomber, we already have those.
Does it turn invisible?
Does it go into space?
Does it transform it into a robot like a veritech fighter?
I'm sick of this MIC bullshit.
We literally know nothing about this plane.
We literally know nothing about what it can do.
For all we know, it's a worse plane than the old B-2 bomber.
Cool shilling but it's better and your country (China) sucks dog penises.
Good Lord, the amount of chink, vatnik, and generalized thirdy cope over the Great White Bat is unreal.
I'm sure the Chinese are going to be suitably intimated ~30 years from now when this thing actually enters service in relevant numbers.
The US isn't Russia or China.