/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27701739

[318 / 35 / ?]

94KiB, 2000x1400, Picture_4.jpg

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:22:43 No.27701739 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701750 >>27701807 >>27701890 >>27701943 >>27702374 >>27702462 >>27702486 >>27702847 >>27703241 >>27703861 >>27704345 >>27704455

Tomorrow, Tuesday will be the day the USAF will FINALLY award either Northrup Grumman or Boeing/LockheedMartin the contract to build Murica's next bomber.

It's time to take a final poll on how you think this plane would be configured.

My guess:
Northrop Grumman Wins. It'll have 2 engines, derived from P&W F-135 including the STOVL variant's drive shafts for electric generation purposes to power self defense DEW and other electricity hungry shizznits. It'll be a cranked kite planform with enough margin to ease upgrade to ADVENT type engines when the tech matures.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/air-force-poised-to-award-bomber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:24:00 No.27701750 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701739
If Grumman loses, any bets as to how fast they all commit suicide?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:31:51 No.27701807 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701853 >>27701866 >>27702187

>>27701739
Why do we need another stealth bomber? We already have the plans for B2s, which are extremely expensive in themselves. Are we looking for cheaper alternatives?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:36:14 No.27701845 Report Delete

Quoted By:

what does the public actually know

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:37:16 No.27701853 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701907

>>27701807
>which are extremely expensive in themselves. Are we looking for cheaper alternatives?
Yes. VLO tech has advanced a great deal, along with avionics, datalinks and sensor data transmission/processing in the native airframe and remote sensor platforms datalinked. Furthermore, the RAM coating process for the F-35 greatly reduced cost of production and operation. Two engines instead of four also drops flight hour cost and raises availability.

It'll be a big step up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:37:51 No.27701854 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Lockheed won't get it. DOD gives out contracts to everyone every so often. So that the companies stay alive and keep their expertise up.

Giving another plane contract to Lockheed would be a little too controversial at the moment. Got to wait till people forget about the F-35's growing pains and expense.

Northrup would have to present just a really inferior plane in order to not get the contract.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:38:19 No.27701866 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701911

>>27701807
It's supposed to be much smaller than the B-2 I believe. It's meant to be a more practical stealth bomber.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:39:38 No.27701877 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701914

I got money on Boeing
And Boeing will win

Screencap this

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:40:50 No.27701890 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701903

>>27701739
Sub orbital bombers when?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:42:12 No.27701901 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701921

I would be excited if it wasn't a shittier looking b2.

This is the first stealth program that I think is a bad idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:42:15 No.27701903 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701953

>>27701890
6th gen if ever. It's just not something that's really necessary when you have ICBMs, SLBMs, VLO carrier launched tactical strike aircraft and all manner of VLO cruise missiles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:42:52 No.27701907 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701921 >>27701973 >>27702142

>>27701853
It's supposed to exhibit a flying wing design. I certainly hope it doesn't turn into another F35 project, we don't even have that up and running yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:43:13 No.27701911 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701926 >>27701932 >>27703132 >>27703256

>>27701866
It's it also supposed to be unmanned and fly low earth orbit at something like Mock 7?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:43:16 No.27701914 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701941 >>27701954

>>27701877
It's a Boeing-Lockmart team, they're not going to get the contract with how controversial the F35 is. And Northrop needs it a lot more financially. Which means NG gets the win.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:43:51 No.27701921 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702005 >>27702234

>>27701901
The B-2s are getting up there on flight hours, and the B-52s are fucking ancient. It's waaaaaaay past time for a new full production bomber. Just hope to god they don't cancel this one with only 20% of the airframes built.

>>27701907
F-35B is already at IOC. It's rolling along fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:44:23 No.27701926 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701911
Nah, the idea for it to be unmanned was rejected.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:44:53 No.27701932 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701911
No. It's manned, subsonic, super long range and extremely broad spectrum VLO, just like the B-2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:45:45 No.27701941 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701914
Damn
Boeing and LM are collaborating on this one ?

Shouldn't have invested in those Boeing stocks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:45:50 No.27701943 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703919 >>27707532

>>27701739
This kills the Northrop.

If they lose the contract, they're out of big airframe contracts and will be doing nothing bigger than drones.

If they win the contract, Boeing can't handle having lost yet another big airframe contract and so will buy them out (unless the government nixes a sale).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:46:37 No.27701953 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701987

>>27701903
True. Just imagine sub orbital continuously flying bombers. Just always flying around waiting for the word to strike. Like those nuke rockets during the Cold War that would just fly around until they were ready to explode.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:46:42 No.27701954 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701914
Article says the deal is only financially significant for Northrop, which is much smaller than Lockheed and Boeing. Northop also developed the B2 bomber. I am going to bet Northrop gets this one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:47:44 No.27701965 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27701998 >>27702000 >>27702005

If Lockheed wins the military industrial complex is somehow even more corrupt than already imagined. Besides that I can't wait buy a marginally better stealth bomber for 4 billion a piece while the army is still primarily relying on a mechanized force devised in the 1980's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:48:49 No.27701973 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702020

>>27701907
The LRSB is by all accounts THE model defense program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:50:01 No.27701987 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702017

>>27701953
You know they never actually built Project Pluto, right? Even the fucking nutso DoD scientists in the 60's thought it was too scary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:51:35 No.27701998 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701965
Army is fine really. There are some things that would be nice to have. Like exoskeletons, tilt rotors, lighter and tougher body armor, lighter SAWs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:51:49 No.27702000 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701965
>Besides that I can't wait buy a marginally better stealth bomber for 4 billion a piece while the army is still primarily relying on a mechanized force devised in the 1980's.
The USAF only needs 100 bombers, and those bombers are a core National Security nuclear strategy pillar.
The US Army needs several THOUSAND new tanks, IFVs and APCs. They're slowly but surely upgrading/replacing, just like everyone else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:52:06 No.27702005 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702021 >>27702037 >>27702051

>>27701965
>Besides that I can't wait buy a marginally better stealth bomber for 4 billion a piece while the army is still primarily relying on a mechanized force devised in the 1980's.

I think the Abrams gets a lot of unecessary shit, but it really needed to be replaced 5-10 years ago. As it stands right now I don't even think they have a suitable replacement in development.

>>27701921
>The B-2s are getting up there on flight hours

I just don't see what the advantage over this plane would be over the b2. If the B2s are aging then just build more. The money for a new program could be far better spent on other things.

This is probably going to be worse than the b2 and the first stealth program that actually sucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:53:14 No.27702017 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701987
Yeah I'm aware. Nuclear fallout from engines was "too dangerous" and would kill more people flying around than blowing up. Bunch of pussies if you ask me

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:53:36 No.27702020 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702056 >>27702114 >>27702142 >>27702916

>>27701973

>The LRSB is by all accounts THE model defense program.

really? last i heard, the senate or congress was bitching about how the initially mentioned price of $550(or was it 500?) million per plane maybe wrong and it's actually much more expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:53:42 No.27702021 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702036 >>27702121

>>27702005
All the Abrams are getting upgraded into the M1A3 and more M1A3s are being built.

All it really needs is a less thirsty power plant and active defense system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:54:43 No.27702036 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702021
M1A3 doesn't exist you cunt face. Stop lying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:54:45 No.27702037 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702109 >>27702367

>>27702005
>If the B2s are aging then just build more.
You're missing the point. The LRSB costs less than the B-2, the RAM coating on it is far, far cheaper to initially install and service, and it's designed to be far cheaper to service. In addition to using very similar engines to the F-35, all this will make it much cheaper to build and fly.

Go do your homework on the project before you start pissing and moaning about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:55:46 No.27702051 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702005

>I just don't see what the advantage over this plane would be over the b2.

Being cheap enough to fly to actually see real use

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:56:20 No.27702056 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702142

>>27702020
$550 million is the price to get it to drop bombs on shit.

It's meant to be modular in a sense though, with the ability to take up other roles, like communication and ECM. Plugging in the additional capability means more cost for those systems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 16:59:35 No.27702101 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>I just don't see what the advantage over this plane would be over the b2.
> t. sprey

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:00:23 No.27702109 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702140 >>27702260 >>27702449

>>27702037
>The LRSB costs less than the B-2,

You are forgetting that costs go beyond just straight up dollars and cents in that there are only so many defense contractors and people capable of working on these type of projects. And there are only so many people in the military capable of working with the defense contractors to integrate the technology into the military.

I would much rather see the man hours and money spent on something more than just a slightly more economical version of an existing platform. I will admit however that I really don't know the specifications, and if they really are significant then I would be willing to change my opinion, but I don't think they are just by looking at it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:00:42 No.27702114 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702020
The unit cost is expensive, but that is to be expected from bombers. However, the program is moving along EXTREMELY well, to the point where the Pentagon might continue to use this model in the future. It's keeping costs down and on time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:01:17 No.27702121 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702336

>>27702021
>All the Abrams are getting upgraded into the M1A3 and more M1A3s are being built.
Vidya kid detected

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:03:07 No.27702140 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702200

>>27702109
Well, fuck. I can't believe I was just responding to you with reasoned arguments. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:03:21 No.27702142 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701907
> I certainly hope it doesn't turn into another F35 project

welp, if
>>27702020
>>27702056
is any indication, it'll be another f35

so much vague, incomplete, or compartmentalized info that people with agenda can spin into whatever they want

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:05:25 No.27702163 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702166 >>27702200 >>27702218

>ITT: fucking morons

You idiots realize the B-2 is a 1980s design made on 1980s computers with 1980s understanding of stealth and radars? The US has had 30 years of advancement in the field and you fucks think we should just build more of them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:05:51 No.27702166 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702163
This, this right here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:08:11 No.27702187 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702196 >>27706990

>>27701807
If we're using weapons in the 2010's that were designed in the 1980's what do you think the people in the 2050's will be using.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:09:28 No.27702196 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702187
>what do you think the people in the 2050's will be using.

If history is our guide, they'll be using F35's.

It'll take that long for them to become operational anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:09:48 No.27702200 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702237 >>27702260

>>27702140
>Well, fuck. I can't believe I was just responding to you with reasoned arguments. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

Until you can list some specifications you are just as ignorant about this as me buddy.

>>27702163
>You idiots realize the B-2 is a 1980s design made on 1980s computers with 1980s understanding of stealth and radars? The US has had 30 years of advancement in the field and you fucks think we should just build more of them?

Good argument: This will be leaps and bounds better than the b2 because it just has to be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:11:59 No.27702218 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705873 >>27705972

>>27702163
"why don't we just build more b-17s" -idiot luddites in this thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:13:21 No.27702232 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702262 >>27702275 >>27702286

My point is that if they are billing this as simply just a cheaper b2 I think it is a mistake. I don't get the feeling that they are saying it is going to be significantly more capable than the b2, just more economical.

And for reference:

f22
First flight 7 September 1997

b2
First flight 17 July 1989

Of course the f22 is a space age superplane that will be viable 50 years from now, but the b2 is an aging pile of garbage that needs to be replaced immediately despite its first flight being just 8 years before the f22.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:13:32 No.27702234 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701921
I can see it now, 500 years from now we'll be bombing mudslime ayyyyyys on other worlds with B-52s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:13:45 No.27702237 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702266

>>27702200
So in other words you admit your total fucking ignorance and demand everyone else spoonfeed you.

Here's one simple thing just about any stealth aircraft built after the B-2 can do that the B-2 can't: sit on the fucking tarmac for long periods of time instead of in a climate controlled shelter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:15:20 No.27702260 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702449 >>27702714

>>27702200
>Until you can list some specifications you are just as ignorant about this as me buddy.
I'm not the complete fucking potato head that drops gems like the following into rational discussion about US DoD procurement: >>27702109
>You are forgetting that costs go beyond just straight up dollars and cents in that there are only so many defense contractors and people capable of working on these type of projects. And there are only so many people in the military capable of working with the defense contractors to integrate the technology into the military.

>>27702200
>Good argument: This will be leaps and bounds better than the b2 because it just has to be.
The B-2 has:
>no fiber optic cabling - it's all copper, and it literally weighs a ton more than it needs to
>less CPU processing power than the average civilian desktop. Total.
>incredibly time intensive maintenance requirements for the RAM skin
>very difficult to access and perform many simple maintenance tasks
>no low-observable two way datalink capabilities
>very rudimentary/primitive ground targeting capabilities compared to the F-35
>aeroshaping using 1980's modeling and tech, and unupdated to address modern radar advances (still extremely VLO, but not as much as it once was)

Go read a book, anon. Educate yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:15:29 No.27702262 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702232
So the F-22 is about 10 years newer than the B-2 then?

>LSRB (B-2 replacement) planned IOC: 2020s
>F-X (F-22 replacement) planned IOC: 2030s

Oops, maybe you should never, ever fucking post again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:15:43 No.27702266 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702314

>>27702237
>So in other words you admit your total fucking ignorance and demand everyone else spoonfeed you.

Oh yeah I'm sure everyone is just sitting on the specifications in this thread and knows just so much fucking more about it than me despite the article basically saying "its a new plane" while vaguely describing its potential capabilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:17:03 No.27702275 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702299

>>27702232
>Of course the f22 is a space age superplane that will be viable 50 years from now, but the b2 is an aging pile of garbage that needs to be replaced immediately despite its first flight being just 8 years before the f22.
The last F22 was produced in 2011. The last B2 was produced in 2000. A decade makes a big difference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:18:12 No.27702286 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702329

>>27702232
>but the b2 is an aging pile of garbage that needs to be replaced immediately
Can you please stop demonstrating your total fucking ignorance? The B-2 will continue in service for years alongside the LRSB. What needs to be replacement "immediately" (which in non lying fucker terms within the next several decades) are the B-52s still nuclear tasked and then the B-1s carrying so much conventional weight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:19:19 No.27702299 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702308 >>27702316 >>27702327

>>27702275
>A decade makes a big difference.

Not as big as people in this thread are trying to make it seem.

It really comes down to whether or not the RCS is significantly better than the b2 and no one here has that information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:20:14 No.27702308 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702341

>>27702299
All it has to be is cheaper to operate than the B2, which shouldn't be hard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:20:58 No.27702314 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702266
Oh yeah I'm sure everyone is just sitting on the specifications in this thread and knows just so much fucking more about it than me despite the article basically saying "its a new plane" while vaguely describing its potential capabilities.
It has nothing to do with the specific specifications, and everything to do with the very clear reality that you have no idea what you're talking about even in general terms. You can't even understand how far aviation, even civil aviation, has come in 35 years of design, and you have absolutely no fucking clue what these changes bring to the table in just a 1 to 1 capability match modernized design.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:21:13 No.27702316 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702299
So let's make your assumption that a plane designed on 2010s computers (because for the complete ignorant like you computational power matters in stealth design) after several additional decades of more stealth designs it'll definitely be no improvement over the B-2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:22:05 No.27702327 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702299
>It really comes down to whether or not the RCS is significantly better than the b2 and no one here has that information.
Wow. You really are this fucking dumb. Well, I'm done with this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:22:16 No.27702329 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702339 >>27702342 >>27702347

>>27702286
>The B-2 will continue in service for years alongside the LRSB.

I don't see the need when the money could be better used to upgrade the b2 and build more of them. Unless the capabilities of this plane are so much more significant than the b2, or offer some kind of significantly different tactical advantage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:23:17 No.27702336 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702354

>>27702121
You must have been in a coma for a while. They've been working on the equipment package the A3 will have for some time now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:23:32 No.27702339 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702359

>>27702329
>I don't see the need when the money could be better used to upgrade the b2 and build more of them
In spite of the numerous advantages several anons have pointed out in this thread multiple times? Sure, no need at all. Moron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:23:39 No.27702341 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702361 >>27702366

>>27702308
>All it has to be is cheaper to operate than the B2, which shouldn't be hard.

It would need to be significantly cheaper.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dont see it.gif, 2MiB, 320x240

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:23:43 No.27702342 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702359

>>27702329
Are you just pretending to be stupid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:24:02 No.27702347 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702381

>>27702329
So to add to your total ignorance (you're the one who thinks RCS won't change after 30 years of advancement), you don't understand that the production line of the B-2 doesn't fucking exist anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:25:03 No.27702354 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702336
Post a single fucking actual US Army source where "M1A3" is stated. I'll wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:25:17 No.27702359 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702405 >>27702409

>>27702342
>>27702339

What is it with people that they fail to grasp the difference between an advantage and a significant advantage?

A 3 point lead in a football game is an advantage, a 50 point lead is a significant advantage and there is a difference between the two despite both being advantages.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:25:46 No.27702361 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702341
Which shouldn't be hard. The B-2 is way too costly.

You can make a bomber that does what the B-2 does, with better range, cheaper to operate, and better avionics. The future bombers are going to have to act as "drone motherships" as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:26:13 No.27702366 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702449

>>27702341
Again, if you were not such a complete ignorant fucker, you would have an idea of how much higher B-2 operational costs are compared to newer stealth designs because of its special snowflake requirements. But you don't and yet you continue to post anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:26:14 No.27702367 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702391

>>27702037
>The LRSB costs less than the B-2
And F-35 would cost $25 millions, bla-bla-bla. This song will never end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:26:43 No.27702374 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702396 >>27702411

>>27701739

Why hasn't Boeing/LM/NG just merged already?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:27:24 No.27702381 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702426

>>27702347
>you don't understand that the production line of the B-2 doesn't fucking exist anymore.

Well there is obviously no solution to that is there.

>>27702347
>So to add to your total ignorance (you're the one who thinks RCS won't change after 30 years of advancement), you don't understand that the production line of the B-2 doesn't fucking exist anymore.

it will be stealthy, mature technologies will be used rather than launching new developments, although it will have an open architecture for future features

mature technologies will be used rather than launching new developments

whoops

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:27:54 No.27702391 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702581

>>27702367
Actually the cost of the F-35 is pretty much on par with that was pitched.

under 100 mil.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:28:06 No.27702396 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702374
Monopolies in the defense sector are bad. It's bad enough that we're down to just three companies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:28:52 No.27702405 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702359
Does a computer designed in the 80s have a significant disadvantage compared to a computer designed today?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:29:00 No.27702409 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702467

>>27702359
>thinks cheaper production is not a significant advantage
>thinks cheaper, easier and faster maintenance is not a significant advantage
>thinks a lighter, more efficient airframe is not a significant advantage
>thinks a larger, longer range payload is not a significant advantage
>thinks an ability to operate outside of carefully climate controlled hangars is not a significant advantage
>thinks a true LO two way datalink capability is not a significant advantage
>thinks vastly updated 360 degree spherical threat detection and vastly updated ground targeting systems are not significant advantages

How fucking stupid are you, boy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:29:10 No.27702411 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703204

>>27702374
Anti-Trust suit, however if NG doesn't get this deal expect them to be bought out.

Airlines intentionally buy from both Boeing and Airbus to keep both afloat. At worst we will be down to two major manufactures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:30:17 No.27702426 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702467 >>27702500

>>27702381
Yes, mature technologies like Northrop's continued stealth development after the B-2 as seen in existing aircraft like the RQ-180 which have 30 years of development on the B-2. Why are you still posting?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:32:18 No.27702449 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702482 >>27702503

>>27702366
>Again, if you were not such a complete ignorant fucker, you would have an idea of how much higher B-2 operational costs are compared to newer stealth designs because of its special snowflake requirements. But you don't and yet you continue to post anyway.

Well how about spending some of that 80 billion dollars fixing those things rather than spending it on creating an entirely different aircraft with no new technology.

I am entirely for a new stealth bomber, but I think this program takes time and money away from that.

>>27702260
>I'm not the complete fucking potato head that drops gems like the following into rational discussion about US DoD procurement: >>27702109 (You)

Do you understand that developing new stealth aircraft is not like hiring people to work at McDonalds? There are only so many qualified engineers who pass the other types of requirements. The major defense contractors have a limited amount of people that can work on only so many things, and having them work on redundant programs would be a mistake.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 654345654.jpg, 112KiB, 620x620

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:33:23 No.27702462 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702477

>>27701739

>post yfw when Lockheed/Boeing wins

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:33:52 No.27702467 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702487 >>27702496 >>27702531

>>27702426
>>27702409

Guys its going to be so much better trust me I just know how could it not be. If you disagree that its going to be automatically better than just building more b2s then you are obviously a moron because there is just no way that it could not be automatically a million times better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:34:43 No.27702477 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702462
Who will buy NG. The company that wins the contract or the one that loses it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:35:21 No.27702482 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702523

>>27702449
>rather than spending it on creating an entirely different aircraft with no new technology.
What, like the LRSB? Like you've been told by literally everyone in this fucking thread? How much of an autist are you, anyway?

>Do you understand that developing new stealth aircraft is not like hiring people to work at McDonalds? There are only so many qualified engineers who pass the other types of requirements. The major defense contractors have a limited amount of people that can work on only so many things, and having them work on redundant programs would be a mistake.
It's so cute how you have no fucking clue how procurement/high tech/industrial R&D works and how massive the talent pool is compared with the actual number of project slots, just within the US. What are you, an auto mechanic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:35:41 No.27702486 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701739
Its going to look like an enlarged, triangular YF-23.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:35:44 No.27702487 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702523

>>27702467
Building more b2s would be cost inefficient. You have all the costs of building a new plane with none of the advantages. Right down to rebuilding the manufacturing line as well as supply chain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:36:33 No.27702496 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702550

>>27702467
I know you say this sarcastically, but pretty much yes. This.

The fact that you don't get this after 30 years of aviation advancement just outs you as completely uniformed on the subject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:36:42 No.27702500 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702426

>tfw the RQ-180 has officially been flying for almost 3 years and no one has managed to take a picture of it

It's wingspan is almost the length of a B-1B lancer ffs

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:37:03 No.27702503 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702550

>>27702449
>Just "fix it!"

I'm done. You have not in a single post demonstrated anything resembling a coherent thought.

Here's some advice to make your agument even vaguely plausible. What you should be saying, instead of retarded shit like "build more B-2s!" is that they should today be thinking of a F-X like B-X plan for pre-development today and pray the US fiscal situation magically changes somehow makes this anything but a DOA idea. But you can't because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:38:21 No.27702523 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702674

>>27702482
>What, like the LRSB? Like you've been told by literally everyone in this fucking thread?

How could a bunch of people ever be wrong about anything?

>>27702482
>and how massive the talent pool is compared with the actual number of project slots

nope

>>27702487
>Building more b2s would be cost inefficient. You have all the costs of building a new plane with none of the advantages. Right down to rebuilding the manufacturing line as well as supply chain.

Believe it or not once you do something a bunch of times you can get better at it.

For the record I think a new bomber program is a good idea, but it should replace all the bombers and be significantly better than the b2. Not just "more economical" with slightly better capabilities.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Mysterious-Aircraft-3.jpg, 561KiB, 1600x1196

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:38:29 No.27702530 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702540 >>27702547 >>27702564 >>27702873 >>27703249

Daily reminder that a huge amount of the B-2s developmental costs went into low altitude penetration bombing (a few hundred feet above the ground at most), a capability never utilized, probably useless at the time, and since the mid 2000s-2011 upgrades, B-2s are no longer capable of. By avoiding requirements like this, costs for LRSB will be kept down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:38:55 No.27702531 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702696

>>27702467
>Stealth technology advances with computer advancement
>Stealth technology advances with iteration
>We are several iterations and computer leaps ahead of the 1980s
>Northrop and Lockheed both have had multiple stealth projects since the 1980s to demonstrate this
>Nah, the B-2 was the absolute perfection of stealth guys!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1365610691397.jpg, 14KiB, 251x242

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:39:07 No.27702532 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>yfw Sukhoi wins

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Texas-vs-Kansas-mystery-planes.jpg, 54KiB, 748x453

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:39:33 No.27702540 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702530

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:40:08 No.27702547 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702530
Realistically, the LRSB might actually use that capability. It's a smaller, faster thing. Presumably, of course.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:40:14 No.27702550 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702725 >>27705789

>>27702503
>>27702496

You know I had an argument with an individual on an internet message board about bomber technology a few years ago.

He then banned me for "not putting enough effort in my posts" and then got killed by a pack of wild african negros at Benghazi.

Perhaps you people are on the wrong side of history. Just a thought.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:40:23 No.27702551 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702591

hold up,
they ARE making more B2s, with all the fixes and improvements of the last few decades

they're calling the fixed version the LRSB

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:40:58 No.27702558 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702598 >>27702622

The F-35 was a case of the Pentagon coming up with a huge list of requirements, many of them with no technology ready to go for them, some of them contradictory, and asked Lockheed to essentially make their dreams a reality. You know, a stealth fighter they can buy huge numbers of. For three different services. One of which can land vertically and take off in a short runway. And carry all it's weapons internally. And have artificial intelligence. And have off bore-sight firing capability. And be maneuverable and have high acceleration (requirements not met). And have easy to maintains stealth. And have a 75% parts commonality. And use x86 computers for the first time in a fighter. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

LSRB's requirements are much narrower by comparison. Leverage F-35 and B-2 technology to build a new bomber somewhat smaller than the B-2 under a strict price ceiling. Optionally manned (keeping in mind, the B-2 basically flies itself already, so not as new as it sounds). Cheaper to maintain than the B-2. Capable of launching ALCMs. Really no showstoppers. Even making it nuclear capable isn't in the cards until the mid 2020s at the earliest just to keep complexity down.

Especially since LRSB seems to be already flying just 4 years after initiation of the project, I think we can be optimistic about it's chances for success.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:41:34 No.27702564 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702530
Shut the fuck up. Nobody wants to hear about how programs get fucked over by Congress or one of the services demanding a new capability with new funding, which means the R&D segment has to eat part of the production segment, which means unit costs go up, which means the GAO has an excuse to demand the program be "slowed down" which causes R&D to go up again, which presses the unit cost up again, which gives Congress the excuse to slash the unit order, which makes the unit cost skyrocket, which gives everyone an excuse to bitch about the military industrial complex being so wasteful...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:42:50 No.27702581 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702627 >>27703504

>>27702391
>According to the program office, it expected to pay $28 million for the Air Force variant, up to $35 million for the Marine Corps version, and $38 million for the Navy variant (those goals are expressed in 1994 dollars).
This would be 45, 56 and 61 in 2015 dollars.

>"affordable" Joint Strike Fighter
>"affordable" Long-Range Strike Bomber

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:44:01 No.27702591 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702617 >>27702647 >>27702693

>>27702551
>hold up,
>they ARE making more B2s, with all the fixes and improvements of the last few decades
>they're calling the fixed version the LRSB

That is basically what this looks like to me. Which is why I think they can do it for far less by just gutting the electronics of the b2 and maybe updating some other stuff.

Unless the classified parts of this project are just so much better than the b2, but no one in this thread probably has that information.

What they should be doing is developing a b3 with their time and money IMO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:44:46 No.27702598 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702659

>>27702558
To say it will all be OTS tech is a little naive though.

I think it will employ all aspect stealth. X band, L band, i think it will handle it all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:46:09 No.27702617 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702642 >>27702743

>>27702591

>What they should be doing is developing a b3 with their time and money IMO.

They are. The LRSB is a stop-gap to satisfy the Air Force until the REAL replacement for the B-52 is ready. There is no name yet, except: 2037 Bomber.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:46:30 No.27702622 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705433

>>27702558
>LSRB's requirements are much narrower by comparison. Leverage F-35 and B-2 technology to build a new bomber somewhat smaller than the B-2 under a strict price ceiling. Optionally manned (keeping in mind, the B-2 basically flies itself already, so not as new as it sounds). Cheaper to maintain than the B-2. Capable of launching ALCMs. Really no showstoppers. Even making it nuclear capable isn't in the cards until the mid 2020s at the earliest just to keep complexity down.
>Especially since LRSB seems to be already flying just 4 years after initiation of the project, I think we can be optimistic about it's chances for success.

Why not just build a b3 and replace the b52, b1, and b2 with it?

The LRSB seems like the first lateral step in what so far has IMO been a stellar US stealth program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:46:37 No.27702627 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702743

>>27702581
>hearing from 1996, before the JPO or DoD even actually finalized pricing/cost data
Try harder. That's some weak sister shit right there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:47:50 No.27702642 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702671 >>27702680 >>27702698

>>27702617
>They are. The LRSB is a stop-gap to satisfy the Air Force until the REAL replacement for the B-52 is ready. There is no name yet, except: 2037 Bomber.

Why even fucking bother then? Pump the 80 billion into the 2037 bomber and tell the contractors to get their ass in gear. No need to spend resources on a plane that is going to be redundant from the start.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:48:12 No.27702647 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702666

>>27702591
>What they should be doing is developing a b3 with their time and money IMO.

That's literally what the the LRSB fucking is. Get it through you thick skull.

The LRSB is essentially a B2 with F-35 bells and whistles as well as ISR capability, allowing it to perform recon missions AND bomb targets simultaneously. How is this not an improvement over the current B2?

LRSB is also going to be a planned replacement for B-52s and B-1Bs, which are ancient as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:49:00 No.27702659 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702598

LRSB will certainly be a part of net-centric warfare concept.
Feeding off of data delivered by F-35s (USN sees C variant as much needed sensor), F-22s, [insert drone here], sattelites to deliver things like HARM/MALD,LRASM - you name it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:49:35 No.27702666 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702684 >>27702694

>>27702647
>That's literally what the the LRSB fucking is. Get it through you thick skull.

Except its not using any new technologies. Get that through your thick skull.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:49:56 No.27702671 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702642
The LRSB is mean to replace B-52s and B-1Bs. 2037 is the actual B-2 replacement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:50:00 No.27702674 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702523
The people that built the B-2 are probably all retired by now. You would have to start from the ground up on the manufacturing process.

If you are going to do that, why not just start over? If you are going to shove a new engine into it, you have to adjust the airframe, and how you are talking about, new airframe, new avionics, new stealth coating.... Just build a new fucking plane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:50:36 No.27702680 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702707

>>27702642

>Why even fucking bother then?

Because 2037 is 22 years from now. The Pentagon doesn't want to wait that long for a new bomber.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:50:57 No.27702684 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702666
It incorporates technologies that currently do not exist on any American bomber.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:51:32 No.27702693 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702591

>but no one in this thread probably has that information

so, what info made you think that they can do it for far less than how they're doing it now?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO per flight hour costs.jpg, 138KiB, 1200x942

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:51:38 No.27702694 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702666

What do you mean with new?
It`ll certainly house elements of EOTS/DAS fusion from F-35 and advanced EW capabilities like that of AN/APG-81.

Not to mention much more durable RAM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:51:50 No.27702696 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702717 >>27702722 >>27702729 >>27702736 >>27702773

>>27702531
We can't just upgrade the computers inside the B2s?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:51:56 No.27702698 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702736

>>27702642
Again, if you spent even 5 fucking seconds thinking about the fiscal projection of the US military, which are not going to even keep up with inflation, then assuming you can replace every fucking B-1 and B-52 with a super tricked out bomber is completely retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:52:26 No.27702707 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702680
>Because 2037 is 22 years from now. The Pentagon doesn't want to wait that long for a new bomber.

That is why you spend the 80 billion and people that would be working on the LRSB to have it sooner.

The only reason why there would need to be a new stealth bomber to compliment the b2 is if there was a significant enough advantage in doing so.

Again this entire thread are people failing to grasp the concept of a significant advantage over an advantage. It's ok Hitler made a lot of the same mistakes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:52:54 No.27702714 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702781

>>27702260

>>less CPU processing power than the average civilian desktop. Total.

we really build 3/4s a of billion dollar aircraft without the ability to go in and do significant upgrades to them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:53:07 No.27702717 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702868

>>27702696
You need to upgrade the entire avionics suite, which means different APU requirements, different external sensors etc. Major changes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:53:33 No.27702722 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702868

>>27702696
Holy shit, I'm fucking out of here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:53:39 No.27702725 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702755

>>27702550
>wrong side of history
oh boy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:54:02 No.27702729 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702868

>>27702696
You'd literally have to rip the entire plane apart to replace every outdated component, and you don't have a very large fleet to begin with. In the long run it's cheaper to just build a new bomber.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:54:38 No.27702736 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702800 >>27702802 >>27702820 >>27702868

>>27702696
>We can't just upgrade the computers inside the B2s?

No that would make too much sense. There needs to be an entire new air frame with entirely new electronics using technology that is not that significantly different than technology in use.

>>27702698
>then assuming you can replace every fucking B-1 and B-52 with a super tricked out bomber is completely retarded.

non stealth aircraft have officially become obsolete unless you are bombing sand people or jungle negros

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 456.png, 71KiB, 264x200

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:55:17 No.27702743 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702778 >>27702797 >>27702798

>>27702627
Anon but this low pricing was argument to push JSF program forward. "Affordable" "Affordable" "Affordable". Put $60 millions price tag on the JSF in 1997 and it would be buried just in the beginning for sure.

See the trend here? LRSB is pushed under the same argument. "It would be cheap. Trust us."

>>27702617
>until the REAL replacement for the B-52 is ready.
The real replacement for the B-52 is called ALCM but USAF don't want to go from their high horse and grandpa B-17 to the ground.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:55:55 No.27702755 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702828 >>27706225

>>27702725
>oh boy

All I'm saying is the last person that argued with me on the internet about aircraft technology is now literally dead. So perhaps you people aren't as smart as you think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:57:13 No.27702773 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702868

>>27702696

You know what anon, why cant we upgrade your brain.

Can we do that?

Can we just upgrade your brain?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:57:35 No.27702778 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702793 >>27702805

>>27702743

>See the trend here? LRSB is pushed under the same argument. "It would be cheap. Trust us."

So what is your point, exactly? The Air Force should never, ever get new aircraft?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:57:44 No.27702781 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702810

>>27702714

F-22 has bid,old early 90`s Cray supercomputers in it.

That were outdated already in early 00`s.
Your average 2015 mobile phone has more computing power than F-22.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:58:24 No.27702793 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702818 >>27702833

>>27702778
>So what is your point, exactly? The Air Force should never, ever get new aircraft?

No the airforce should use their resources to get new aircraft that are worth getting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:58:36 No.27702797 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702743
The f35 coming in at 20 mill per frame over budget is a fucking miracle tbqh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:58:41 No.27702798 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702925

>>27702743
>The real replacement for the B-52 is called ALCM but USAF don't want to go from their high horse and grandpa B-17 to the ground.
The B-52 launches ALCMs, you goddamn idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:58:53 No.27702800 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702736
>technology that is not that significantly different than technology in use.
Implying...
FBW Fibre optics are not significantly different from god dam copper wire.

Fuck this, im out. My money's on northwap Grumman, and the guy suggesting more B-2's is retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:59:04 No.27702802 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702821

>>27702736
>No that would make too much sense. There needs to be an entire new air frame with entirely new electronics using technology that is not that significantly different than technology in use.

You complete fucking moron. Thank you for demonstrating how you know absolutely nothing.

Advances in computer technology making stealth better is not about the computers inside the B-2. Replacing every computer in the B-2 does nothing to its stealth. It's about the computers that designed the B-2 versus the computers designing the LRSB. Because AGAIN if you had even the slightest amount of knowledge you would know how important computer power is to stealth design.

And keep fucking pretending that "existing technology" means "1980s like the B-2" rather than 21st century like the RQ-180.

>non stealth aircraft have officially become obsolete
Fucking great. Except the US still needs tonnage dropped. So we can go with your retarded plan and completely gut the amount of bombers the US has, or we can build some affordable LRSBs and still have an actual bomber fleet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:59:24 No.27702805 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702778
Multiply LRSB program cost by 2 and reevaluate it from this point of view.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 17:59:45 No.27702810 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702781

big*

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:00:12 No.27702818 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702793

And the aircraft is...?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:00:20 No.27702820 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702736
>No that would make too much sense. There needs to be an entire new air frame with entirely new electronics using technology that is not that significantly different than technology in use.

Cramming in new avionics is not as simple as you think. We can get away with on on B-52s because they're fuckhuge and not very advanced to begin with. On fighters, we've run out of space to put in new avionics, and often have to rely on external targeting pods to do the job.

And considering the B-2 is a 100% fly by wire craft, you'd have to literally rebuild the ENTIRE plane to bring it up to 2015 standards. At that point you're just better off building a new airframe that takes incorporates all the new shit from the start.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:00:35 No.27702821 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702830 >>27702839 >>27702852 >>27702855 >>27702856 >>27702869

>>27702802
>Because AGAIN if you had even the slightest amount of knowledge you would know how important computer power is to stealth design

Yeah the f117 was stealthy because it had a powerful computer. Cool logic bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:01:15 No.27702828 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702755
bruv, I´m just a different anon laughing at you for using the "wrong side of history fallacy".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:01:21 No.27702830 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821
Reading comprehension. ......

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1444999040598.jpg, 73KiB, 782x960

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:01:30 No.27702833 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702896

>>27702793

>No the airforce should use their resources to get new aircraft that are worth getting.

And what is that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:02:03 No.27702839 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821
?
He's talking about computer modelling

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:02:39 No.27702847 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701739
Can we just build a better flying bombtruck than the B-52 already

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:02:56 No.27702852 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821

The F117 was stealthy because very powerful computers helped design it.

In fact, it was one of the first (or rather, its tech demonstrators were) to have computers aid in its deisgn significantly.

Here, this is a song that is relevant, for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbR2JZmlWo

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:03:12 No.27702855 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821
>Yeah the f117 was stealthy because it had a powerful computer. Cool logic bro.

He was talking about the computers used to design the planes themselves. The F-117 was built the way it was because computers at the time couldn't into curved shapes. Obviously, design computers have advanced significantly since then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:03:15 No.27702856 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821

>Yeah the f117 was stealthy because it had a powerful computer.

No, powerful computers were used to design the F-117. But now computers are even more powerful so we can design an even stealthier aircraft.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:04:25 No.27702868 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702890 >>27702894

>>27702717
>>27702722
>>27702729
>>27702736
>>27702773
>Being this autistic
We already have a B2 fleet, that isn't changing. The question is about building new planes. Why not build new B2s that have upgraded components?
>being this shitter shattered

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:04:34 No.27702869 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702821
In case there's a 1% chance you're just a complete fucking moron and not a worthless troll, I'm going to make one more post in this retarded thread.

If you actually read my fucking post, I explained that the computers I'm talking about are the ones that were used for design. And the F-117 is a perfect example of that. 1970s computer technology was so primitive you have to rely on lots and lots of straight edges,which are not ideal for stealth, but are ideal for calculating RCS with low performance hardware. As you reach the 1980s you have better perfomance, so a design like the B-2 can be smoothed out. By the 21st century you have perfomance out the ass, so you have current stealth designs that can go even further.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A-12 Avenger II.jpg, 17KiB, 600x298

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:04:41 No.27702873 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702530
>pic
It lives!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:04:57 No.27702878 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702892 >>27702905 >>27702914 >>27702923

So let me get this straight, you people are arguing that there needs to be an entire new program for an aircraft that is only marginally better than an existing one at a time when there needs to be a serious effort made in replacing all aircraft?

And I'm the idiot?

Don't worry Hitler, those Panthers and Tigers will save you from the thousands of t34s with their marginally better technology.

A++ would invade Russia again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:05:51 No.27702890 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702868
>We already have a B2 fleet, that isn't changing. The question is about building new planes. Why not build new B2s that have upgraded components?

That's literally what LRSB is. It's the B-52 replacement. The 2037 bomber is the actual B-2 replacement.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the B-2 is an incredibly old and electronically obsolete aireframe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:06:02 No.27702892 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702907

>>27702878
It's funny because Russia can barely build 2-4 4th gen planes aa year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:06:16 No.27702894 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702868
>Why not build new B2s that have upgraded components?

Conceptually, yes, thats exactly what they are doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbR2JZmlWo

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:06:17 No.27702895 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>long unrefueled range
>20k lb payload (i.e., 80x SDBs, vs the B2s 80x 500lbs; or 10-12 lb bunker buster rocket-boosted to MOP penetration depths)
>EODAS
>heavy-AESA for ECM/ECCM/cyber and AWACS capability
>VLO

It's a sensor-shooter node; not an antique bomber. The main flaw of modern war aircraft (i.e. cyber-enabled datalinked AESA+stealth) is short ranges and small payloads. This is a fix, and composites and computers - the two main costs - have both gotten cheaper since back in the day.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO UCAV on Nimitz.jpg, 4MiB, 7360x4912

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:06:14 No.27702896 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702930 >>27706036

>>27702833

Arguably, USN needs UCLASS more than it needs F-35C. New Super Hornets would do the job just the fine, the carrier wing lacks long-range, stealthy recon/strike platform.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:06:58 No.27702905 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702926

>>27702878
LSRB's aren't "marginally" better than B-52s. It's just that some idiot thinks they're supposed to be a 100% replacement for B-2s which is not true at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:07:04 No.27702907 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702934

>>27702892
>It's funny because Russia can barely build 2-4 4th gen planes aa year.

For the sake of this argument I am assuming the US is basically competing against itself as it has been for the past 25 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:07:27 No.27702914 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702878
>marginally better

Oh, you miss spelled better in every way anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:07:37 No.27702916 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702020

It's unit cost is still very much comparable to airliners.... even when sortie rate is abysmal when compared to what latest generation airliners can do. For a bomber that unit cost isn't that expensive.

USAF will still need a strategic bomber to replace B-1B, B-2 and B-52. Just due to their age.

They aren't looking for something revolutionary in performance now, just for B-2 that is cheaper to maintain and more mission flexible. Essentially B-2 that works and is cheaper to run.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1441464502640.gif, 1023KiB, 320x268

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:08:15 No.27702923 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702878

>there needs to be a serious effort made in replacing all aircraft?

The A-10, the Harrier, the KC-135, the Legacy Hornet, and the F-16 are all being replace already. What else do you think needs replacing, buckaroo?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:08:23 No.27702925 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703087 >>27704100

>>27702798
They have absolutely different roles separated by decades. B-17 and B-52 were supposed to penetrate air defences by their capabilities. Today Air defence is penetrated by ALCM, B-52 is nothing but truck hauling missiles in the neutral airspace. This is not as cool as flying B-17 with dozens of .50 BMG fighting interceptors mano a manoo. So they stupidly insist on the building of spiritual successor of the B-17. Though in reality AF never sends their Bs into real danger. It's cruise missiles in the first wave if the opposition is remotely dangerous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:08:30 No.27702926 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702959 >>27702961 >>27702981

>>27702905
>LSRB's aren't "marginally" better than B-52s. It's just that some idiot thinks they're supposed to be a 100% replacement for B-2s which is not true at all.

The existing one is referring to the b2. This would be like designing a t35 with marginally better technology than the t34 to replace other obsolete technology. Just build more fucking t34s you nazi vietnam shits.

CockCannon !!n/Czy3wPmIw

CockCannon !!n/Czy3wPmIw Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:09:01 No.27702930 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703011

>>27702896
I'll take fleet CAP for 500, please, Alex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:09:06 No.27702934 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702952

>>27702907
The US isn't quite competing aainst itself. It's called an offset: staying far enough ahead of it's would-be competitors so that they can never get close enough to actually be competitive.

First there were nukes, then there were precision weapons and stealth. Now, it's network fusion and sensors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:10:38 No.27702952 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702934
>The US isn't quite competing aainst itself.

Your right as soon as India weaponizes their shitting streets we are done for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:11:09 No.27702959 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702984

>>27702926
Your analogy is completely retarded. LRSB was never meant to replace the B-2. It's supposed to replace the ancient as shit and wholly obsolete B-52. The only reason the USAF still uses B-52s is because they literally have nothing else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:11:11 No.27702961 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27702984

>>27702926
>Just build more fucking t34s you nazi vietnam shits.

Or you can build a better T-34 (in every way) for cheaper.

Because you are not fucking retarded.

Because you are not building a T-34 in NINETEEN FIFTY FIVE.

You are building a T-55.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:12:38 No.27702981 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703014

>>27702926
It's exceedingly better you double nigger. Look at all the other technologies that have advances since the 80's. Hell looks at armor and tanks. A ke penetrator from that era couldn't hope to penetrate modern tanks on the front glacis and turret face. Now intensify that by the fact that all of the technology out into development and the project itself is literally hundreds of time more efficient and just better than it was. Fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:12:48 No.27702984 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703005 >>27703007 >>27703008 >>27703013 >>27703026 >>27703035 >>27703358

>>27702961
>>27702959

If only there was some historical precedent for a country developing marginally better technology instead of working on mass producing existing slightly inferior technology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:13:58 No.27703001 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705514

Only 100 bombers to be purchased?
Couldn't they use more?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:20 No.27703005 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984

They're not going to mass produce the B-2. There is no reason to. Technology has advanced.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:28 No.27703007 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984
No nation that seriously poses a threat to the US, that's for sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:31 No.27703008 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984
The LSRB IS EXACTLY that. It's using modern technology that has matured that is light years ahead of what was used in the fucking 80's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:31 No.27703011 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703034 >>27703045

>>27702930
SM-7 with 500 miles range. Done.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:34 No.27703013 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984
We aren't at war, why mass produce old tech?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:14:36 No.27703014 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703042 >>27703043 >>27703051 >>27703068 >>27703222

>>27702981
>It's exceedingly better you double nigger.

As I am slowly proving, everyone that disagrees with me in this thread is a racist. Much like the individual mentioned previously who argued with me on the same issue who was a proven racist and then ironically was murdered by minorities.

Loser nazis build waste resources building marginally better technology. Winner communists mass produce existing shit and fuck your waifu.

game
set
match

nazi scum

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:15:33 No.27703026 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984
F-35.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:16:14 No.27703034 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703057

>>27703011
Yeah, no. Still need the distributed sensor nodes that the F-35 represents.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:16:27 No.27703035 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703049

>>27702984

Except its not marginally better.

Why do you keep lying anon?

Does the fact that America is getting its 2nd stealth bomber before your shit tier country gets anything stealth related, disturb you?

>inb4 IM MURRICAN GUIZE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:17:03 No.27703042 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703014
Except that example doesn't work because we aren't at war.

It's better to build fewer, but more advanced planes, that are more upgradable as well as cheaper to maintain.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0mRAk.png, 430KiB, 500x481

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:17:14 No.27703043 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703014
Kek.

Which country is on top of the world now? It's not Germans or Russians.

Protip for you: the good shit in the third offset isn't the hardware platforms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:17:22 No.27703045 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703115

>>27703011
Or you can have CAP AND long range missiles, thereby creating a synergy between your fleet defense systems!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:17:44 No.27703049 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703060 >>27703061 >>27703073 >>27703107

>>27703035
>Except its not marginally better.

Yes it is. Go joyride in your panther while you get assraped by a dozen t34s you racist vietnam shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:18:02 No.27703051 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703014
>Winner communists

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Commies only bested fascists, which is like winning the retard race.

Fucking oxymoron. "winner Communist". Hilarious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:18:24 No.27703057 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703075

>>27703034
UCAVs and E-2 with CEC. Fighter pilots can go fuck themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:19:00 No.27703060 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703049
Um the USA can produce 50 of these bombers and still have more bombers than Russia has su35. Your number argument doesn't work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:19:05 No.27703061 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703110

>>27703049

Go joy ride in your T-74's while your country collapses around you, you crazy drunken slav.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slavaryssia.png, 414KiB, 3241x1277

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:19:30 No.27703068 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703014
>y-you racist facists
Cry more you Pinko commie fidy cent vatnik piece of mingoloid shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:19:59 No.27703073 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703049
You do realize the USAF alone possesses more aircraft than the entire Russian armed forces, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:20:09 No.27703075 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703155

>>27703057
Do you know how any of this shit actually works? It really doesn't seem like it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:21:09 No.27703087 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703190

>>27702925
Is this supposed to disprove what I said? B-52s no longer perform the carpet bombing role, but they continue to be used as ALCM platforms.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T9BvdED.png, 74KiB, 286x308

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:23:01 No.27703107 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703049
>According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, RuAF pilots average 80 to 100 flight hours per year
>mfw when I feel that Slav feel.

In American hegemony, F35 zergs you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:23:04 No.27703110 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703061

> T-74

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:24:11 No.27703115 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703045
>thereby creating a synergy between your fleet defense systems!
I don't see any synergy. I see only weighting ISR platforms with unnecessary requirements not needed for their primary role. You don't need close air combat capable supersonic manned gun welding manned aircrafts to haul around radars and EOTS and send targeting data to AEGIS missile batteries.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1438183485965.png, 124KiB, 358x272

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:25:50 No.27703132 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701911
>Mock 7

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F-14A_VF-1_launching_AIM-54_Phoe (...).jpg, 230KiB, 1280x992

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:28:13 No.27703155 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703167 >>27703170 >>27703251 >>27703275

>>27703075
If this will not work than the Navy would be in big trouble is near future. F-18s and F-35 are shit interceptors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:29:12 No.27703167 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703420

>>27703155
>F-18s and F-35 are shit interceptors.

Oh, pray tell, why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:29:51 No.27703170 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703202

>>27703155
Nah, you just have no fucking clue how fighters execute fleet defense post-1995.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:31:46 No.27703190 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703087
Bomber penetrating strike role was taken by ALCM. Launch platform and ISR have different requirements than classic bombers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:33:27 No.27703202 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703219

>>27703170
There were no air threats to fleet post-1995

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:33:35 No.27703204 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702411
NG has a fuckton of other things they do to keep themselves afloat. Losing the LSRB contract, which I doubt would happen, wouldn't put them in financial peril.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:34:57 No.27703219 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703239

>>27703202
And here your ignorance is revealed in its massive density and wide expanse. Congratulations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:35:02 No.27703222 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703014
>Winner communists
confirmed b80 m80

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:36:36 No.27703239 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703219
>i missed USSR collapse

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5438832203_da6d83ccd6_o.jpg, 90KiB, 1200x943

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:36:48 No.27703241 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703266 >>27703298 >>27703313

>>27701739

ITT: Angry retards try to explain why they know better than engineers, generals, and pilots what new planes the Air Force should buy.

I'm not saying the govt never wastes money, because that is DEFINITELY not true. But hearing autists screech about how every new defense project is some kind of conspiracy is inane. Yes, the Air Force DOES need new stuff now and then to stay relevant. You don't get to be the Big Guy in town by resting on your laurels.

And if the US did lose supremacy, the same guys yelling about costs now would be the ones screaming the loudest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:37:40 No.27703249 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702530
Why can't the B-2 do low altitude?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:37:41 No.27703251 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703260 >>27703349

>>27703155
>F-18s and F-35 are shit interceptors.
Interceptors aren't a thing anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:38:21 No.27703256 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701911
>this is what slavboos believe

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:38:30 No.27703260 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703279

>>27703251
but mah mig 35?!?!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:39:06 No.27703266 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703241
The future is going to be beautiful.

>180 F22s
>2000 F35s
>20 B2s
>100 LRSBs

And that's just the manned stealth!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F-35 Test.webm, 252KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:39:45 No.27703275 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27708480

>>27703155

>F-18s and F-35 are shit interceptors.

Looks good enough to me. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:40:06 No.27703279 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703285

>>27703260
MiG 31 you mean. MiG 35 is just a highly evolved version of MiG 29 for export.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:40:54 No.27703285 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703279
Yeah, that hunk of wasted titanium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:41:47 No.27703298 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703308 >>27703312

>>27703241
>lets buy more gold plated things we only use to bomb goat fuckers

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:42:30 No.27703308 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703354

>>27703298
>goat fuckers are the only enemy of the us forever and ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:43:00 No.27703312 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703354

>>27703298
>Let's just assume the only enemies we'll ever fight ever are third world nations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:43:03 No.27703313 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703328 >>27703339

>>27703241
I'm not even angry or a retard, but anyone that knows anything knows US gov't aircraft procurement is a hot mess of corruption, $2,432 lugnuts and 'cost-overruns' and delays, bad performance followed with expensive set-backs and billion-dollar remedies and so on and so forth.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO b-2.webm, 1020KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:43:07 No.27703314 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703322 >>27703361 >>27703470

What number will they give the new bomber? B-60? B-69?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:44:01 No.27703322 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703314
B-3

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:44:35 No.27703328 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703313
>bad performance
Feel free to name a single other nation on the planet with a better performing military or logistical aircraft fleet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:46:17 No.27703339 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703313
Do you know how you end up with 2500 dollar lugnuts? Because it's a custom sized lugnut that needs to have it's own fabrication machine made, and that machine might only make 200 of those lugnuts in it's life.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1412712218374.jpg, 83KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:46:59 No.27703349 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703364 >>27703403 >>27706785

>>27703251
USN arguably still has the requirement for fleet defence interception. They can't have enough CAP up at every hour, so something that can scramble out to meet a threat in a hurry is useful.

This is something UCLASS can't do because of speed, and I think another anon is arguing that F-35C can't do it either. I disagree with that. Still, it makes you wonder if Navy will get something in the form of a higher-performance stealth fighter to handle that role in the near-ish future.

Perhaps when the Super Bugs get too outdated Navy will have something in the works.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3564.jpg, 217KiB, 1125x889

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:47:23 No.27703354 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703365

>>27703308
>>27703312
>thinking that USAF will ever use B-XX against capable adversaries.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:47:58 No.27703358 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702984
>Marginally better
Why do you keep saying this?
The B-2s design is so old that Jack Northrop himself got to fingerfuck a model. If you believe that EODAS and other advancements made in the 35 years since the B-2 program started are "marginal," then you're beyond hope of ever being rational.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1445829682377.webm, 3MiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:48:08 No.27703361 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703314
B-52

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:48:33 No.27703364 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703387

>>27703349
>Perhaps when the Super Bugs get too outdated Navy will have something in the works.
They're already setting up the project for a 6th gen USN fighter for 2030 to replace the SuperBug.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:48:36 No.27703365 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703441

>>27703354

The whole point of deterrence is that the weapon system never has to be used.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO An_F-35B_test_dropping_a_bomb.jpg, 3MiB, 3600x2299

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:50:54 No.27703387 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703418 >>27703622

>>27703364
What do you think the requirements will be?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:51:10 No.27703388 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703397

So what will replace the B-1?
Is the supersonic bomber role obsolete now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:51:53 No.27703397 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703388
Probably.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:52:17 No.27703403 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703423 >>27703476

>>27703349
>UCLASS can't do because of speed
UCLASS can provide patrolling CAPs at much further ranges than lol F-35. SMs can provide speed to intercept any existing and future threat and can provide immediately available for intercept numbers. Today you don't need to put sensors and missiles on single platform.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:53:27 No.27703418 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703387
Just google it, anon. There are a bunch of things going into it. Variable cycle engines, supercruise, possibly hypersonic sprint, optionally manned, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:53:45 No.27703420 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703432

>>27703167
Because they aren't interceptors for starts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:54:30 No.27703423 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703492

>>27703403
So you're suggesting that UCLASS has the sensor capabilities of an F-35? Hilarious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:55:36 No.27703432 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703420

>Because they aren't interceptors for starts.

They're multirole. Air defense is one of their roles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:56:25 No.27703441 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703466

>>27703365
>even Libya is too scary for B-XX
>deterrence

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:59:15 No.27703466 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703441

>A plane that doesn't exist yet wasn't deployed.

Huh?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 18:59:40 No.27703470 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703490 >>27703517

>>27703314
B-3 or B-72

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFM1BiyctJU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-vkdUBNOOc

Can anyone guess what it's going look like and what it will do from these commercials? The thing with it moving under clouds, that doesn't mean it has active camouflage and its just a euphemism for same old stealth tech right? From the shape of it under the cloth it appears to be just an updated B-2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:00:22 No.27703476 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703532

>>27703403
> .9 mach UCLASS doing CAP
>relying on shipboard SAMs for all air defence
Dismissed. This conversation is over.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:02:26 No.27703490 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703516

>>27703470
> just an updated B-2

Never go full derp.

Airframe shape is based on the attributes you desire in a plane. If you want stealth and long-range and fuel-efficiency, at the cost of moderate maneuverability, you get a flying wing planform.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 145.jpg, 58KiB, 410x245

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:02:43 No.27703492 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703506

>>27703423
>F-35 sensors are big and heavy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:04:01 No.27703504 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702581
Most of the tech that makes the F-35 what it is did not exist when the pre JSF competition esitmate was made.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:04:04 No.27703506 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703492
You just might be the dumbest fuck on 4Chan. That takes some serious doing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:05:44 No.27703516 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703490
C'mon if it was really 'new' it would be in the shape of a flying saucer with omnidirectional hypersonic thrust

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:05:47 No.27703517 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703544

>>27703470

>From the shape of it under the cloth it appears to be just an updated B-2.

It's the same general shape so it must be the exact same aircraft.

[Sarcasm]

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO j-20.jpg, 222KiB, 1400x798

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:07:41 No.27703532 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703476
>fighter pilots are mad because there is no work for them left
>but muh top gun!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:09:13 No.27703544 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703557 >>27703562 >>27703593

>>27703517
I dont give a fuck about slight upgrades in capabilities unless they're some kind of major speed record or invisibility

All i care about is does it look like aliens would fly it, that was why the B2 was good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:11:08 No.27703557 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703544

And who cares what you care about? Military aircraft are for filling roles, not breaking records.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:11:28 No.27703562 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703544
It'll be like an alien spaceshift B-2 but faster

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:14:12 No.27703593 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703613 >>27703642

>>27703544
>thinking a generic flying wing looks "alien" or "major" or "high tech"
>2015

Maybe basic aerodynamics were new news back in the 1970s, but not today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:15:29 No.27703613 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703593
LOL you guessed wrong kiddo back to school ptchea

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:16:10 No.27703622 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703727

>>27703387
are dots how many kills the bomb has

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:17:32 No.27703642 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703709

>>27703593
not him, but watching it fly in person, bank and roll low overhead, it is cool shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:22:15 No.27703709 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703724

>>27703642
The psychological 'ayy lmao' factor of the B2 is significantly more valuable than its combat capability. I suppose you could call it the MIG-25 effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:23:21 No.27703724 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703746 >>27704465

>>27703709

The MiG-25 looks like any other fighter. And the B-2 isn't meant to be seen at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:23:34 No.27703727 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703622
It's for optical tracking in tests.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:24:50 No.27703746 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703784

>>27703724

> I don't know anything about the history of the 25

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Russian_Air_Force_MiG-25.jpg, 368KiB, 1023x681

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:27:59 No.27703784 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703811 >>27704465

>>27703746

I know enough about it to know it looks like any other fighter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:30:26 No.27703811 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703850

>>27703784
only in retrospect

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:33:14 No.27703850 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703872

>>27703811
Just like how it was actually MASSIVELY disappointing in delivered performance VS promised specs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:34:22 No.27703857 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703914 >>27704213

Longtime CAP member here, please for the love of god stop talking. Some of you kids are so clueless about aircraft and tactics that it literally hurts to read. Stick to call of duty and arguing about whether the Delta/SEALs/Green Berets are the best, aircraft strategy and technology are clearly too difficult for you to grasp.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:34:48 No.27703861 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701739
It's interesting that the bomber announcement will come on the same day that the USN will sail a destroyer within 12 miles of China's man made islands in the SCS.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/south-china-sea-islands-u-s-destroyer/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:35:34 No.27703872 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703903

>>27703850

>I still don't know anything about the Foxbat, but I spent 22 seconds on wiki

pls stop, for all of us

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:37:25 No.27703903 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27703949

>>27703872
Don't be salty my drunk slav friend. Someday, somehow, you'll actually catch that SR-71. Oh, wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:37:55 No.27703914 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703857
i could 1v1 u easy m8

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:38:32 No.27703919 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701943
Boeing have the KC-46 deal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:41:01 No.27703949 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703903

>changing the subject to cover up my ignorance

damagecontrol
a
magecontrol

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:52:35 No.27704100 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702925
The B-2 was used to penetrate Libyan air defenses and bomb air fields.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 19:59:29 No.27704213 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704558

>>27703857
You are even worse, you cock chugging faggot, you think flying your god damn Cessna every so often makes you an expert on combat tactics and aircraft and that people should respect your opinion, then you should go the fuck away from this board and then stay there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:08:49 No.27704345 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701739
>STOVL bomber
I didn't know the future was here already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:16:59 No.27704455 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704519

>>27701739
If I'm reading this right, it's basically meant to be a successor to the F-117, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:18:00 No.27704465 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704519

>>27703724
>>27703784
>I don't know about the Valkyrie.
>I don't know about the Blackbird.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:21:39 No.27704519 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704543 >>27705953

>>27704455

The successor to the F-117 is the F-35.

>>27704465

The MiG-25 was incapable of stopping either aircraft.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:23:53 No.27704543 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704519
No shit.

The MiG-25 effect is that just the idea of the planes existing caused the SU to get their shit together and do their best to make a countermeasure. It failed as such, as did the MiG-31.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:25:25 No.27704558 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704616

>>27704213

Show some goddamned respect. I've studied a lot of USAF history and tactics and we have an ex USAF general who teaches our squad from time to time. I'm not even going to get into some of the joint manuevers we've pulled with the national guard. So if you're thinking youre going to question my knowledge on the subject, I suggest you stay in your fucking lane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:29:58 No.27704616 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704663

>>27704558
You are asking for respect on the dregs of the internet? What the fuck are you going to do about it, think about it while you putter around in your Cessna pretending you are in the Air Force?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:33:52 No.27704663 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27704715 >>27704719 >>27705092 >>27705331 >>27705921 >>27706019 >>27706522

>>27704616

>pretending

We're an arm of the air force whether its officially recognized or not. We do more real world op's than 90% of the actual air force and we do so on a completely volunteer basis, not for a paycheck. Some respect would be appreciated. Civilians have no fucking clue about 99% of what we do.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1426631515766.png, 16KiB, 299x139

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:37:46 No.27704715 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704663
F O R F R E E

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 20:38:03 No.27704719 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704663
And I do not care to, you fucking shit stain. I bet your general buddy would be pleased to know you visit this site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:04:36 No.27705092 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704663
Don't make me tx on your frequencies, I know you get anal about that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:21:56 No.27705331 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705372

>>27704663
heh

Former CAP cadet. Current USAF student pilot. It brings me joy that I've done way cooler shit in a plane as a student pilot with less than 80 flight hours than 99% of civilian pilots will ever be able to do. And I get paid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:24:49 No.27705372 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705331

You were probably one of those kids who didn't take it seriously and got out when they were 17-18. Some of us don't treat it like the eagle scouts. I'm 27 years old and have more than a decade in. I've done plenty of cool shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:29:55 No.27705433 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702622
The LSRB is going to be named the B3. That's a given.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:36:43 No.27705514 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705698

>>27703001
The US is limited by treaty to how many nuclear capable bombers they can have.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tactical nuclear B61.jpg, 171KiB, 600x263

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:52:09 No.27705698 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705753 >>27705864

>>27705514

How exactly does the treaty define "nuclear-capable bomber"? Even the F-35 can deploy tactical nuclear weapons such as the B61.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:56:12 No.27705753 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705698
They have to have the wiring for it. That wiring is actually relatively easy to put into a design that it was intended to be in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 21:59:03 No.27705789 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702550
It looks to me like VileRat was completely right about you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:05:35 No.27705860 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705894

I am most excited to see what kind of EA features it's packing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:05:53 No.27705864 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705698
They only count strategic bombers. If I remember correctly that define a strategic bomber as having a certain range and payload combination

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:06:41 No.27705873 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705904

>>27702218
A b-17 dropping JDAMs and gunshipping with the ball turret (refitted to be unmanned and housing a 40mm cannon) would be a dope COIN aircraft tbh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:07:54 No.27705894 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706633

>>27705860

They aren't going to reveal those. You don't know what the B-1 or B-2 have, let alone this thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:08:31 No.27705904 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705925 >>27705950 >>27705972

>>27705873

The Gripen can hold twice as much ordinance as the B-17. The Fucking Gripen.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO John_Buford.jpg, 829KiB, 1396x2000

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:10:05 No.27705921 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704663
AFROTC here, even we laugh at you guys.

And we're literally the bottom of the bottom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:10:20 No.27705925 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705972

>>27705904
Only 2 things matter for COIN aircraft:
1. Loiter time
2. Style points
B-17 is impossible to beat on both counts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:12:09 No.27705950 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705904

This. People don't realize how small B17s are. A B17 is only 3 meters longer than a fucking F-22.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:12:20 No.27705953 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704519
>The MiG-25 was incapable of stopping either aircraft.
Valkyrie was canceled and Blackbird never penetrated into soviet airspace despite all its performance. BTW 15-20 years before MiG-25 much less capable US aircraft flew over USSR back and forth. MiG-25 and C-200 did an excellent job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:12:49 No.27705961 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27705971

New nuclear cruise missiles when?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:14:25 No.27705971 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706027 >>27706071

>>27705961

https://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2015_05/News/Air-Force-Wants-Thousand-New-Cruise-Missiles

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:14:25 No.27705972 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706031

>>27702218
>>27705925
>>27705904
It is called AC-130 and KC-130J Harvest HAWK.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:18:23 No.27706019 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706597

>>27704663
>whether its officially recognized or not.
?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:18:55 No.27706027 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705971
Nice, hope it doesn't go the way of RRW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:19:06 No.27706031 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705972
Get back to me when it's offered in polished aluminum.

afatoldman

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO x-47b_ucas_may2013.jpg, 2MiB, 3494x1566

afatoldman Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:19:28 No.27706036 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706412

>>27702896
I agree with this. UCLASS will be a game changer for the Navy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 345.jpg, 220KiB, 1500x1013

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:22:18 No.27706071 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706826

>>27705971
Russians had stealth cruise missiles with 5000km range and double warheads. When US would catch up with superior technology?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:36:04 No.27706225 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702755
So being dead makes him wrong?

Also are you threatening us? Are you the one who posts those "post ITT or I'll explode your head" threads on /b/?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 138039787037.jpg, 593KiB, 4000x2667

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 22:52:14 No.27706412 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706653

>>27706036
The x-47b has got to be one of the sexiest looking aircraft of all time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:01:07 No.27706522 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27704663
>We're an arm of the air force whether its officially recognized or not.

This is like some guy working mall security thinking he is a member of the police force.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:06:58 No.27706597 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27706019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol#Relationship_to_the_military
>While CAP is chartered by Congress and is the auxiliary of the Air Force, it is not an operating reserve component under the United States Air Force or the federal government.
>Civil Air Patrol members are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and do not have command or authority over any members of the United States military. Similarly, military officers have no command authority over CAP members.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:09:16 No.27706633 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27705894
Apparently they are so good the air force doesn't need dedicated EA fighters. Some basic info like what we have on the Growler would be nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:11:05 No.27706653 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27706844

>>27706412
It's just another stealth moe blob tobequitehonestwitya fam.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO arleigh burke 02.jpg, 203KiB, 1920x1000

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:24:17 No.27706785 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27703349
>They can't have enough CAP up at every hour, so something that can scramble out to meet a threat in a hurry is useful.

Bitches don't know about my SM-6

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:26:44 No.27706826 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27706071
The US has had the tech for a long time. What it hasn't had is the need.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:27:55 No.27706844 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27706653
> It's just another stealth moe blob tobequitehonestwitya fam.

Translation: Sexy as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:39:50 No.27706990 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27702187
>what do you think the people in the 2050's will be using.
AKs and T-55.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Oct 2015 23:54:35 No.27707199 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Is 4chan down for anyone else

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 00:19:01 No.27707532 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27701943
P-6 sales should be pretty substantial in total.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO carlos2.jpg, 19KiB, 500x367

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:40:49 No.27708480 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27709278

>>27703275
>missiles mostly carried in internal bays
can't see the HARM in that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2015 03:29:24 No.27709278 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27708480
Shut your hole you little shit.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches