Allies Will Not Play a Role in B-21 Development, Unlike F-35

Do other countries use the B-1 or B-52? Strategic bombers have never been an international product.

>>30021883
If allies were to be involved in the development of a bomber then that would imply they intend to export them to said allies. That would be a REALLY bad signal to send to Russia and China.

Bit of both I'd say. As >>30021905 said we don't exactly share strategic bombers because of MAD and such. That said, it might also be NG learning that too many chefs in the kitchen make a shitty meal.. or plane.

>>30021883
What other US allied country even uses strategic bombers?

>>30021931
Yeah it's an interesting thing to bring up. Is Norway looking for strategic bombers? Seems bizarre to even contemplate, let alone comment on.

>>30021883
Unlike the f35, which was supposed to be a shared wunderwaffe to fuck anyone who doesn't have a counter (literally everyone) the B21 is a strategic bomber. While not a fighter, it is strategically way way too important to be compromised. This is the shit that is supposed to fly over moscow and unload on kreml without anyone knowing it's there, like f117 was

>>30021948
UK?

>>30022671

No, all of the UK's strategic bombers have been retired decades ago. The last ones in 1993.

File: Vulcan and Sea Vixen.png (469KB, 475x760px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 475x760px

>>30022718

And we're still sour.

The howl needed to fly forever.

>>30022671
no money lol

>>30022671
dude ICBM's lmao

t. British MoD circa 1965

>>30022856
>dude ICBM's lmao

More like dude Scottish independence lmao.

Scotts weren't particularly happy about being a first strike target with underground ICBM bunkers. So London caved in and scrapped the whole thing.

>>30022998
I thought the reason british aerospace industry got fucked up was because the gubbament decided missiles would literally do everything and so they scrapped like 90% of aircraft projects.

>>30021883
We didn't allow them to participate in the F-22 either.

The US does not allow other countries to be involved in our air superiority or our strategy bombers for a reason. We know, factually, that Israel will sell the F-35 secrets to China and Russia, which means we can't put all of our eggs in the F-35 basket.

However we cannot allow our air superiority to be compromised, nor can we allow the B-21's radar signature, countermeasures, or shortcomings to be known to our potential enemies.

File: F-5 shockwaves.jpg (242KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x576px

>>30021883
>Allies Will Not Play a Role in B-21 Development, Unlike F-35
Good, but not far enough
Even having other companies involved (moreso than mere voluntary subcontracting) is detrimental to the efficiency of development. I miss the days when Northrop or Douglas would just develop an aircraft all on their own in a few years span without all this bullshit government micromanagement.

>>30023089
>However we cannot allow our air superiority to be compromised, nor can we allow the B-21's radar signature, countermeasures, or shortcomings to be known to our potential enemies.

why not make it a black project f117 style?

>>30023033
End of Cold War and lack of exports crushed UK aerospace industry. UK lacks the military purchasing power to sustain cutting edge stuff in every area. They cut down the nuclear programs and army, downsized the airforce, and focused on keeping the blue-water Navy which is easily their best asset.

France aerospace survived with the Mirage-2000, but Rafale is looking like their last fighter plane as well.

>>30023198
In what way?

>>30023198
Cold War is over, no need to develop in total secrecy now.

That's not to say we don't have black projects currently in development.

>>30023198
>>30023310
If you mean and not tell anyone about it, we're in an era of government accountability (Somewhat), and exceptional scrutiny on the military.

The outcry from democrats if the military secretly developed a multi-billion dollar aircraft under their noses, even if it gave us total supremacy, would be unmatched. Their ability to whine and cry about military spending knows no ends.

>>30021883
>avoid issues seen with the F-35

As far as I'm aware BAE and RR haven't dropped the ball at all, Lockheed has been the one to be fined?

F35 has certainly had more than it's fair share of issues, but I don't think any of that can be blamed on the joint development.

>>30022845
>>30022998
>>30023263


All of this is wrong.

in 1965 the Uk decided rightfully invest more in missiles than aircraft as that was seen to be the future of air defence and nuclear deterrant.

This caused many UK defence firms to merge in order to pool resources and survive the shortage of contracts. We now have BAE who are one of leading defence contractors in the world and the one with the most varied portfolio.

the 2014 Scottish referendum has nothing to do with downsizing the aerospace industry in the 60's.

>>30021883
The only country that the US would share this with - the UK - is not interested at present.

>>30022776
WHY DID YOU KILL IT? VULCAN DID NOTHING WRONG!

>>30023198
>why not make it a black project f117 style?

Because the US can't keep a secret. They'd just land it in Iran because lol, or crash it in Pakistan because of oops.

>>30023329
>le democr*ts are peaceniks meme
Did you forget who's their presidential candidate?

File: tu-16 (1).jpg (2MB, 2840x1880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2840x1880px

>>30021905
>Strategic bombers have never been an international product.
Ahem.

>>30023371
us has plenty secrets. Stealthawk is one of possible 100's of hyperfuturistic black projects you won't believe are real even when they are revealed.
Even fucking habu seems unreal nowardays

>>30023329
Yeah, God forbid that the spending of taxpayer money be overseen and regulated by the elected representatives of those taxpayers.

>>30023449

Hurr there are hundreds of secret weapons and you can't prove me wrong because they are secrets.

But look how "strategic bombers" are now being used. B-52s just lob cruise missiles at stand off ranges. B-1Bs are doing CAS with precision munitions. B-2's are are the strategic asset retained for deep strikes.

The B-21 will likely be multirole bomber, a combination of the last 3. Hopefully it is cheaper to operate than the B-52 and B-1B, with a purchase cost cheaper than B-2. Unfortunately the Air Force isn't exactly known for having Jewish generals.

>>30023383
Clinton doesn't have a political allegiance, she's been deified by her party as the only possible choice. She's evil incarnate.

Satan and Hitler's offspring withstanding, the base itself is incredibly anti-military. See: bernie rallies

>>30023452
I'm not saying that there should be no oversight, I'm saying that, perhaps, the military should be allowed to develop secret systems, under the guidance of JUST the Armed Services Committee, rather than having to announce everything they do.

>>30023425
The tu-16 was a piece of shit that sucked in every way compared to lighter bombers like the F-111.
Literally 2 countries had it for export and both had them utterly destroyed in their respective wars.

>>30023089
This. Israel has proven over and over that they will fuck us over given half an opportunity. (((Neocons))) might own our politicians but they don't serve in the military. At least the men who actually give a shit about American security are still in power where it counts, mostly.

>>30023195
Cost plus contractors + well funded K street is the more profitable business model.

Also the DoD has outsourced all of their design and engineering expertise, so they literally have no idea what they're doing. They're being led by the nose.

>>30023527
Jews or Indians; they'll haggle it down to a penny and some pocket lint

>>30023425
I'd hesitate to call that a strategic bomber in even the loosest sense of the term.

>>30023355
>in 1965 the Uk decided rightfully invest more in missiles than aircraft as that was seen to be the future of air defence and nuclear deterrant.

this was because no money lol.

the british domestic deterrant was then scraped with blue streak. they bought american afterwards because no money lol.

what part of the british post war economic decline do you not understand? three years later they nationalized manufacturing of most things and crashed the economy even further. by the 70s they were looking at bailouts from the imf. if thatcher didn't come along they would have been south-america tier.

>This caused many UK defence firms to merge in order to pool resources and survive the shortage of contracts.

shortage of contracts because no money lol.

>We now have BAE who are one of leading defence contractors in the world and the one with the most varied portfolio.

BAe didn't come around until the 90s, and this was more because blair had no policies and followed clinton's consolidation of the american defence industry. british aerospace was a different predecessor company and you've got confused by 20 years (british aerospace formed in the mid seventies, bae didn't happen until the late 90s). and bae continue to fuck everything up. terrible management is the core reason why they needed us help to unfuck the astute program.

>The only country that the US would share this with - the UK - is not interested at present.

because no money lol

>>30023527
Supposedly it will do that plus electronic warfare and have air-to-air capabilities, though I wouldn't count on anything solid for a few more years.

>>30027452
The Russians and Chinese prefer to use bombers as ALCM trucks.

Even the cheap shit will do that job fine.

I'm fully expecting the B-21 to be an expensive screen for some real secret squirrel bomber.
I'm talking full on optical camo, perfect radar and infrared stealth, a hot tub, the works.

>>30027828
>a hot tub
you lost me

>>30027466
>Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

File: Can'tStumpWontStump.jpg (56KB, 250x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 250x400px

>>30023329
Good thing we have a solution to that problem.

>>30023355
it's not the multiple companies having to work together that gives the difficulties, they do it all the time

it's the multiple countries with their multiple, sometimes contradictory, requirements that could get out of hand

>>30027466
serves them right for starting ww2

>>30023198
Because the Air Force would have a hard enough time fitting a third or fourth black project into the F35s budget.

>>30023521
Dude. Half of weaponry used in Syria by Russians were classified and reported as "abandoned". Their nuclear super deep water submarine was spotted accidentally by civilians. If they can keep shit under cover, US can, probably, too.

>>30029649

Trump doesn't have a single detailed policy plan that hasn't been contradicted or backtracked. Any time someone asks him for details he changes the subject or makes up nonsense.

He's basically the equivalent of a 5th grader bullshitting his way through a speech on a topic he didn't study for. We're screwed.

>>30023621
white liberals are not the democrat base
non-whites are