B-21 Naming Ceremony Livestream

>all black plane

Please use my submission AF, please call it the Spook.

>>31385365

CHINA WILL NOT GROW STRONGER.

The Cucker

>>31385365
Wraith would be a neat name.

>>31385365
i...its not working!

ITS NOT WORKING!!!

>>31385365
Rollan for wraith

>>31385399
Yeah same for me and some other guys I'm chatting with; it did go from a landing page to a video stream though, so whoever is operating the stream is slowly making progress in getting it up

>>31385365
Should be named the Spooky Scary Skeleton.

>>31385396
seems to tryhard edgy

>>31385380
Or Jigaboo

>>31385416
This is the US military mind you:
>Spirit
>Raptor
>Lancer
>Fighting Falcon
>Eagle
etc

>>31385365
Should be called the Mace.

>>31385442

Tomcat (which was almost not named this)

Its almost like they kill people or some shit.

Weird.

>>31385365

What if they go omega-edgy and call it something like the "B-21 Warbringer"

>>31385442

>>31385416
hey if rolls royce does it why not?

B-21 Dragonslayer

ALTERNATE STREAM HERE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rrSbCFc8aU

>>31385494
based OP

based NG

death to china

>>31385365
BANE

>>31385365
Considering we've already had Saber and Lancer, perhaps Archer or Assassin?
>shame it won't happen

>>31385494
THEY BROUGHT THE JAPANESE NUKE DROPPER HIMSELF, DICK COLE, TO THE NAMING CEREMONY.

HOWS THAT FOR A MESSAGE?

B-21 raider

RAIDER
A
I
D
E
R

B-21 RAIDER

File: 1471792513085.png (140KB, 446x460px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 446x460px

>>31385509
>Not rider.

shit name

File: raider.jpg (184KB, 1927x1080px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1927x1080px

>>31385494
cant be unseen

>>31385365
>COMPRESSING TIME AND SPACE

Hoping for Revenant.

>>31385529

Shit opinion

WE CAN DO BETTER.

>>31385494
1:55 is the B-21 panel
nothing to see here folks

Can't watch the stream, what's happened?

>>31385623

its ogre now.

>>31385470
To go with the B-36 Peacemaker? The first bomber designed specifically for strategic nuclear attack. Even the Air Force has a sense of humor.

File: ogre load.jpg (55KB, 600x764px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x764px

>>31385629
>B-21 Ogre drops a load of bombs

>>31385623
they named it "Raider", not glorious B-21 Blackjack

What was the name?

>>31385365

call it "new designated rustbucket that could be shot down by anyone who's not a 3rd world sheepherder nation"

>>31385646
Read the thread

File: 14425901631610.jpg (30KB, 1023x762px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1023x762px

>>31385645

> stealing names of the best strategic bomber of all time

classic burgerboi overcompensating

File: 1473945062716.jpg (73KB, 710x781px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 710x781px

>>31385646
As usual, something tryhard and edgy.
>B-21 Raider
>mfw

File: 1411922213154_wps_5_Oakland_Raiders_fans_pose.jpg (104KB, 634x423px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 634x423px

>the B21 Raider and her crew

File: image.jpg (68KB, 699x466px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 699x466px

Still hoping its some sort of YB-23.

>>31385666
Actually it was inspired by WWII aircraft.

>>31385365

I wanted Pterodactyl.

>>31385666

>raider
>edgy

Im sorry we did not call it butterfly or lolipop,

>>31385666
raider
: a person who suddenly and unexpectedly attacks a place or group

At least it fits.

>>31385666
>Raider
>Edgy

No.

>>31385666

Your right, they should have called it the B-21 Rapeist.

>>31385645
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

>>31385735
True... Except now we have two aircraft about to enter production called the Raider. That's my biggest problem with this.

>>31385771
What's the other?

>>31385771

That was the name of a prototype. Its not like the YF-23 would have been called the "black widow"

File: Pierre Sprey.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

Cool, when do we get to start insulting it based on the assertions of Vatniks, Chicoms and washed-up Jazz artists?

>>31385520
i can dig it

>B-21 Raider
>Will probably appear at Nellis AFB
>Oakland Raiders moving to Las Vegas
>Potential for a Raider to do a flyover for the Raiders

Meme magic.

>>31385790
Assertions will start about 5 years from now, in 10 years after the bird starts flying, and they start finding and fixing problems, each problem will be hyped as an end of the world problem, right before it gets fixed. After that, it will seem to get worse and worse up until near IOC, where the tide will shift and capabilities start being released, until everyone agrees it was a good plane the entire time.

>>31385790
What would the Pierre bomber be? Thousands of turboprop cans as cheaply as possible probably.

>>31385783
S-97 Raider
>>31385771
The chopper is only a prototype / competitor; there's a decent chance it won't see full production.

>>31385840
Nah he's a fan of numbers; it'd probably be this with a single bomb undernearth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAdCt6qgj9k&feature=youtu.be

>>31385821
Isn't this project going to be a lot more hush hush.

>>31385857

Certainly started that way, but i doubt it. DOTE reports are done regardless.


Wont stop the vattys and the chincoms anyways.

>>31385840
A-6

>raider
Oh boy it's just like my american footballs.

>>31385494
>(((Goldfein)))

oy vey goyim give me your foreskins !

>>31385851
Jet powered, he will opt for the piston engined Cri-Cri.

>>31385365
They should go full Amerifat and call it the McBomber.

File: image%3A1849.jpg (607KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1920x1440px

607 KB JPG
>>31385790 #
Why would you insult a replica of WW2 era plane? Sure, it's not supersonic, can deliver freefall bombs only and has to fly directly over fixed target to hit anything with its payload, buy hey, it's an 85 year old design. It's not like americans are building it for any other reasons than to spend money and bomb some arabs anyway.

>>31385365
Spooky McSpookFace would have been nice for some reason.

>>31385365
B-21 "Tariff"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz1rL4hLwRc

>not calling it the Bolo

Do you even /all destroyed on the ground/?

>>31387078
>/all

THE PEPE

>Raider
Now that's underwhelming.

They should do like the B-2 where each aircraft also has its own name. Instead of states, they should use bomber commander/pilot names.
"Spirit of Mitchell"
"Spirit of Doolittle"
"Spirit of LeMay"
etc. Or instead of spirit use Wrath.

>>31387078
Nah we're saving that for the next generation of tanks.

>>31385660
A name given by NATO, not the people who designed it. So we'd be stealing the name from...ourselves.

>>31386984
Nice try werhaboo, but the B2 was based off Jack Northrup's flying wing designs.

>>31385639
>To go with the B-36 Peacemaker? The first bomber designed specifically for strategic nuclear attack. Even the Air Force has a sense of humor.
Nah, that was just SAC and it's whole "Peace is Our Profession" thing.

>>31387227
>Spirit of Dick

>>31385851
Are those fucking model aircraft engines?

>>31387348
Yep; JetCat turbines are awesome

>>31385416
Have you seen the names of military equipment? About the only time shit like that isn't edgy is when it happens to be on something that may very well kill someone.

>>31385365
why not call it plany mcplane face

>>31385650
Wow it's almost as if real life isn't civilization or AoE where you can outpace other countries by hundreds of years and there for be completely technologically untouchable.

File: 1347469737413.png (197KB, 636x649px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 636x649px

>Raider

>>31387747
sour grapes

Stormbringer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krC6SY5b1A

>>31385365
B-21 Sorry for white Privilege
Alternatively: B-21 Tyrone, its black, moves quiet and destroys everything you own.

I would have called it The B-21 Dave

>>31387814
I like it.

>>31385365
>Not hosting a public naming contest
I wish it'd taken a little longer for everyone to figure out that was stupid.

B21 I wouldn't worry about it

>>31388795
Alternatively B-21 Mallninja

so whats so different between this and the B-2 bomber?

>>31385380
>>31385435

Why not just go all out and call it a nigger?

>>31388834
Current materials from F-35, current tech from F-35. Proven design plus tech advances from another program.

Can someone explain to me what the fuck a B-21 is and what it is supposed to do that a B-2 doesn't?

>>31388874
It's a new B-2

It doesn't cost two billion dollars each.

>>31388874
>>31388834
You are now aware that the B-2 is 1980's tech.

File: HudsonValleyBoomerang.png (30KB, 453x314px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 453x314px

really makes me think

>>31388897

Yeah and the AR is 1960's tech but I don't see anyone rushing to replace it.

>>31388915
ARs aren't complex high maintenance machines with a constant technology improvement cycle.

B-21 Grad

>>31385442
Don't forget Reaper

>>31385660
>>31387285
wait, why don't you respond after making a stupid statement and being called out about it vatnik?

>>31388909
nice pic idiot

>>31388915

The B-2 isn't being replaced. The B-2 is going to be upgraded.

The B-21 isn't a replacement for any current aircraft, actually, as far as I know. It is simply an addition to the bomber fleet. The B-21 raider will most likely be around 2/3 the size of the B-2.

>>31388891
The B2 wasn't meant to cost two billion dollars each.

in 15 years when it in almost in-service the price will be disgusting because the numbers have been slashed in favor of smaller unmanned aircraft.

the "optionally manned" part gives it the biggest cost, weight and size bloom.

>>31388997
>The B-21 isn't a replacement for any current aircraft,

Fairly sure it's to fill the role of F15E / B1

>>31387297
Who based his design on Hortens brothers work lol

>>31388915

The B-2 has a wingspan of roughly 2063 inches. The B-21 will have a wing-span of around 1375 - 1547 inches.

>>31387814
>Yeah during war we shot some hot loads in dave.
>Never been the same since.

>>31389048
I expect an F-111/Su-34 type aircraft >>31385705

Raider Reider Rider Rayder Reader

shit name desu

What's the selling point of this again?

>>31388972
MQ-9. Taken.

>>31389209
>F35 cant drop nukes as well.

>look at these engines you spent money on lets put them in more suff for less

>lets keep throwing money at our other aviation companies so lockmart doesn't become a monopoly

>lets do stealth on the cheap for once.

>maybe we can sell it to NATO

>>31389209
Stealthy replacement of b52

>>31389209

It allows the government to kill people.

>>31389263

The B-52 is not being replaced.

>>31388795
They had an AF-wide naming contest

>>31389263
so it is as robust and carries as much payload?

>>31389252
So it's cheap stealth (how) and F35 parts?
This actually sounds expensive and unreliable. And without a niche in the airforce.

>>31389209
The program will cost even more than F-35.

>>31389306

Its niche is that it drops bombs, why else do you want from a bomber?

>>31389311

Very unlikely. The F-35 program affected three different services.

>>31389319

everything drops bombs. why have another bomb-dropper that isn't the same as all the other bomb-droppers.

>>31389252
>F35 cant drop nukes as well.
The F-35 is able to carry B61 nukes.

>>31389329
I bet they will manage. Its an ongoing competition after all.

>>31389350

That's not very powerful as far as nukes go.

>>31385494
When does the B-21 naming ceremony start?

>>31389355
If you want powerful use an ICBM, not a tactical nuke that can fit in a 1000lbs class bomb rack.

>>31388835
Jigaboo has more comedic impact.

>>31388795

>public naming contest

Don't think they'd name it the "B-21 Hitler Did Nothing Wrong"

>>31389306
They're making a scaled down B2 using existing technology. With software and avionics ported over from F35 by Lockheed and BAE.

After all the investment in F35 they want to use the technologies in other ways. This is why the budget is kept secret - because its stupidly cheap for a new 5th gen. And for some reason the US thinks keeping the budget secret will prevent others from realising what BAE and Lockheed are doing as contractors.

>>31389356
Already finished. It's called raider.

The B-21 Raider will pair with he LRSO and be able to deliver tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.

Our bomber fleet is aging. We will start to retire some B-52s and B-1s about the time this enters service (not all of either of them, though).

The B-21 will be the most LO combat platform we have. It will be able to deliver conventional bombs anywhere.

It is an incredibly important project. It will be our greatest conventional deterrent if we buy as many as we need to.

B-21 Prometheus

B-21 is a budget program when compared to what the Next Generation Bomber project was meant to accomplish (similar stealth but Mach speed and loitering capabilities for intel gathering). Basically, the air force split the capabilities of the Next Generation Bomber between three projects, what would become the B-21, the LRSO (next-gem nuclear cruise missile), and mystery unmanned spy planes (RQ-180 upgrades/successor). These three programs will give us the ability to observe any airspace in existence and strike any target in the world. The investment is needed at all three levels because integrated air defenses are getting better and better.

B-21 Buttblaster

>>31389252
>maybe we can sell it to NATO
Would they actually export a stealth bomber?

>>31390117
They actually export a stealth fighter.

>>31385365
BBC21 cucklord

>>31390117
No.

>>31390117
>>31390162

Yes they would. Look at how F35 has traveled and that's far more sensitive than a bomb truck.

Also B21 will have very few new technologies, by 2025 it'll be nothing that needs to be kept secret.

>>31390480

It has already been announced that the B-21 will never be exported.

>>31390480
No, bombers are much more sensitive than fighters. The B-21 will be bar far the most LO strike platform the US has. We are not going to export a plane that can defeat our own air defenses. The B-21 will be extremely advanced. It is low risk because it is not trying to reinvent the wheel. Obviously the B-2 was a moonshot when it was built, but the B-21 will be vastly more capable than it. The idea that we would sell the B-21 is absurd. It would be the most advanced military plane in the world for decades.

>>31390498
You think announcements in 2015 will dictate policy in 2030?

Boy you must of been fooled a lot.

>>31390541
>B-21 will be extremely advanced

>It is low risk because it is not trying to reinvent the wheel

>It would be the most advanced military plane in the world for decades.

Looks like you can't decide what it is. Don't worry, I can fill you in, a cheap aircraft using existing technologies to plug the looming gap in bomber airframes.

Oh and bombers are less sensitive than fighters. Fighters have vastly more variables in combat and therefore are a prime target for your enemy to figure out how to combat them.

bombers are sent in en masse in the hope some will get through.

the nuclear mission may be important but it's a simple one.

B21 will be exported because the cost will balloon and the technology is not even impressive 10 years before it arrives.

I doubt there will be much market for it as UAV's will have taken over the one-way / heavy strike mission.

One reason the B-21 is seen as using off the shelf technology is that it is the culmination of multiple canceled programs. The was the strike bomber program where R&D money was spent. Then there was the NGB program where tons of R&D money was spent. Then the LRSB program which produced the B-21. This isn't counting all the black money or the spy drone programs (RQ-180 and such). A lot more R&D money has been spent on this technology over the past twenty years that isn't included in the official budget. So, when Northrop says it can do the R&D for the B-21 for less than one would expect, it is because Northrop has done tons of R&D on projects that overlap with the capabilities of the B-21. Northrop builds the RQ-180. Northrop did the X-47B. Northrop did some R&D for the YB-23 >>31385705 . Northrop did R&D for the Next Generation Bomber program.

>>31390643
You're just ignorant. There is no point in debating you.

>>31390643
The B-21 will be capable of being a drone. If you were to build a drone with the same payload and stealth capabilities as the B-21, you would be building the B-21. What are you even smoking?

>>31390643

>Oh and bombers are less sensitive than fighters.

You're talking out your ass now.

You should stop.

>the nuclear mission may be important but it's a simple one.

There is nothing simple about a nuclear war.

>>31390692
>theres nothing more difficult about rating an airframe for human flight, providing space and life support for a human being, in addition to making the profile taller to fit a seated human that has to be trained for years. Oh and he might be in there a long time so we might need two of them. and they might need to shit.

Are you stupid? just loom at the costs of manned v unmanned spaceflight. "optionally manned" is taking the drawbacks from both without the advantages of one.

>>31390675
Nice argument, I'll chalk that one up for me.

>>31390700

Fighters are more advanced in terms of technology than bombers. Fighters have always been more difficult to counter and will continue to be as they engage in more complicated situations.

What threat are the interceptors most concerned about? Escorts.

What threat are the air superiority fighters more concerned about? Fighters.

What threat are the bombers most worried about? Interceptors.

The bomber will always get through, it's just a matter of numbers.

>>31390854

>Fighters are more advanced in terms of technology than bombers. Fighters have always been more difficult to counter and will continue to be as they engage in more complicated situations.

They are used in different situations. However the assertion that fighters are held to a higher degree of secrecy is simply wrong. Bomber projects have always been more secretive.

>>31390854
>Are you stupid? just loom at the costs of manned v unmanned spaceflight. "optionally manned" is taking the drawbacks from both without the advantages of one.

No, you are comparing drones with cheap airframes, little to no stealth, and cheap engines to manned planes with expensive airframes, expensive stealth features, and expensive engines. Practically speaking, if you were to build a drone with the same payload, the same engines, and the same steal as the B-21, you would pretty much be building the B-21. Not having a cockpit does not save much money.

File: fb-23_FB-23proposal2007.jpg (40KB, 601x486px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 601x486px

>soon

>>31390884

The RCS and sensors of both aircraft are of interest to the enemy.

Bomber flight characteristics (outside of rough details like top speed / altitude / range) are of little interest to the enemy.

Fighter flight characteristics are far more valuable to the enemy.

F35 is brand new technology at unprecedented expense. If you think that would get exported toTurkey / Israel but B21 wouldn't be exported to selected partners then you're fooling yourself.

Bombers are far more simple in theory and operation. Their actual missions and deployment may be more secretive but that's only because they are first strike weapons.

>>31389560

B-21 is not made to replace the 52 though - it's a modernization of the B-2 into something that doesn't cost a small country to manufacture each airframe.

>>31385705
This looks cool...we should call it the skyshark and call a bombing formation or use of a full squadron a sharknado.

>>31391001
You've completely ignored the increased RCS, increased development cost, increased weight, increased operating costs and reduced range, speed, stealthiness and versatility that UAV's offer.

Like I said, compare the cost of manned space flight to unmanned. It's about 1/8th the price.

I hope our enemies have backwards thinking Maginot line commanders like you.

>>31387814
I'd name it...Bob.

>>31391026

If you think that Turkey would be trusted with a long-range bomber nowadays you're delusional. It's not just about keeping information secret (although that certainly is a big part of it). It's also about fear of what the bomber could be used for. There is no chance of a B-21 export market.

>>31391057
The B-21 will deploy cruise missiles like the B-52 does. It is still a heavy bomber too. It technically isn't replacing any plane, but its introduction will see the reduction of B-52s and B-1Bs, as they are old and they won't need as many.

The B2 was was over 2 billion an airframe only when R&D was evenly split over the airframes that were built. If we built as many B2s as they originally wanted, it would have been much less.

>>31391083

>Like I said, compare the cost of manned space flight to unmanned.

The bomber does not go to space.

>>31389503
Wow, that's...sooo generic...like out of a garage produced table top strategic miniature war game levels of generic.

>>31391120
>hurrr i think the 1/8 cost ratio is somehow related to both examples going into space and not the cost of manned aviation.

Stop clutching.

>>31391083
The B-21 is as big as it is because of its payload and stealth requirements. It would be the same size. The increase in RCS is small because of the shape. A large drone would be the same shape. Range could be increased, as the cockpit could be fuel storage. Alternatively, payload could be increased. Speed could not. Stealth could not (or barely could). It would literally cost the same.

All the expensive materials would be the same.
Almost all the electronics would be the same.
The engine would be the same.
The airframe would be nearly identical (it has to be to retain all aspect stealth)

It would be the same cost. You're talking out of your ass and thinking irrationally.

>>31391130
it's perfect
it's the god damn raider

>>31391009
Looks cool...but will it bomb?

>>31391130
It's American, what did you expect? Have you seen what they call their ships?

>>31391156

Clutching what? Comparing space flight to terrestrial flight is stupid.

>>31391159
And then we'll create a fighter jet and call it..."The Interceptor".

>>31385365
The bringer of woe

>B-21
>F-35
>DDG-1000
>RQ-170

GODDAMNIT STOP BREAKING THE DESIGNATION SYSTEM

>>31391201
Underrated post.

>>31387792
kek

>>31391158
NO. You're a fucking idiot / child and this is the last reply you're getting.

Why are aircraft as tall as they are? Do you know?

well it's not to suit aerodynamic purposes. It's to fit human beings. In a perfect world a UAV is no taller than it's wing. UAV's with the exception of air intakes are no taller than the wing. Do you know why this is? Less drag. Less drag means more range, more speed, more payload.

Aerodynamics aside, do you have any idea how much weight a crew adds? Put two people on a scale, add life support, ejection seats, a canopy, dozens of screens, re distribute their weight, add extra fuel for the added weight, restrict flight envelope to suit their G tolerance. Go through rigorous process to certify the airframe for manned flight, create a training program and begin spending millions on every person who needs to be trained on the aircraft, plan missions based on bringing them home.

Try adding a hamster to a paper airplane and let me know how you get on retard. Keep the rest of your poorly formed thoughts to yourself.

>>31391270
How would it fit a rotating cruise missile launcher if it was that thin? And the size of the plane is closed to fixed by all aspect stealth requirements. It has to be at least a certain size in order to not reflect certain radar frequencies. Finally, your hamster analogy is dumb as fuck, as most of the weight the frame carries is fuel and payload, which dwarfs the humans and their life support systems. The plane would be the same size. You might be able to fit more fuel or a little more payload, but that is it. It would be the same cost.

>>31387784

I second for Stormbringer

>Raider is fine too

We don't know how big the B-21 is definitely, but at minimum it will be able to carry 30,000 pound bunker busters and rotating cruise missile launchers, so it is going to be pretty big.

File: 1425174930407.jpg (139KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 960x960px

>>31385416
>naming a plane after the Doolittle Raid is now edgy

>>31391201

This

>>31391270
>It's to fit human beings.
Thats a pretty bold claim to make when you have no clue what the final vehicle is going to look like

Bomb bays tend to be pretty tall, engines are pretty tall
when you are talking about 100,000+lb aircraft, adding 2000 lbs for pilots + their shit isn't that significant.

>>31391270

>Why are aircraft as tall as they are?

Because a bomber needs to be big enough to hold bombs retard.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/b-21-bomber-estimate-by-cape-511m-a-copy/

>Walden also made clear the Air Force will probably pursue a deep penetrating fighter to accompany the bomber to heavily defended targets deep inside a country. He didn’t say it but my understanding is war games have shown the B-21 is incapable of making it to western China to destroy the missile and artillery units there.

>The aircraft concept is called Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA). The program, I understand is called PCAP.

>Here’s what Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan says about PCA:

>“PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons.”

>This seems consistent with rumors that the Air Force is pursuing a new program to build an aircraft to accompany the bomber deep into western China, where the Second Artillery has its facilities and many of China’s most important capabilities.

>>31391638
Why would some smaller aircraft be more stealthy?

File: NASALewis_MDA_Severdrup_CRPCM_1989-1.jpg (48KB, 965x294px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 965x294px

Forget bombers. Build tens of thousands of ultralong range propfan cruise missiles.

>>31391770
The escorts role is to shoot down enemy fighters. It sounds like that author believes the airforce thinks future warfare could be like WWII. Essentially, in a few decades, China will be able to detect, but not lock or shoot down, the B-21 so it will scramble J-20's to hunt it down. The escorts shoot down the the J-20s before they can find and shoot down the B-21s.

>>31391813
It looks like a giant flying tampon.

Would probably scare ISIS if we could build it accurate enough.

>>31391820

>The escorts role is to shoot down enemy fighters.

They can do that, but more than just that. They can also scout ahead for the bomber, and guide stand-off weapons using their sensors.

The real question is why they think they need a whole new fighter to do this. Isn't the F-35 capable of doing that?

>>31391865
It probably doesn't have the range or the desired stealth.

>>31391638
>http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/b-21-bomber-estimate-by-cape-511m-a-copy/
The author, Colin Clark, also believes that the B-21 will in fact be supersonic.

>>31391865
No current fighter has the range to escort a B-21 to western China.

>>31391820
Why can't the B-21 shoot down enemy fighters?

>>31391946
I don't know. In fact, in the Air Forces 2030 air dominance (forget the specific name) study the B-21 having A2A capabilities was brought up.

>>31391946

It can, but you would ideally want to kill the enemy fighters before they get within missile range of the bomber.

I was under the impression that the RQ-180 was supposed to be able to act as a spotter for the B-21

>>31392001
Nowhere near the range.

>>31391980
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air%20Superiority%202030%20Flight%20Plan.pdf

>>31392011
I was under the impression that it had a very long range and is basically a loitering platform. Aviation Week broke the story.

We still don't have a real picture of thing, but it is supposed to have a giant wingspan.

It might not have the speed to be sent on a mission with the B-21

Spirit of ____ was a really cool naming system, and also has some meaning when the USSR was going to be revenged by the 'Spirit of ____' in a nuclear war

>>31390884
>>However the assertion that fighters are held to a higher degree of secrecy is simply wrong. Bomber projects have always been more secretive.

Not the same poster, but is it?
Secrecy for what reason, though? Obviously during the coldwar a new super sonic nuclear capable high penetration long range bomber would be top secret compared to a new supersonic interceptor that goes slightly faster than all your other missile boats you have.

Nowadays it's all about interception because everyone has a huge stick, so now it's about breaking or blocking the other guys big stick before you hit him with yours.

Obviously [citation needed] but desu senpai I'm leaning towards fighter programs once again being on the bleeding edge of aerospace technology aside from NASA high altitude tech demonstrators and scramjet shit, and therefor more classified.

>>31391941
Taking off from the states? No. Taking off from allied airfields in Korea, Japan or Taiwan? Yes.

>>31392260

>Not the same poster, but is it?

Yes.

Just think about how much public information there is on the F-35 and how little public information there is on the B-21.

You can get in a lot of trouble for taking an up-close picture of the B-2. Even today.

>>31389227
Yeah, he's talking about existing names.

>>31391638
YF-23, YF-23

PLEASE!!!!!!!

>>31392310
>>You can get in a lot of trouble for taking an up-close picture of the B-2. Even today.
Good point. I;d venture a guess that would also have to do with the strict no export policy, compare to the "everyone buy this" F-35 policy. I'd still assume that disclosing anything under ITAR about the F-35 is a HUGE no-no. Once again
>>Just think about how much public information there is on the F-35
Because "Muh Trillion dollar plane" and once it becomes a taxpayer issue then a lot of information which WAS disclosed just hard to find becomes VERY public. Think of it like the Hillary leaks, there are a ton of damning emails in there that if every supposedly dem-voting person read they would never vote Dem with a Clinton as the candidate again, but no one's going to read them because no one cares. It's practically a non-issue because you don't have the media and a "pierre sprey" type personality making it a huge issue.

I'd also like to point out how new the B-21 is compared to the F-35.

I get what you're saying but I still don't think it's correct from a policy point of view exclusively and not just a priority point of view.

>>31391638
>>This seems consistent with rumors that the Air Force is pursuing a new program to build an aircraft to accompany the bomber deep into western China, where the Second Artillery has its facilities and many of China’s most important capabilities.

F/A-XX? Or would this be another drone type-fighter so they would be able to gain the huge range that drones have, or did it specifically mention piloted aircraft?

>>31392336
Never.

>>31391638
They will just do some stealth drop fuel tank for the F-35c. Much cheaper than anything.

>>31392406
drones have huge ranges not because they are unmanned but because they fly slowly

>>31392336
It is outdated by now. Maybe a similar shape without the tails and larger.

>>31392454
Engine efficiency is a different topic. I was talking simply because removing the pilot support systems removes close to 2 tons from an F-16, for example.

>>31385435
Jitterbug

>>31392146

Wow I never realized that.

That is fucking awesome.

>>31392468
It's not like 2 tons of fuel on an F-16 is suddenly going to give it 1000+ mile combat radius

>>31385531
>>31385711
>B-21 Twix

>>31392468
How much would the systems required to fly it remotely weigh, though?

>>31392468

>was talking simply because removing the pilot support systems removes close to 2 tons from an F-16, for example.

The B-21 is probably gonna weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 tons empty, so that 2 tons of difference is negligible.

>>31392563
fuck, meant for >>31392506

File: Okinawa_westernChina.jpg (226KB, 1069x715px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1069x715px

>>31392268
I hope you are not expecting to be able to do in flight refueling over China.

>>31392506
And then you can make it smaller dropping more weight etc etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
>Max. takeoff weight: 44,567 lb (20,215 kg)
>Range: 2,100+ NM (3,889+ km)

Obviously it's not going to get to its max range at full takeoff weight but
For comparison of a similar weight class (75% of, with double the max takeoff weight)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
>Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
>Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
>Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks

When you don't have to account for the awkward shape and load that a pilot and his systems puts in a plane you can make the aircraft far more aerodynamic and smaller.

I'm not saying that drones>>>piloted aircraft, but in terms of range taking the pilot out extends the range (obviously) regardless of the rest of the aircraft because it removes weight. Once you've taken the pilot out then you can re-design the aircraft as you no longer need the weird highchair on a pencil with a bubble around it design that most fighter jets use.

>>31392563
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
Seeing as the entire MQ-1 is a quarter of the weight of the F-16's pilot support systems, not a lot.

>>31392571
Oh of course, I was talking for the "penetrating Counter-Air" aircraft that was going to accompany said B-21.

I know Russia's a meme but they said that their "sixth-gen fighter" whenever they get around to finishing their current one will be autonomous, but the State's (F/A-XX) "will be manned".

>>31392620
>And then you can make it smaller dropping more weight

yea ok but you could do this by keeping it pilotted too

>>31392639

Russia's sixth gen is a lot further away than America's sixth gen so it makes sense that by the time they get to that point, AI will be strong enough to build an autonomous fighter jet.

>>31392641
>yea ok but you could do this by keeping it pilotted too
But you can't?

The point of a drones pilot system is that it's far lighter than a pilots support system. Seeing as every plane is Fly-by-wire nowadays anyways, replacing essentially the entire pilot support system and visual targeting stuff (IHADS, HUD screen etc) with a satellite uplink and some sensors means you are already cutting a lot of weight off a fighter aircraft where the pilot and systems could mean a fifth to a quarter of the total aircraft empty weight.

It's not a great solution for a fighter as it stands because sensors haven't even come close to as advanced as they need to be for autonomous dog fighting, essentially anything but pre-programmed ISR routes and pre-programmed flights and weapons deployments are all drones can do now without some sort of human action.

>>31388915
An AR isn't a flying super computer designed to nuke people on the other side of the planet.

B-21 ContractorEmployer

>>31387078
not a tonk

dishonor of the regiment/10

>>31385365
Name it after America's greatest and first black president, the B-21 Barrack Hussein Obama. A fitting name for such a great leader

>>31393237
Carriers get named after presidents. Won't be till at least CVN-83 he gets something named after him.

>>31389371
ICBMs are not stealthy, nor are they suitable for use in anything but all-out war. Our allies may look the other way over a tactical nuclear bombing or two, especially innadesert, but the world will flip shit if we ever fire the big missiles. The B-21 can drop larger payloads than the F-35, nuclear or not. That has worth.

>>31389400
B-21 Bomber McBomberface

>>31392268
We have to assume that if we get to the point of stealth bombing China, Korea Japan and Taiwan are already compromised or lost.

>>31391270
LOL the rekt.

you guys got embar bared

>>31391201
B-2+1=3.

>>31392588
Hey Adolf, you are now aware that we could launch attacks on western China from Afghanistan.

>>31392146

Damn. That never clicked before.

>>31393815

Isn't the Navy building some sort of gaint mobile barge island base ship?

If it's an consolidation, they didn't even take any of our suggestions either and I'm in the Air Force.

>>31395296
What were some of the best suggestions anon?

>>31393714
If you're using nukes at all you've crossed a very big line in the war.

>>31388795
>Bomber Mcbomby

>>31388795
>B-21 John Cena
>Invisible, unstoppable, overwhelming

They will probably call it the Tuskegee or some gay shit like that. If I learned anything my 6 years in its leadership is very cuck friendly.

>>31399823
Maybe you didn't hear, but there's a new Face that Runs the Place:
>B-21 AJ Styles

File: 1437616627140.png (330KB, 414x499px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 414x499px

We should've gone Ancient with the naming scheme.

>Hyperion
>Hades
>Theseus
>Atlas

Or, the phrase.

Halo does a good job with this.

https://namingschemes.com/Halo

File: 1462824871690.jpg (6KB, 399x399px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 399x399px

Requiem