What did they mean by this

File: zumwalt merchant.jpg (57KB, 322x471px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 322x471px

>>32833661
What Lockmart always means.

>>32833661
Just because it is the same shape doesn't mean it is the same plane.

>>32833661
The B-21 will be slightly smaller, but about 1/4 the cost and considerably cheaper to operate, while also being stealthier and more advanced electronically.

>>32833661
>dude every cranked kite is a B-2 XD

>>32834066
>imblying

>>32833661

B-21 is smaller than B-2.

>>32834106
>about 1/4 the cost and considerably cheaper to operate, while also being stealthier and more advanced electronically
Hmm where have I heard this before...

So what are these replacing? B-2s? B1s? BUFFs?

File: 139483627938.png (563KB, 569x802px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 569x802px

>>32834207
Wow you sure convinced me

>>32834577
The B-21 is using all existing technologies. Hell, so far R&D has been *under* budget.

>>32834609
It's not a 1:1 replacement for anything specifically, but we'll likely see the B-52 and B-1B either retired completely, or changed into new roles (eg, the B-52 will probably become the Arsenal Plane and stop being a strategic bomber).

>>32834621
>so far R&D has been *under* budget.
You fucking jinxed it!

File: FzZaY20.jpg (444KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2560x1440px

>>32834567
b2 is small

>>32834106
>The Ford class will be slightly bigger, but about 1/4 the cost and considerably cheaper to operate, while also being stealthier and more advanced electronically.

FTFY.

>>32834718
For you??

>>32834721
When did they ever say it'd be 1/4 the cost?

>>32834721
Except nobody thought that

>>32834721
Yeah there's no way they ever said that. With projects like the b2 a lot of cost is r&d. With carriers it's almost entirely material and labor. We try but there's only so much you can do to streamline the process.

>t. NNS worker

>>32833661
>Known shape, thus less effort to design
>Engines, sensors, comms, and stealth materials all direct from F-35
This is why we put so much into the F-35, to boost everything else following.

>>32833908
>What Lockmart always means.
Northrop-Grumman's building it, retard.

>>32834066
It's not the same shape though.

>>32833661
For someone who has only been paying partial attention.

They are basically taking all the expensive software and electronics from the F35, putting it into a diferent airframe that uses the same engines as F35 and then hoping that will make an affordable bomber with all these shiny new capabilities.

right?

>>32833661
Lets just hope Trump doesn't limit the order size so that he can fight sandniggers, I'm sick of seeing this happen.

>>32833661
So although I didn't prefer the name Raider, I get it, and it's not bad. But is that really the official font they've chosen?

It's rather... effeminate for a weapon of war.

I wonder if they'll put AMRAAMs on it, I have a boner for arsenal plane

>>32835424
>same engines
Hell no.
Software, electronics, sensors, super cool VR helmets that let you see under the plane, etc. are what the big driving forces of this bomber are. We could retrofit the B2s for a bit, but it wouldn't be cheap to fly. Not that it matters, because flying B2s is still cheaper than buying a bunch of new planes you won't use.

To be honest, I'm hoping the B21 is a smaller bomber with supercruise capabilities, cool software, and the ability to deliver retarded amounts of ordinance and guided bombs that can have separate GPS coordinates per bomb just like the B2 does. Fly over a city and destroy all major infrastructure.

>>32835505
>fighting sandniggers with billion dollars stealth bombers

Good goy, waste your money

>>32835537
>Hell no.
They're using F135s, which are currently the most powerful engines in service.

>>32835554
>not understanding the purpose of weapons development

>>32835564
Where did you see this? I can't find any information confirming this.

>>32835554
Money is free, while casualties are not. The military-industrial complex paid me nicely and killing sandnigs is a sport like varminting, but without the empathy a ground hog might inspire.

>>32835629

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-utx-bomber-idUSKCN0WC2YZ

>>32835662
You quite obviously did not read that article. Expected commonality and using the same engine are two very different things.

>>32835684

I'm not even that guy, I just dug up a source because you're too lazy to Google.

>>32835706
A source that doesn't dispute what I originally said

>>32835898
P&W is a tier one supplier of the B-21.

Expect a non afterburning variant of the F-135, they already said the bomber will be subsonic.

As for hard and fast confirmation, nothing is hard and fast right now. Plane is still effectively black.

>>32834753
>We try but there's only so much you can do to streamline the process.
My ass.

>A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships.
>Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built.

Ford class (largest warships, 114 000 tons): $14 000 million
MSC Oscar class (largest container ships, 200 000 tons): $140 million

>>32835554
My town needs these b21s to stay afloat because the government has been trying to shut down our base. We are one of two bases that still has B1s

>>32835554
>it isn't glorified welfare
The US spends so much on the military because the national morale would never survive a hard transition to a welfare state.
They're slowly inching their way there, it's unavoidable with the expansion of technology, but until then, huge military spending.

>>32835961
>an aircraft carrier built under extreme government regulations using two fucking nuclear reactors for power and filled with complex systems to support/launch planes, defend itself, and sustain thousands of crew is the same as a giant floating barge guys

>t. a total dumbass

Cargo ships are nowhere near the complexity or intensity of a military ship. NNS tried to get into the commercial market but couldn't while being cost competitive because of the extreme difference between military ships that have to be capable of sustaining damage and stay afloat. Commercial boats have shit standards and construction compared to a carrier, which makes them much cheaper.

I'm really hoping you were trolling with that post though.

>>32836138
You missed the point completely.
I've been in innumerable discussions like this, yet after all this time I'm still consistently surprised by how much difficulty Americans have identifying straightforward ideas from plain language.

Have you even read 1984?

>>32833661
>nobody knows if this stealth craft will be in the sky or not
>nobody even knows if it's being built or not
i fail to see the problem, citizen

>>32834621
>B-52
>Retirement

Never, we'll be bombing ayys with B-52s.

>>32835997
The US spends so much money because the rich profit from our global economic influence.

The public, not so much. Therefore the only logical thing for peasants anywhere is serve warlords.

>>32836236
>Therefore the only logical thing for peasants anywhere is serve warlords.
To the primitive mind, maybe.
Western Europe moved passed this level of society in the 1950s.
But they understand the true cost of pouring excess production into weapons.

>>32836220
>Bunch of ayys in their shielded encampment building up enough troops for an attack on a local bunker
>B-52 slowly starts making its way over their encampment
>(in alien) "Bro what the fuck is that noise?"
>What is the technological equivalent of a crude hang glider is appearing in the sky above them
>Nothing to use sensors on, it's a fucking diesel engine with no energy transmitters or ew warfare, flying radio silent
>Suddenly, a massive 2 megaton bomb is dropped on the 113 troop encampment that, to them, is seemingly insignificant and barely worth caring about
>Energy shield holds, but massive concussion blows through the energy shield and bounces back and forth like 7 times
>Dazed and confused, the same alien says "Aww bro what the fuck"
>Massive headaches and migraines for the next 2 weeks

If you can't beat 'em, troll 'em.

>>32835511
Since Doolittle's Raiders were WWII, I think they meant to chose a font reminiscent of WWII nose art.

>>32835537
>We could retrofit the B2s for a bit, but it wouldn't be cheap to fly.
The main issue is that no matter how you update B-2s, their RAM coatings especially and many of the skin/frame composites require so much care that they are stuck in climate controlled hangars at all times and require tens of hours of service just on their RAM coatings every single flight. No matter what you do to update software and capability, they're still incredibly expensive to operate.

Now that RAM material science has progressed 30 years, it's far far cheaper to apply in production (F-35 uses almost exclusively robotics applied sprays compared to even the F-22's laboriously hand-applied coating just a decade ago), far more robust in daily operations (F-35 is the first USMC/USN VLO manned aircraft because the coatings are finally though enough to withstand the worst climate conditions without babying) and finally actually easy to service (maintenance port design and RAM reapplication procedures are orders of magnitude better than even for the F-22, much less the B-2).

CONT

>>32836491
Basically, there are several things about the B-2 which are more or less obsolete:
>very outdated RAM/composite materials taking way too much time to service
>outdated engines
>with the advent of mass PGM use and individually targeting software for every boom in the bombbay, no longer a need for as massive a payload or as massive an airframe to get the same effect on target - smaller bombers with half the engines means far less service time and more efficient use of resources, i.e. more bombers to go around
>reduced service requirements means they can be deployed at places other than Whiteman in Missouri, including at airbases close to the conflict. This ups effective sortie rate by an order of magnitude
>lower cost per unit means they can and will be useful in day to day mission coverage rather than just nutcracking to open the war - CAS, strike, interdiction, even recon are all on the table now instead of just day-1 infililtration strikes against IADS/C4SIR infrastructure and specialized missions

>>32836201
>I've been in innumerable discussions like this, yet after all this time I'm still consistently surprised by how much difficulty Americans have identifying straightforward ideas from plain language.
Are you that same asshole that gets faceraped every week because you try to try to argue that milspec warships should be built from modified civilian tanker/container designs? The one who gets dogpiled by everyone who's ever actually sailed on a military or civilian ship before and actually knows what they're talking about and the vastly different requirements between the two?

If so, howdy and go fuck yourself you autistically insistent yet consistent fucking wrong dripdown failure at even abortion.

>>32836281
>But they understand the true cost of pouring excess production into weapons.
Yet they completely failed to understand the cost of NOT investing in modern warfighting capabilities and adequate standing forces.

Now that Trump is shitting on every alliance and military cooperation treaty the US has, Western Europe is getting might nervous about that little oversight.

>>32836330
>2186
>Decades after The Warp openned up next to Terra III
>The wisdom of the 21st century has largely been lost
>Mutants roam
>Society kaput
>A clan in the sporadically populated tribal region of what was once North Dakota has dedicated itself to a machine
>A B52
>It takes thousands of man hours to create the fuel and parts for a flight hour
>For 30 years hundreds of priests had given their lives to refurbish an ultimate weapon from ages past
>They fly a terminal sortie against mutant stronghold
>The mutilated urbanscape that was once Seattle immolated by the detonation of 3 nigger rigged B83 nuclear devices.

>>32836201
No I didn't. You said that a military ship is much more expensive than a comparable civilian ship and that must mean that the military shipyard is wasting tons of money.

I explained why that is wrong and you are comparing apples to oranges. There was no other argument in your pseudointellectual little rant.

>>32836725
>You said that a military ship is much more expensive than a comparable civilian ship
Yes

>that must mean that the military shipyard is wasting tons of money.
No

This is where you got lost

>A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships.
>locked up in it the labour
>several hundred cargo-ships.

>Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built.
>never having brought any material benefit to anybody

>>32836775

Two fallacious implications here:

One, that if you do not use a weapon, it is without benefit. Completely fallacious in the fact that the weapons existence itself deters attackers and also that just because a need did not arise mean the object is not needed. If you don't ever have a fire in your life, does that mean all those smoke detectors you owned were a waste? This is directly contradictory to his core point.

Two: That the world is in desperate need of cargo ships, or that cargo ship production is stymied by fortress production. I know its metaphorical, but i cant think of a peacetime military project that took resources away from comparable civilian assets. In war time its clearly needed, thus irrelevant.

Orwell is good at providing thought provoking ideas, but if you look too deep his analogys fall apart.

>>32836775
I didn't get lost. By saying that it hasn't brought any material benefit to anyone, are you not saying it's a waste of money. Also, by replying "my ass" to my statement about NNS working hard to reduce costs you are saying that we are wasting money. You got lost in your own argument.

>>32836824
>Orwell is good at providing thought provoking ideas, but if you look too deep his analogys fall apart.
An analogy is "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification."
Comparing giant warships to giant warships is not an analogy.

>>32836855
>to my statement about NNS working hard to reduce costs you are saying that we are wasting money
If your entire venture is by definition squandered funds, doesn't that make the idea of your austerity scoffable?

>>32836920
>Comparing giant warships to giant warships is not an analogy.

One, its comparing giant warships to cargo ships, two, if you do not think its an analogy for government waste in general. you are a dullard.

Are you going to address my points or are you going to keep wallowing around in your unwashed retarded logic?

>>32836953
>its an analogy for government waste in general
no, it's not.
it's a pretty straigthforward quote.
you need to pull some pretty thick wool in front of your eyes to see something other than one it is.

>>32836920
>entire venture is squandered funds
Yeah, I don't think so. A national defense is in no way squandered funds. The way it's accomplished can be wasteful, but it is not automatically squandered funds.

>>32837017
>no, it's not.

If you actually read the book, my retarded friend, or hell, your quote, you would know he is using it as an example for (and i do now quote) "war is destruction. not necessarily of human lives, but the products of human labour".

He was not just talking about ships. Even a child could see that, but being that you are a mental midget, it makes sense you miss it and took it very literally.

I thought non Americans were supposed to be smart?

>>32837101
His entire argument is one quote from orwell while running his sentences through a thesaurus. It's pretty clear this is a 14 year old who has just read 1984 for the first time and is trying to win an argument by the old "I use bigger words than you" tactic.

>>32837119

But even using that quote, it includes "for example", which clearly points it to being an analogy, using his own words "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.".

Going by JUST the quote and his posts, he is wrong. He proved himself wrong. On 4th grade reading level shit.

Flying wing is the future, its better than the old fashioned plane

Obviously 30-40 years of progress is a big deal, totally different aircraft with a substantially lower price tag.

>>32837576
durrr why make new version of same thing we already have
-People who just upgraded their PCs from a 2nd generation i5 to a 5th gen

>>32834577
The B-2 has the computing power of a 16-bit DOS machine or thereabouts. It's a complete joke by modern standards.

File: SeaHarriers_FA2_in_Persian_Gulf.jpg (705KB, 1624x1065px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 1624x1065px

>>32833661
I have a different question, how does B-2 and Harrier get away with not having diverter planes?

>>32840324
Subsonic.

The real black magic is in the divertless supersonic intakes on the F-35.

>Could have called it the Wraith
>Decided to name it after a botched WW2 raid that lost 16 bombers

It's like a condensed, physical form of irony

>>32833908
It's a Northrop-Grumman contract, dumbass

>>32840324
A lot of fucking research and development man.
The f22 and F35 are engineering masterpieces.

>>32840324
Diverter plates aren't necessarily required. Their function is to prevent the engines from ingesting the boundary layer that forms forward of the intakes.

Depending on just how big that boundary layer is, consequences of ingesting the boundary layer vary. In the worst cases, it can cause compressor stalls or shorten engine lives by fatiguing fan blades, but if you can keep the boundary layer small, it can be manageable.

In the cases of the B-2 and Harrier, it looks like the area forward of the intakes is short enough that a significant boundary layer can't form before being ingested into the intakes.At that point, they've probably got fewer issues with boundary layer ingestion than aircraft with long intakes like the F-8 have.

>>32833661
>What did they mean by this
Northrup Grumman needs corporate welfare too you guys :'(

>>32840472
>>Decided to name it after a botched WW2 raid that lost 16 bombers
It accomplished its mission. It gave notice to the Japanese people that the home islands were open to attack and would be attacked. For the first time in 9 years of conflict instigate by the Japanese, their own homes were at risk and their own workplaces had been bombed. That was huge for Japanese culture at that time. The very first crack in the facade.

It also served as a huge morale boost both for troops and the war bond drive at home. We basically took their blueprint for Pearl Harbor, said turnabout is fair play, and symbolically poked them all right in the eye.

By the way, no one really expected to get those bombers back. They all expected to end up ditching over China.

File: 440px-B-2_inlet[1].jpg (16KB, 440x199px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 440x199px

>>32840324
The B-2 does have splitter plates
Harrier doesn't because its just a slow plane.

>>32840654
>of conflict instigate by the Japanese,

The fairy tales that the retard americans tell themselves to justify their mass murder of civilians

>>32841029
If you're going to try and bait another round of Japanese war crimes bingo, at least try to be fucking subtle about it.

>>32833661

This time it's going to be cheaper and more efficient to build, and totally not two different production lines of the same thing only they have near-zero compatible parts complicating logistics needlessly

>>32834621
Do we even know the budget? It seems like they've learned from the JSF program not to tell the public what is going on.

>>32836526

>argue that milspec warships should be built from modified civilian tanker/container designs

Battleship fags are one thing, but this is a whole new level of autism

>>32836562
Include me in the Reddit post

>>32835511
Isn't that also the name of the sikorsky helicopter in development?

>>32836138
Actually he had the numbers wrong costs around 350 million to build a 18000 teu conbulk. And they tend to have similar levels of complexity to military ships. Not quite the level of redundency but close enough. Thing is you have lots more space on a millitary ship that is habitable so you have far more in the way of DC. Expensive. Newport news has the largest goliath of any yard and is booked for then next 20 years so commercial builds have not been done since the 90s. Why book a 1300 ton crane when a 600 tonne grand block is your biggest
Lift.

>>32844411
>And they tend to have similar levels of complexity to military ships.
How can this be when for instance a destroyer might have an order of magnitude more systems per cubic meter of hull volume compared to a con carrier? I mean, whatever isn't engineering and living space is crammed with DC, sensors, weapons, C4SIR, crypto, EW, etc. Any military vessel will have a systems analogue for anything on a civie plus redundancies and then all the shit no civie has.

>>32842634
We know the cost per jet, we don't know the lifecycle cost.

>>32834106
It's cheaper until it enters the death spiral of cost inflation.
B-2s ended up about 5x more expensive once orders were reduced.

>>32844654
Like the F-35, they can't kill the orders this time because B-52s and B-1Bs are just incapable of doing what they were originally designed for, and there's not enough B-2s to go around.

B-2 = F-22
B-21 = F-35

>>32844654
Yeah, congress has a lot of trouble understanding that tooling, training and R&D are the major cost of developing a complicated new system and aren't reduced by cutting orders.

Old retards think it's like buying Michael Bolton CD's at Walmart and if you buy 1 instead of 10 you've saved 90%.

Instead it's like ordering a dump truck full of gravel and cutting the order to six cubic inches when it arrives.

>>32841029
It was the the culling and taming of violent animals, not murder

File: 100204-F-1234S-002.jpg (343KB, 1800x1431px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1800x1431px

>>32840654
>They all expected to end up ditching over China.

One made it to Soviet Union, some ditched at sea on Chinese coast.

>>32844535
>nuclear reactors
>weapon systems
>advanced radar and communication systems
>advanced defense systems
>needs a lot of crew or the equipment to replace it

vs

>diesel engines
>large storage spaces
>shit radar and meh communication systems
>one guy with a shotgun
>doesn't need much crew


It's like comparing the Air Force One to a common passenger plane

>>32847651
That's what I thought, except closer to comparing a Toyota Carolla to an F1 car. One is functional, gets shit from point A to point B with reasonable creature comforts, the other dedicates every cubic centimeter of vehicle volume and every kilogram of mass to shit that will make it accelerate better, turn faster, brake harder and grip better.

Passenger jets are, after all, very complex and expensive machines in their own right.

>>32847744
Now imagine that the f1 car is powered with extremely hazardous materials that make it run amazingly well for 25 years, but also requires complete monitoring of all personnel involved with construction, operation, and refueling of the engine. Not to mention all the tracking and cleanliness for every component.

>>32842695
I remember those treads. They started popping up alongside a few treads about how the Argies could take back the Falks by ramming a containership full of troops into the island.
To this day i honestly cant tell if he was kidding, stupid or just the greatest troll ever to grace this place

>>32847940
>tfw no nuclear powered f1 car
formula when?

>>32848042
When we either stop giving a shit about safety regulations or find a much more effective method of shielding than lead and water.

File: 1481125732750.gif (981KB, 1064x589px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1064x589px

>>32841029
shutting this shit down before it picks up

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>32848028
>To this day i honestly cant tell if he was kidding, stupid or just the greatest troll ever to grace this place
Pic related. It's a few copycat trolls working off the shit this asshole does. He's argued for battleships, heavy lift gliders replacing our tac logistics fixed wing and rotary wing birds, civie-converted warships/carriers, vast fleets of armored amphib and small gunboats to replace most of our current fleet and all manner of other completely retarded shit. He isn't gone, he's just moved on to autistically shill whatever retarded idea last popped into the rational wasteland he calls a brain.

>>32847940
>Now imagine that the f1 car is powered with extremely hazardous materials that make it run amazingly well for 25 years, but also requires complete monitoring of all personnel involved with construction, operation, and refueling of the engine. Not to mention all the tracking and cleanliness for every component.

Funny that you mentioned F1, just forget about shit being allowed in F1 for 25 years instead of banning it.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/02/08/banned-beryllium/

>As Ferrari’s car performance drew closer to McLaren’s, the differences in engine power between the two became starkly clear to Ross Brawn. He realised that McLaren’s Mercedes engine was able to rev as high as Ferrari’s, but with a longer piston stroke, ultimately delivering more power:
>With a longer stroke, Merecedes reaches the same revs we do. God knows how they do it.
>A substantial part of the explanation for how they were doing it lay in the elastic properties of beryllium – an exotic and carcinogenic material used to produce either the pistons or cylinder linings as an alloy with aluminium.
>Central to the argument over beryllium were the issues of cost and safety. Not only expensive to procure, the material proved extremely difficult to work with.
>Although it is poisonous and carcinogenic, Ron Dennis insisted that, once manufactured, it posed no danger.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/02/15/banned-rocket-fuel/
>The fuel regulations at the time demanded that the petrol used in cars be similar to that used in road cars. But the loose wording of the regulations gave the imaginative BMW technicians some wiggle room.
>They realised that they could produce a legal fuel that did not exceed the regulatory limit of 102 octane (octane being a measure of petroleum-based fuel performance) incorporating toluene.
>This came at a price – the fuels contained around 80% toluene and were poisonous and enormously expensive, costing up to USD $300 per litre at the time.

>>32848060
>>32848042

you'd also need a bit more efficient power generation.

an f1 engine weighs about 145kg, and produces around 550Kw of power, plus 120KW of electrical power available on tap. More importantly, it fits in a volume of space roughly the size of a big rucksack, not including fuel tanks and cooling.

in contrast, the RTG for the Curiosity rover is 45kg, and produces a grand total of... 125 watts of electrical power. Yes, watts, not kilowatts. its a little smaller, but not a lot.

a 500kw reactor? well, its not going to get close to that weight - you'd be looking at closer to 300-400 kilos just for containment and the reactor itself. and volume-wise, its 3-4 times bigger.

So till they improve the efficiency of a reactor by about 400%, its not going to provide sufficient power to match an F1 engine in the same sort of volume.

>>32848429
True, but that's why I mentioned disregarding safety regulations or improving shielding. I wasn't envisioning them using something like a standard water reactor, but something like the engine they planned for project Pluto. Something balls to the wall crazy with no regard for human safety.

>>32845335
I may be wrong but I think the assumption is that they can always build more if there's a sudden need for them, while it would be harder to develop something new. So that way you keep decent capabilities while spending less.

>>32835537
>supercruise
>flying wing design

nop