What is the point of these things again? I feel like we don't

because northrop told the generals to tell the government that we need them.

Google "nuclear triad".

>>33240608
Lockmart plz

>>33240608
They look cool

>>33240608
Trying to finish off the death spiral, are we?

Honestly they shoulda just restarted production of the B-2 for LRSB with a few tweaks. It'd be a great way of bringing the fleet costs per flight hour down.

>>33240673
LRSB is literally just a smaller B-2 with F-35 tech integrated into it. That's how the program is so damn cheap.

>>33240608
We keep them around in case we fight an enemy that's NOT a Middle East shithole.

>>33240608
They are just programs to develop technologies, move money around, and employ people
>t.defense worker

>>33240795
How does one become a defense worker?

File: 220px-Uk-grable2.jpg (18KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x275px

>>33240608
They were originally built to drop gravity nukes on Soviet targets that weren't valuable enough to warrant the use of an ICBM but still valuable enough to warrant being nuked.

With the end of the cold war they've been relegated to bomb trucks for blowing up sand people.

We really don't need them right now, but should we ever go to war against people competent enough to by a SAM from the Chinese or Russian (ie Serbia, Iraq circa 2005, etc) then the value of a heavy stealth bomber suddenly becomes very apparent when you need a plane to kill lots of SAM sites and radar stations without being shot down

I mean, the ability of a stealth bomber to infiltrate an enemy city, base, etc's airspace and drop a fuck ton of independently targeted JADAMs and then dissappear into the night is pretty cool.

>>33240968
>>33240932
But these things are like 30 years old now. The F-22 isn't even completely stealthy anymore, it seems like the stealth aspect of these is probably iffy at this point.

File: hmm.gif (2MB, 330x186px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x186px

>>33241088
>The F-22 isn't even completely stealthy anymore

>>33241628
They aren't.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/22/China-tracked-US-F-22-Raptors-over-East-China-Sea-analyst-says/7521456157668/

>>33240608
Welfare for AF.

File: swI3p3Q.gif (2MB, 450x187px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x187px

>>33241088
>Stealth, just, like, wears out or somethin', man.

>>33241663

Pretty sure he meant that radars improve but keep being (deliberately?) dumb

>>33241088
1. Stealth doesn't change, radar works the same way now as it did in 1987, the only differences in we have more powerful computers capable of identifying and distinguishing very small radar signatures (this doesn't mean that the b-2 isn't still stealthy though).
2. You're correct in saying it's 30 years old, airframe life and upkeep costs have become an issue, which is why the air force is building the B-3

>>33240692
>LRSB is literally just a smaller B-2 with F-35 tech integrated into it. That's how the program is so damn cheap.
But it's still a whole new design. I'd be surprised if it has more than 10% commonality with the B-2.

>>33240871
Fuck up in your teenage years and be forced into the highest paying least enjoyable career you can find, the government

>>33241713
>Fuck up in your teenage years
What if I'm still fucking up in my late 20s? Is there still hope for me?

>>33241730
Oh that's PRIME time. It's harder to get in without family who have worked before you, it's all class structured. By your late 20s you reek of desperation and lack of opportunity elsewhere and see a very safe long term bet with yoy

>>33241644
It's no secret that early warning radars can see stealth, the debate is how well an x-band radar (the ones that actually guide in missiles) can see it. You can see a stealth plane is in a general vicinity with the EW radars but when the raptors are launching weapons on the scrambled fighters before those fighters can see them with their own radars to employ their own missiles, the raptor really shines as the top air superiority fighter in the world.

>>33241663
Nobody implied that, dipshit. I was saying radars improve. The first stealth aircraft were experimented with in WWII but you can bet your ass they'd show up on radar today.
>>33241780
With an air superiority fighter, that's fine. But the B-2 is a bomber. It's maneuverability will be limited compared to even an interceptor. If someone really couldn't shoot it down with AA/AAA, if they had to, they could just send an interceptor up there and hit it with their gun all day long.

I don't know, I'm more of a ship nerd than an aircraft one. But it just seems to me that by now sensor suites have advanced enough that a stealth fighter from 30 years ago just won't be quite so stealthy today. And if that turns out to be the case, then the B-2 is really just a billion dollar bomber.

>>33241954
B-2 can be escorted by F-22s though. And this isn't a bomber that has to drop bombs, it can get much closer to radars than older non-stealthy bombers before being detected, even by early warning radars, then proceed to launch standoff weapons to hit whatever. A B-52 or B-1 can employ standoff weapons as well but they're much more limited on how close they can get and thus won't be able to hit the inland targets that the B-2 can.

>>33240608
In their current role?

Launching TLAM's and JSOM/JASSM's at S300/S400 sites from outside of targeting range with impunity.

Now we just need to fight someone that has S300/S400 sites.

>>33242042
>B-2 can be escorted by F-22s though.

Guess I never thought of that. I suppose they are useful to keep around then. But I still think the Air Force should probably look for a cheaper, more modern alternative.

>>33241644
You're especially thick. F-22 was NEVER completely stealthy

>>33241773

Say I have no degree (took a few cmpsci classes before dropping out) but I know computer vision + want to make killbots, do I have a shot?

>>33242123
No.

>>33242092
Well they are looking for a modern alternative (B-21) but it might not be much cheaper. As it stands, it can do a mission that no other bomber in the world can do, so the USAF is not going to get rid of it until they get something to replace it.

>>33242097
>where the goalposts are now
>
>
>
>where they were

>>33241688
Why try to make it have parts commonality with the plane that's no longer in production? The tooling and factory lines for the B-2s were shut down decades ago. You're better off just building a completely new plane.

>>33242145
IIRC, a B-21 is going to cost around $350 million compared to the B-2's $2 billion. Reduced cost was one of the specific requirements for LRSB.

>>33242360
Pretty much this. F-35 was built from the ground up. They might share some of the research on stealth but the F-35 doesn't even have a RAM that is supposed to be recoated like the B-2 or F-22. It is supposed to be lifelong for the jet but of course there will be touchups with normal wear and tear on the airframes.

>>33242092
of which retard. f-35 or b-21

>>33240608
just ponder for a moment the stuff they use that you dont know about yet

oh i'd love to work on the loading dock at darpa