B2 Bomber Improvements

File: b2 turret.png (582KB, 1288x416px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1288x416px

>>33580284

What happens when you're trying to drop metal-encased chemically reactive freedom on Mohamed and his 20 little terrorist-in-training friends the media calls “civilians”, but some lowly Mig-21 managed to take off from his bombed-out airfield like a fly from a turd and got up behind your shit unnoticed?

This is where my improvement comes in. In an unused portion of the space inside the airframe, a remote-controlled machine gun turret is installed. The turret houses a single high rate of fire, high-velocity 10mm machine gun (greater range than a 7.62 and able to damage the engines of jets on frontal attack vectors easily), which is expanded when targets are detected and retracted to improve radar signature/aeroydynamics.

File: b2 turret cutaway.png (29KB, 1012x780px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1012x780px

>>33580297
The turret contains its own radar unit and is linked to the main aircraft computer, which calculates a firing solution for the machine gun. When retracted, the unit is turned off to improve stealth capability. The gun traverses vertically to near 90 degrees so that the entire unit fits in the small space available.

>>33580320
So there you have it, a B2 bomber with a retractable machine gun turret for when your Tomahawk bombardments don't ground every obsolete commie plane.

>>33580320
So what happens if the B2 is going fast enough that the turret pops out and then gets immediately gets ripped off.

>>33580284
Replace completely with the far superior B-2.1 Raider

Job done.

>>33580389
can't happen b2's move slower than f-117 fighter jets. this idea is perfect

>>33580389
The top doors fold and lock into place so it can't just pop out.

>>33580389
can also confirm that 10mm is infact the most lethal firarm in production. we have apex rounds from the f35 ready too

>B-21 instead of B-3
What did they mean by this?

>>33580905
do you not know about the hypersonic stealth b-3 ghoul

>>33580297

this area is probably filled with avionics/data links

>>33580905

american aircraft nomenclature/designations has always been insantiy

>>33580905
>all these discarded names

https://www.scribd.com/document/324888096/B-21-Name-Submissions

>>33580920
I don't watch anime.
>>33580922
Not really all that much and they tried to fix it more or less successfully. I mean why not B-3? There's B-1, B-2 and there's a "new" nomenclature. why fucking it up with F-1XX tier names? It really triggers my aurism.
>>33580958
That's names though, not designations.

>>33581043
you don't sound like you know what you're talking about kid. perhaps you should let the educated here speak. sorry autismo

File: b-2 & b-52 & b-1b.jpg (173KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 3000x2000px

>>33581065
You are free to piss off, I'll wait the educated to speak.

File: 6032772170_55396eff81_o.jpg (40KB, 720x580px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 720x580px

>>33581043

yeah it was rationalized pretty successfully but prior to 47 or whatever it was the system made nearly no sense

>dude remember the french 75?
>we want our fighter named p-75
>just skip some digits for us
>o-o-ok GM

I could see something similar happening with b-21

Also reminder that the F-35 is called that because an airforce general just blurted it out at a peress conference

>>33581078
I'm aloooooooooot smarter than you ok my kid

>>33581078
do you legit have autism. you didn't deny it

File: 0608020913.jpg (284KB, 900x990px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 900x990px

>>33580320
>10mm

Quite aesthetic choice of caliber for remote controlled turret.

>>33581043
>Not really all that much and they tried to fix it more or less successfully. I mean why not B-3?

Because reasons.

>There's B-1, B-2 and there's a "new" nomenclature. why fucking it up with F-1XX tier names? It really triggers my aurism.

There is reason why they decided to reset the numbering sequence after they went over hundred and combined it for all services. It is harder make distinction between several large numbers than it is with small numbers.

>>33580905
The logic was literally / officially
>B-21; the new US bomber for the 21st century

Better avionics, more efficient engines from the ADVENT program, and its VLO coating removed and replaced with the F-35s fiber mat, which doesnt need climate controlled hangars.

>>33580284
A plane better than the B2 will never be designed because we've now exhausted our supply of stolen Nazi designs and all the Operation Paperclip scientists are dead.

Prove me wrong.

>>33581720
Jet engine and stealth tech has continued to improve; QED

>>33581123
It wasn't a USAF General, it was a Lockheed PR rep -.-

>>33581736
Mere refinements on existing ideas.

>>33581749
Which were originally refinements on existing US ideas

File: 635920764844302418-b21-hirespng.png (1MB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x900px

>>33581720

>Le B2 is a HO229 meme

literally the only similarity is they are jet powered flying wings

besides they are already working on a b2 replacement.

>>33581884
>besides they are already working on a b2 replacement.
No. Supplement to the B-52 and stopgap until the 2037 bomber is in service.

>>33581884
>literally the only similarity is they are jet powered flying wings
Implying that tilting barrel slide lock handguns aren't all blatant takes on John Browning's innovation?
>besides they are already working on a b2 replacement.
Yeah, let another Ho229 clone.

File: Northrop_N-1M_NASM.jpg (218KB, 1583x873px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1583x873px

>>33581969
You mean an N-1M clone, right?

File: on-the-minimum-induced-drag-of-wings-or-thinking-outside-the-box-10-638.jpg (46KB, 638x493px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 638x493px

>>33581969
>let another Ho229 clone.

love this meme

>>33582012
Naboo

>>33582012
George Lucas did it first.

File: 2c6e02cd3c82e2de5e39e0dc69fc5a2e.jpg (236KB, 1080x586px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1080x586px

what does the Y in YF stand for?

>>33581433
>It is harder make distinction between several large numbers than it is with small numbers.
Yeah, well, maybe, but doesn't it apply to B-21 instead of B-3 too?
>>33581621
So you are telling me it's like how millennials call everything TWO-POINT-OW without any reason whatsoever? REEEEEEEEEE

File: vs-2.jpg (39KB, 669x413px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 669x413px

>>33581884
>Le B2 is a HO229 meme
Why not this then? It's like a decade or two before Ho229.

>>33582476
Usually it's reserved for a pre-production prototype. X designation would be the initial prototype, with the first pre-production batch being given the Y designator and more closely resembling the aircraft that would be entering service.

More recently, the USAF has thrown around designations without much logic to it. There was the YF-22/23, which were both rough prototypes that historically would be XF rather than YF, but then the JSF prototypes were given full X designations without even XF, fucking with how NASA designates their experimental planes.

>>33582476
It means they are prototype aircraft.

>>33581919
The 2037 and 2018 bomber concepts were dissolved; 2018 became LRS-B, which became the B-21, 2037 might happen, but there's no direct continuation of the program at the moment and there might never be if scramjet cruise missiles make it irrelevant.

>>33582476

Proof of concept prototype in recent years, it used to be pre-production aircraft in past.

>>33582652
>Yeah, well, maybe, but doesn't it apply to B-21 instead of B-3 too?

21 is still quite small number.

>>33582708

They were consistent with this shit roughly until 60's.

File: 11356 admiral grigorovich (3).jpg (718KB, 2806x1579px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 2806x1579px

>>33582883
>21 is still quite small number.
F-106 is not either. I mean I get when westerners complain about our "Project XXXX.X" ship designations, but the point is if they decided to stick with the new numerology in 1964 or whatever year that was, why changing it now?

>>33582844
>2037 bomber concept
What was it? B-52 replacement?

>>33582672
Ridiculous.

>>33580297
>10mm caliber

>>33582883
>They were consistent with this shit roughly until 60's.
'62, to be exact. McNamara's restructuring of the DoD designation systems fixed things for the most part, but with fewer contracts being handed out, it seems like they fell into memeing instead of sticking to the system 100%.

It probably started after the -teen series fighters (F-14, -15, -16, -17/18). While the designation system was "filled" before that (mostly obsolete Navy types carrying over from the pre-1962 system like the F3D/F-10), to the layman it looked like we just arbitrarily started at 14. And of course then politics gets involved, and, with fewer and fewer fighters being designed, sticking to the system 100% didn't really matter so much, so we started skipping things.

>>33582962
2037 Bomber was supposed to be the replacement for the current strategic bomber fleet. 2018 bomber was supposed to be a stopgap supplement to allow us to phase out the oldest aircraft in the fleet.

File: vs-2 dimensions.jpg (81KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 750x563px

>>33582974
DON'T YOU DARE TO QUESTION THE PROGRESS. Dat paintjob tho.

>>33582985
Do they still develop 2037 one or was it ditched? I mean I sure hope B-52 airframes get to a rather historical 100 years in service mark, but it would have been nice to see some top notch American strategic bomber of the current decade. Does the US even care about the air-launched component of the triad anymore?

>>33583021
Odds are there's development going on right now with all three big manufacturers, but no contract has been placed and there hasn't even been any official talk of a 2037 Bomber since the 2018 Bomber program was replaced with the LRS-B.

We're still a long way off from even the final requirements for a 2037 Bomber being decided on, let alone any definitive contracts.

File: a-57.jpg (23KB, 617x315px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 617x315px

>>33583057
I wonder if they just merged both concepts which resulted in LRS-B or is there something entirely different in development. A-57 Bartini for illustration purposes, though I believe the era of these beauties has passed.

>>33583215
I doubt it. The LRS-B program requirements stressed cheapness over almost everything else. It's supposed to reuse a lot of the tech matured as part of the F-35, and it's going to have a significantly lower total payload capacity and shorter range than the rest of our bombers, which leads me to believe that it's meant to be an interim rather than full replacement.

>>33580958
>A.K.A. The World
NOT EVERYTHING IS A FUCKING JOJO REFERENCE YOU CUNTS

>>33580284

The B-21 IS the B-2 moderinzation program. What you can do is replace as much of the B-2's avionics with the B-21's as possible to bring it up to standard, but to produce more when the entire point of its successor was to make a version of it that didn't cost a small country to produce would be fruitless.

>>33583326
Probably a ling awaited genuine F-117 replacement?

>>33582962
2018 bomber was to be a subsonic stealthy bomber (the B-21), the 2037 bomber was meant to be a hypersonic, stealthy super bomber.

>>33580284
Give it lower wing loading and a 30mm Gatling gun.

>>33583522
The F-117 only carried 2 bombs and had archaic avionics; the F-22, let alone the F-35 are far better deep strike bombers.

File: article-2430802-183A3C2000000578-557_634x476.jpg (59KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 634x476px

>>33582937
>F-106 is not either. I mean I get when westerners complain about our "Project XXXX.X" ship designations, but the point is if they decided to stick with the new numerology in 1964 or whatever year that was, why changing it now?

It is about psychological factors. More numbers you add, more confusing it gets. US Army and Navy were heading to different kind of confusing with over 9000 items and systems designated M[insert a small number] something, as result they simply started naming stuff generals and shieet on army side and F[insert a small number] [manufacturer designation letter].

The few additions in F-100+ designations after they reset the numbering sequence were there to confuse Soviet spies. F-113 was cover for MiG-23 they got from Egyptians and Israelis. F-117 to fool people that they were doing some random testing with some old prototype if bureaucratic error left something about it being published.

>>33583021

B-52 is supposed to be retired in 2038. B-21 is de-facto replacement for it and B-1B's. 2037 bomber was supposed to be replacement for B-2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430802/David-Welsh-B-52-Air-Force-Capt-Daniel-Swoop-Welch-piloting-plane-father-flew-Cold-War-grandfather-flew-Vietnam.html

I wonder will they manage to make being B-52 pilot family profession for 4 generations.

Why don't stealth aircraft use missile tubes, like the torpedo tubes used on submarines? Seems like it would be a lot stealthier than opening a giant doors in the bottom of the weapons bay.

>>33583996
Because that's a less efficient use of space / limits options for future weapons. What if you wanted to drop a huge bunker buster instead of a tiny missile?

Better to just make the doors deploy very quickly.

They should mount 100+ AMRAAMs on the B-2 for it to shoot at targets painted by F-35s

The b-2 needs a dorsal vertical stabilizer.

B2 is too focus-specific and in the changing budgetary concerns of the current year we need it to be more adaptable and versatile or we're spending billions on a really limited aircraft

Heres my proporsal /k/, DoD, Mr. President:
>modify cargo bay to support 12 paratroopers for behind enemy lines HALO/HAHO insertion to verify bombs dropped accurately and on target
>add additional pylons for AIM missiles in case enemy planes try to intercept
>install 30mm gunpods and 76mm gun in the front nose (that has a tracking system that rotates with the Gunners HUD display like the Apache - for ground support and ground strike missions
>modify cockpit to include third gunners seat and station
>modify weapons bay for a downward facing ball turret and gunner in order to protect the vulnerable open bay when its open from sneaky planes
>modify left and right side of fusealge for waist gunners in order to protect the vulnerable sides
>add additional pylons for Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land missiles to bridge the gap and attack what bombs cant

These additions should be able to justify the incredible, wasteful $2 Billion cost of the airframe now and give it true multirole capability and flexibility

File: pylon.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>33586188
>add additional pylons for AIM missiles in case enemy planes try to intercept
>additional pylons