Could the B-2 get the stealth coating of the F-35?

The paint on the F-35 is basically ingrained into the skin of the jet itself, so unless they completely rebuild all B-2s it won't happen.

>>33773482
Alright.

>>33773467
>>33773482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider
it's why this is coming

lower maintenance and cheaper doesn't mean better

File: vAEZ6XbP_400x400.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>33773482

>He thinks RAM is responsible for the low RCS of the new generation aircraft

>>33773482
>so unless they completely rebuild all B-2s it won't happen.
Worth it desu
Honestly they should just make the B-21 a full-blown modernized B-2 so that they can upgrade B-2s to B-21 spec, or at least cannibalize the B-2s for parts.

>>33773528
B-2's are remaining in service.
B-21s are not replacing them.

>>33773552
Off topic, but I enjoy how the B-1, B-2, and XB-70, have attempted to replace the B-52 but have all failed. And now the B-21 is going for that crown.

File: MSa2mcL.jpg (114KB, 960x586px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x586px

>>33773639
Well yeah B52 is said to remain in service, or at least 'fit' for service until 2050.

So eventually the B-21 will replace all the B-52s and B-1 lancers

The bomber expected to replace the B-2 directly is anticipated to be introduced sometime in the late 2030s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2037_Bomber

Over 700 B-52s were built iirc

I'm not sure how many are in active service but it would be nice to see B-52s converted for civilian use as cargo transports.

I don't know how efficient that would be, probably not comparable to standard haulers but who knows.

>>33773482
F-35 RAM has been applied to the F-22.

>>33773820
I read somewhere that the number of currently active B-52s is 68, but I highly doubt that. I'd imagine it's closer to 100.

>>33773516
it's part of it, but tbqh it's more of a cost and maintenance thing

>>33773907
They keep the B-52 around by periodically scrapping aircraft for parts

>>33773966
Oh yeah. 68 is quite a reasonable number now. Would it be possible to have a new production run of B-52s?

>>33773988
No point building anything that isn't a stealth bomber

Way too much money is spent on aircraft anyways, you don't win wars with aircraft

>>33774023
It helps to have aircraft if you want to win wars.
Also, it's good to have a cheap to fly bomb truck around, and the B-2s don't come cheap.