B21 Export

>>34734705
>What are the chances of the UK buying B21

0%, the UK will stick with the nEUROn

>UK doesn't need an intercontinental bomber
[bombing argentina intensifies]

Absolutely zero since the RAF has no intention/desire/funds for a long range bomber.

>>34734792
nEuron and the B-21 are completely different aircraft. Like, not even in the same category.

nEuron is a (test platform for) ucav design, the b-21 is a strategic bomber.

why don't we just cut out the middle man and make stealth missiles instead of a billion dollar triangle?

>>34734836
you can use the half a billion dollar triangle more than once.

File: Angry_Ocean.jpg (1MB, 1600x1145px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1145px

>>34734705
Not going to happen, it isn't a capability the RAF needs.
Would be cool though
>Vulcan II
The bongs should have called the F-35 the Tempest, that way the FAA ones could be Sea Fury.

>>34734836
B21 is meant to be fairly cheap for what it is.

It's to use much of the design work from B2, with electronics, systems and engines from F35.

It's basically like taking everything that makes an F35 5th gen, putting it into a B2 airframe and upgrading the engines.

>>34734858

sure but you also have to maintain it and train people to fly it.

>>34734863
Sea Lightning is a phrase i've heard thrown around over here. not even remotely official though.

Technically the RAF would need to call it Lightning III as we had the P38 and the EE Lightning, although that was never called Lightning II.

The UK axed its strategic bomber force after faklands
I doubt they will find use for bombers after 35 years
Imo UK needs to make its navy bigger

>>34734879
you have to maintain missiles, and train its operators aswell.

>>34734705
Absolutely no chance in hell.

>>34734892
We axed it because our nuclear deterrent moved to SSBN's.

B21 could provide more options for ISTAR and COIN.

How many brimstone missiles could a B21 fire?

240+?

it would be a thing of beauty.

>>34734912
>COIN

You don't need the B-21 for that. There's a reason America is starting up the OA-X.

>>34734868
B21 is going to be more than bit lighter than B2. Still biggest factor in dropping unit cost is actually making reasonable number of aircraft to distribute R&D expenses on larger fleet.

>>34734912
Yes i know
Uk doesnt need strategic bomber
They need to fix the royal navy

>>34735002
having a fleet of B21's with LRASM is easier than having a large fleet east of suez.

>>34735041

If the UK wants to strike an individual target at strategic distance, that is what the submarine TLAMs are for, if the UK wants to support sustained operations, it needs the carrier battle groups. If the funding was limitless, sure, but it's going to stay at 2% GDP for the foreseeable future.

>>34735041
Or just have a submarine with cruise missiles

>>34734705

I don't think the US would allow it

>>34734705

BAE are basically 2 seperate entities. An American entity and a British entity. The American part of BAE is where BAE purchased a bunch of american defense contractors, but they are entirely firewalled from British BAE. British BAE isn't allowed to see the actual tech American BAE works on as a matter of law, that was the only condition in which they were allowed to purchase american defense companies. They are only allowed to view the financials. Projects like the BAE railgun and whatever classified parts of the B-21 that BAE makes aren't British and they'd have to obtain permission from the US government to ever see it.

>>34734705
>Lightning 2
For a moment I got excited at the idea that they were planning a successor to the EE Lightning but then I remembered that's just the F-35.

>>34735122
Of course they would.

The UK and US already share nuclear weapon and reactor technology.

collaborate and share information freely on submarines, electronic warfare, intelligence gathering and many other areas.

the UK is the only T1 partner for F35, which is where most of the tech for B21 is coming from.

>>34735131
>Projects like the BAE railgun and whatever classified parts of the B-21 that BAE makes aren't British and they'd have to obtain permission from the US government to ever see it.

The railgun was developed in the UK. And BAE already has that permission.

Storing files in the US is the only 'firewall'.

>>34735237

The railgun was developed by BAE's US division in the US tho

>>34735237
>Storing files in the US is the only 'firewall'.

Wrong.

>As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management. In May 2006 the CEO of BAE Systems described the "firewalled" status of BAE Systems Inc: " The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us.... The SSA effectively allows us to operate in the US as an American company, providing the highest levels of assurance and integrity in some of the most sensitive fields of national security provision."[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_board

>>34735237
No it wasn't, in the slightest

>>34734879
>sure but you also have to maintain it and train people to fly it.

All missiles have to be maintained and staffed, its actually a big problem that the USAF missile core is so dysfunctional. Also re-entry devices on ICBMs are going about mach 12 and the size of a washing machine, stealth is redundant when a target is moving that fast.

>>34734705
The UK can barely pay for a very small airforce of fighter bombers, there's no chance in hell they could justify a strategic bomber. It would be perfect outrage fodder for a Labour government already snapping at the heels of an ailing Conservative party.

>>34735356
*Labour party *Conservative government oops

>>34735319
Yes, it was. Do your research.

The winning railgun design has been under development at the Dundrennan range in Scotland since 1993, funded by BAE, DSTL, the Mod and the DoD.

>>34735356

Just having a tiny fleet of large bombers frees up so many tactical aircraft though. For instance, a couple of B-2s flying alone can take out an entire enemy airfield, where as tactical (fighter) aircraft you'd need a couple of dozen as well as support aircraft (more tankers, EW, SEAD etc.)

>>34735377
No, it was developed at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren.

It had fuck all to do with the UK.

From a technology transfer point of view it could happen just fine, as has already been pointed out we're the only country to get full spec F35s, as well as a variety of other data sharing on sensitive technologies on a level that happens between basically no-one else.

In practical terms there's zero chance we'd buy it, there's no money and no demand for an aircraft to fill a long range strategic bomber role. We got rid of the Vulcans because the nukes had moved to the navy, and we have the Tornado as a bomber. There's no chance of the nuclear deterrent role shifting back to the RAF, and the F35 and Typhoon are/will be replacing the Tornado in the bomber role, assuming of course the Typhoon eventually gets the upgrades to use all the relevant munitions. If the money was suddenly there to buy into B21 it would make more sense to spend it on a bunch more F35s rather than another aircraft, we'd almost certainly get more aircraft for the same upfront cost, maintain a single logistics and training path instead of a wholly new one being added, plus the ongoing interoperability between RAF and RN with a larger F35 fleet would also be very useful and more flexible.

>>34735407

Keep your head in the sand then. pretend that the US wasn't funding the project in scotland.

Keep pretending that the BAE design wasn't merged with the general atomics power system.

Keep pretending that the devlopment moved from Scotland to the US in the 2000's

And just make sure you don't look at the side of the railgun, the BAE logo might make you shit the bed.

File: SPESS_MUHREENS!.jpg (746KB, 1714x1124px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1714x1124px

>>34735155
They should have called the Eurofighter the lightning II, has more in common with
>Twin engine
>Gotta go fast!
>Maintenance pig
>export failure except token numbers to Saudi and Kuwait.
>Token A2G capability
>Bongs are completely obsessed with it for some reason
F-35 can be Phantom II
>Fat and ugly
>Does fucking everything
>Pierre Sprey hates it
>tri service
>the navy one doesn't have a gun
>Bong RAF
>Bong FAA
>Makes lightning feel obsolete
>Spooky ghost name for stealthy plane

>>34735407
>>34735319

>THE US Department of Defense is to cover half the costs of constructing
a new firing range in Scotland for testing electromagnetic guns, often called
‘rail guns’. The facility, which will be the longest firing range for EM
guns in the Western world, is being funded jointly by the British Ministry
of Defence’s Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment (RARDE)
at Fort Halstead in Kent and DARPA, the US’s military research and development
agency.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517010-300-scotland-to-host-rail-gun-test-bed/

>>34735436
>>export failure except token numbers to Saudi and Kuwait.

It's the most widely exported 4.5 gen.

>>Token A2G capability

Maybe in 2010. Now it has Brimstone, Paveway, Storm shadow and soon SPEAR3.

>>Bongs are completely obsessed with it for some reason

because we're the only one developing it to it's full potential and have the best Typhoons available. It's arguably the best 4.5 gen fighter in the world.

>>34735430
>>34735442
>Scotland was going to be the site for UK-US railgun testing

>This means the BAE railgun was developed in Scotland

And there is the disconnect. Although I see you've leapt to the conclusion that "It says BAE on the side, so it MUST be made in the UK!"

>>34735430
The US was funding "A" project in Scotland.

The BAE design merged with the GA power? What BAE design? You mean the US one?

You think BAE doesn't have a massive US branch? Are you fucking retarded?

Everything you're saying is either assumption, ignorance or plain wrong.

>>34735377
>The winning railgun design has been under development at the Dundrennan range in Scotland since 1993, funded by BAE, DSTL, the Mod and the DoD.

No, the winning design was made in the USA.

All it had in common with the one in Scotland was that they were both railguns.

You might as well be saying the Abrams is British because the tank was developed in the UK

>>34735495
>>34735508


>pretending that a decade of research in the UK involving BAE was scrubbed just so BAE could come and start a compltely new project in the US.

>pretending that the worlds first large scale railgun test were not in the UK

Imagine being so small minded that the idea of allies working on a joint project offends you.

Provide a single bit of proof that the Railgun project has nothing to do with the UK and was not based on work from the 15 odd years of testing in Scotland.

I have provided evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is now on you.

>>34735534
>>34735508
>>34735495

>The current Navy railgun effort began in 2001 when Rear Adm. Charlie Hamilton, program executive officer, Ships (PEO Ships), asked for ideas using the massive electric-generating capacity of the newest class of destroyers for a generation of new electric weapons.

In 2002, Adm. Robert Natter, Commander, Fleet Forces Command, agreed to fund a series of demonstrations at the railgun facility in Kirkcudbright, Scotland.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/163891/next-phase-of-railgun-prototype-tests-due-in-2016.html

The proof is continuing to stack up against you.

>>34735386
I know but you'd have to pay for a bomb bay of JDAMs to put in those B-2s to do that which the UK doesn't even have the money for.

File: Agm-129_acm_(cropped).jpg (883KB, 1664x936px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 1664x936px

>>34734836
Been there, done that.

>>34734835
>the b-21 is a strategic bomber
that's what I'm trying to say, it's too expensice for UK and needs places to go, fucking UK is like two steps for these type of bombers

>>34735377
I think this statement is huge stretch

However to
>>34735407
>>34735430
>>34735442
>>34735495
>>34735508
>>34735534
>>34735575
>>34735629
I think nationalism is really clouding your vision, the US and UK have, for a long time held very similar interests and an astonishing level of commonality both culturally and technologically. It is no leap of faith to suggest that the Americans and Europeans both knowing the potential of a railgun project as an ABM system decided to begin a project. They a decided that the Brits would get work started and when the USSR collapsed the Americans started on their own project which BAE had a leg up on. The British had every reason to allow the tech to transfer to the American project, it would be ludicrous not to. What followed was the winning design of an American power-plant courtesy Gen-Atomics and a British EM-gun.

This is sooo stupid....
>UK WETT DREAMS

>>34734705
If they really wanted it, then I'm sure it would hapen.

However, the current UK has no interest in rearming

File: B21 LRS-B.jpg (56KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x512px

Even if the B21 was available for export sales I can only think of 2 countries that would be interested and have the budget to support it: India and Australia. Even then, Aus is a stretch on the budget sideand we'd never sell the B21 to India. I think export sales are a non-starter.

>>34734705

BAE London and BAE Sterling Heights, MI are heavily firewalled due to ITAR constraints.

There is Zero Ministry involvement with the B21, and no sharing agreements in place. Doesn't seem the least bit likely that RAF will field B-21.

Every single weaponry project leans on defense industry cooperation. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Airbus, Grumman,BAE they all get a piece of the pie from everything that flies. That doesn't mean they have any say in the sharing of technology, design, and manufacturing. Thats all strictly between the DoD and MoD.

>>34736118
>>34735575
>>34735430

That's not how aerospace/defence industry works. BAE is not a strictly British corporation, they are a global contractor with divisions all over the place, especially the one 8 miles south of my house at the old GD Land systems tank plant. It's now an industrial park with BAE as one of the anchor companies.

I have to go and deal with these fuckers and DoD every weekday at 7am. I assure you that multi-national companies pledge allegiance to the hand thats feeding them (currently) and not their supposed country of origin.

File: when you are a white country.png (182KB, 1338x937px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1338x937px

>>34734797
>UK bombing argentina
why use a bomber when the country is tearing itself apart. it's a waste of resources.
anyways, by 2050 both UK and arg will have been devoured by niggers

>>34737472
>I assure you that multi-national companies pledge allegiance to the hand thats feeding them (currently) and not their supposed country of origin.
That's what I'm saying. The tech belongs to the Americans now.

>>34734792
>Neuron
>not Taranis

Queer

>>34735220

The UK and US are probably the closest two sovereign nations have ever come to sharing fucking everything militarily. The US even offered naval assets for the Falklands, and that was three decades ago. Now it's even closer.

BAE may be split, but what really matters is personnel and they can be shared, within one overarching company, with no language barrier.

>>34738665

Unless there's a ban on shifting employees?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (101KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1920x1080px

>>34734705
>>34734792

>>34738273
Didn't Dassault and BAE sign a contract to share some of their findings in order to have a compatible drone or something?

Now that got me thinking, if Dassault come into that Frog/Kraut new fighter project with the shit they learned from nEUROn, wouldn't that give them an edge over Airbus in how the project will shape and who will build it?

>>34734705
Please can we give the UK a real bomber? Their retirement of the V-series has crippled their capabilities, and the EuroCucks won't ever make anything worthwhile to replace that.