Meet the B-21

a reply to: Barnalby
You say is true if the ennemy stay in the same place but for now it's not the case the China and Russia start to go away with the technology, and the war of yesterday will not be the war of tommorow. The advance we have in the 90 " s are not the same in the 21 century and winning the war are very expensive , if you look just the price to win a day you start to lose. Look how its difficult for now to fight the ennemy with poor material imagine how it will be to win with an ennemy at the same level. In my opinion you must put the price to stay very ahead on nation like China or Russia you can't stay ahead with just the budget and low price in mind. To win a car race you can't with a Honda ACCORD but you can with a C7 Corvette

a reply to: darksidius

And if you think that the B-21 has stood still and uses the same technology as the B-2 you're delusional. The B-21 is so far ahead of the B-2 that it's not funny.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that it's only really advanced if it goes mach 5 at 150,000 feet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And shoots freakin la...

oh wait.

a reply to: anzha

Only if they're mounted over the cockpit so we can say "lasers out of its freaking head".

a reply to: Zaphod58
I hear what you say Zaph and I hope you are right. But I ask myself how it can be possible after 30 years that we don't see a jump in term of arodynamics or propulsion system or new stealth shape ? decade after decade we saw a lot of very interesting concept in long range strike and no concept arrive at maturity why ?

a reply to: darksidius

From what I've read.

The flying wing is probably one of the best shapes for stealth.

a reply to: peck420

I'll be specific - the one I've seen lately is the gorgeous 675LT. Not the supercar P1 but daaaaaamn she sound nice!!!!! There are a pair of Aventadors I see drive down my street often enough as they head to the cigar shop on the corner. They sound nice but not like the McClaren.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The analogy was perfect because the two look superficially similar. An F1 car would never be be mistaken for something in NASCAR, and the big complaint here is that the B-21 and B-2 are so similar.

Sorry.

I forgot, uber US tech, defies laws of physics, garble garble garble.

Doesn't matter what you do to an Accord. Electronically, mechanically, philosophically. It will never outperform the physical limitations imposed on it by the very nature of it's design.

That holds just as true for aircraft as it does for vehicles.

a reply to: darksidius

For the same reasons that cars have four wheels, engines in front, doors that open the same way.... they work.

You realize this is a stealth aircraft, right? Flying wings are naturally very stealthy before you add in RAM and other features. They're very aerodynamic, which means good range before you add efficient engines. Why, in God's name, would you NOT use a proven base design that already meets half your requirements with almost no work?

a reply to: peck420

That wasn't the point of his analogy, nor was the suggestion even close to your crap about US technology. The point was that while it might look similar, it shares almost nothing with the B-2 except shape.

originally posted by: darksidius
a reply to: Zaphod58
decade after decade we saw a lot of very interesting concept in long range strike and no concept arrive at maturity why ?

Price. Bang for the buck. & who are we going to use that crazy expensive tech against? Who is pushing us to develop something so astronomically expensive & advanced? Our current military should hold it's own in damn near any conceivable conflict as is. Why go nuts developing next gen fly swatters at 10x the cost when our current gen fly swatters get the job done?

a reply to: Zaphod58
Is this shape is efficient for high altitude too ? At the start if I remember well the B-2 was for high altitude bombing but a change come to make it more for medium to low altitude.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And that it does the same (relevant as ever before) mission, but better and cheaper.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not to mention the flying wing shape has plenty of room for LASERS SHOOTING OUTTA,,,,,,,,,, sorry, got carried away.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I'll be specific - the one I've seen lately is the gorgeous 675LT. Not the supercar P1 but daaaaaamn she sound nice!!!!! There are a pair of Aventadors I see drive down my street often enough as they head to the cigar shop on the corner. They sound nice but not like the McClaren.

Very nice, please tell me it is Mantis Green.....

One day I would love to have one, but I don't think I could actually drive it here. Roads are just too crappy for it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I had to come back and re read this.

plasma?

a reply to: peck420

She be a head turning Candy Painted - Apple Red with a Lava Red (orange hue) effect.

Asa for the aventador's. Ones Yellow. The other white with blue trim. Both got too much stuff visually going on with them. I am a fan of the older more organic looking Diablos. Seen a TT Diablo with something like 750hp leave rubber tire spray on some guys windshield behind him peeling out on sunset blvd.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
That wasn't the point of his analogy, nor was the suggestion even close to your crap about US technology. The point was that while it might look similar, it shares almost nothing with the B-2 except shape.

And that shape tells us a significant amount of what it is designed for. The approximate speeds it will fly, the maximum agility it will achieve, etc, etc. Heck, the day the first one rolls out, and a size comparison is made, we will even know which radar bands it will perform optimally against, and which it will require coatings and/or electronics to attempt to avoid.

Which is the point you are failing to grasp. We will be able to determine a great deal more than what most think, just by the physical characteristics of the design...just like a car.

a reply to: PhantomTwo

This can't be overstated.

In the late 80's, we built the F-22 and the B-2 to be such impressively-specced aircraft because at the time, the Soviet Union was a true technological peer state that had a well-published record of matching or beating our aircraft within a decade of when they first flew (XF-108 --> Mig 25, F-14 --> Mig-31, F-15 --> Su-27, F-16 --> Mig-29, Apollo --> Soyuz, Space Shuttle --> Buran, XB-70 --> Tu-160, etc, etc, etc) and we were trying to break that cycle.

We succeeded, we broke that cycle.

The proof is in the pudding, and over 25 years after the ATF and the ATB first flew, the Russians and the Chinese STILL haven't been able to engineer something with capabilities that even approach those platforms, much less beat them. Furthermore, they're even struggling to build their current efforts in anything approaching meaningful numbers, whereas we have dozens of B-2's and hundreds of F-22s.

Maybe things will change and the Chinese, Russians, or Indians will catch to us, but for now, we're so far ahead that we honestly don't need to build the kinds of "cost is no option" systems that we were dreaming up by the dozens at the height of the cold war.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: peck420

She be a head turning Candy Painted - Apple Red with a Lava Red (orange hue) effect.

Asa for the aventador's. Ones Yellow. The other white with blue trim. Both got too much stuff visually going on with them. I am a fan of the older more organic looking Diablos. Seen a TT Diablo with something like 750hp leave rubber tire spray on some guys windshield behind him peeling out on sunset blvd.

We should really take this to another thread....lol, but I am bit jaded with Lambo's. There is one in the same division as me, and it never seems to do much other than sit at the mechanic shop. Whether from abuse, or regular use, I don't know. But, I would hazard a guess that the local infrastructure has a lot to do with it...like I said, absolutely crap roads.