It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B-21 and KC-46 facing possible funding issues

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I think a lot when we will see the B-21 for the first time all of us will say " whoa it's cool"




posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Aren't there rumors that the Chinese are much closer to. stealth bomber than anyone in the Pentagon would like them to be?



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

There have been rumors of a Chinese stealth bomber for several years. There's a lot of confusion over it, because the designation used for it was also used in the 1970s for a cancelled program.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Given how smoothly the J-20 is going, I have to believe that they have something more exotic under wraps or testing at some desert facility in the West.
edit on 16-8-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Scaling up from a fighter sized stealth platform to a bomber sized stealth platform isn't easy. The shaping alone is a bitch and a half to deal with on a bomber. Northrop had the advantage of experience when it came to the B-2 with the shaping requirements.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And in true Chinese fashion, they've had a quarter century of looking at the B-2 to see what they want to copy. There are enough public-domain anecdotes about the B-2's design quirks, and more than enough high-res images of it, that if you had a rudimentary understanding of RAM formulation and a big enough budget, it wouldn't be THAT hard to reverse-engineer something that does 9/10ths of what the B-2 can do. China's well-known industrial espionage just makes it that much easier.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Sure they have, but looking at designs, and hacking blue prints still isn't the same thing. Even with their industrial espionage they're going to have trouble going to a radical new design like the B-2. There's no way they're going to be able to make one perfectly without it getting out. Even some of the traditional Russian designs in recent years have had a lot of trouble with them reverse engineering them. Building a flying wing, with engines that are as unreliable as hell is going to be one hell of a challenge to get right.

I'm the first to say don't underestimate someone, especially China, but at the same time, don't OVERestimate what they can do without it getting out. Yes they're more controlled, but things still get out.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Everyone means exactly that, everyone. There are entire websites, blogs, forums and general opinions related just to how uninspiring this rollout was. The Media didn't even run stories on it because it was BORING. People were expecting the 21st century wow factor and once they saw it, an almost 99-1 margin people went, EH!

Nobody is getting excited for 550M+ per airframe. No teenager is looking at the B21 and going WOW I can't Wait to fly that!

It simply didn't do it for anyone, its a DOD handout to the MIC and more wasted money.

Even on this Aircraft forum there is clear disdain for this bird.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

So now they're supposed to build aircraft for the Wow factor? Yet again, thank god the people that do this for a living don't rely on you to design aircraft. How many years of Aerospace engineering, or actual experience working on aircraft do you have again?

The people that actually matter are impressed as hell by the aircraft and can't wait to get their hands on it. The people that matter are the only one's that have opinions that actually count. Whether you think it's boring or not doesn't mean a damn thing to whether it can accomplish the mission or not.

So if everyone is against it you should be able to post quotes by the people that matter that are dead set against this aircraft. You should be able to show all the people that control the money and fly the planes that hate it. Strange that with all these hate sites they're so hard to find.

I'll wait.
edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I get what you're saying, especially given how pathetically "rustic" their unclassified large military aircraft are which amount to basically a Tu-16 knock-off that's had more work done than the B-52 fleet, and their new strategic airlifter that looks like an Il-76 with a new fuselage (and the same old howling Johnson-era engines).

Although I wouldn't put it past them to have something hidden that is a pretty decent approximation of the ATA-B or Senior Peg in terms of performance/complexity/RCS.

And I'll add that the sad part is that such an aircraft would still be the most advanced bomber flying outside of the USAF (sorry, Tu-160, you're beautiful and I love you as much as any avnerd does, but you're really nothing more than a fancy B-70 knock-off with a mission profile almost as old as the B-52)
edit on 16-8-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

I wouldn't put it past them to have something in the design stages, but until they come up with better engines, they're going to have trouble with it. They desperately need to overhaul their engine program before they can come up with the designs they really want or need to.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm picturing a B-2 knock-off that looks like the plane from the Honda commercial creaking over the runway with its 60's era Soviet turbojet knock-offs shrieking like an Il-62.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Russia has some really impressive engines in the pipeline, but their reliability is still in question.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But isn't that Russian aerospace in a nutshell?

Engineers fit for SpaceX, with a manufacturing base fit for Lada?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Well, I say the reliability is the question only because they haven't flown it yet and it's still only in bench testing. They've made strides in engineering, but until they start flight testing it and run it through a complete life cycle there's no telling if it will hold up to what they want it to as far as that goes.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Its learn by experience..With their early failures of Long March and the eventual bug fixing by Loral the rocket series has matured into something reliable..



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The DOD has to sell this to the American People. Who do you think is paying for it?

Might be a good idea to field something that the taxpayer would like.

Its a dud, game over. Wont be built. Will be cancelled by a future Sec of Def just like Many Many projects have seen happen before. Stealth Chopper prime example.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

And you think the taxpayer is happy about the F-35 and all the problems it's had? And oh look, it's going right along nicely, and they're still buying them. The taxpayer has essentially zero say in buying military equipment once the funding is passed. It's up to Congress to decide who gets what funding, and what's bought by the military when they pass a budget. The taxpayer can bitch all they want, but their opinion means nothing. If the taxpayer mattered when it came to buying military equipment, they couldn't have black projects, because they'd have to show us everything they had.

Yet again, they don't build military equipment on the wow factor or because some kids on a message board think it's really really cool. Try again.]

Oh, and the stealth chopper was built. There are quite a few of them flying around in classified missions. If you're talking about the Comanche, it was cancelled by the Army, because it was so over budget and behind. The taxpayer and SecDef had nothing to do with it, it was the choice of the Army.

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
But But the Comanche was cool :-P



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

And about 600% over budget at the time of cancellation.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join