Why the fuck is it shaped like this?
Just to look cool or what?
I feel like it looks kind of try hard
Like the Camaro of military bombers
I ain't no avionics engineer, but I'd assume they got some smart people together and made something with maximum stealth capabilities and maximum bombing capabilities the best/most efficient way they could.
>>29071816
It's Northrop-Grumman. Flying wedges are their trademark.
I'm just confused by the fact that it looks just like a damn B-2. Now, I haven't read up much on the LRS-B requirements, but what the fuck is this going to do different than a B-2? Is it supposed to be bigger? I don't understand why you don't just put an emphasis on PGMs mounted on strike aircraft instead of bigger bombtrucks that will (most likely) get shot down or intercepted before they have the chance to reach target. I know stealth is supposed to counter that, but it's not infallible.
You'll notice a falcon and a stealth bomber have similar profiles.
planes without a tail or vertical aileron have been considered unstable in flight until computers got fast enough to do the micro-corrections necessary to keep it stable and in-control.
Honey bees are mathematically unable to take flight, but they do every day. They just need really quick, and really small corrections to fly well.
>>29071816
I honestly wonder if military advisors weigh looks into their decision in contracting manufacturers.
The X-32 and the F-35 would be an obvious choice in that category.
They probably choose equipment based on lobbying money.
>>29071865
Probably isn't much different than the B2 except for newer a cheap stealth coating, probably like the F35s as well as newer more fuel efficient engines.
optimal stealth shape and aerodynamic efficiency
>>29071865
It's going to be substantially cheaper, easier to operate, and more modern capabilities
The B-2 is old shit from the 80's, the computers in it are probably ancient
These aircraft are stealth, noone has radars that can even spot them, dnno who you think will shoot them down.
>>29071901
but my s-900 can turn offf stealth. stealth is worthless
People still use bombers?
>>29071901
Processing power and computers, you can update fairly easy in an airframe I would think. It just seems odd that everything they're putting into the LRS-B, they can't adapt the B-2 to.
I wasn't necessarily saying that this could get shot down, it just seems cheaper for individual missions to use smaller aircraft that cost less and present lower risk, especially when our current enemies consist of third-world huts and caves.
>>29071942
Not when everything is interconnected in the aircraft, and it's already maxed out on cooling or power generation, and theres no fucking room, and everything is obsolete shit.. etc
So essentialy you just need to build a new aircraft.
Smaller fighter bombers cost far more per lb of payload than a heavy bomber, have far lower range, shorter loiter time, and inferior stealth.
>>29071887
>The X-32 and the F-35 would be an obvious choice in that category.
The X-32 wasn't chosen because it was performing like a piece of shit and used the same old technology that the Harrier did. I wouldn't read too much more into it than that
>>29071979
Fair enough I suppose. So what all is this thing supposed to replace then? Is this supposed to ultimately bump out the BUFF?
Honestly what mission is this even designed to do. I mean b2 can already drop MOP's on iranian bunkers just fine. Unless they think s300 can counter it... I dunno this purchase seems weird to me and the air force seems to be pretty bad at explaining their intentions till alot of random speculation undermines what their doing.
>>29071979
>already maxed out on cooling or power generation, and theres no fucking room
Modern electronics is smaller, consumes less power and needs less cooling.
>>29071928
Well, the terrorists aren't going to blow themselves up, are they?
Wait, yeah they probably will. Never mind.
>>29072026
But drones have pretty much replaced them at this point
>>29072014
Only if you are keeping the same capabilities
>>29072057
Yes, that's the nature of a comparison. The point however is to upgrade.
>>29071865
It's smaller than the B-2. Cheaper. More multi-purpose. That's about it.
>>29072004
The LRSB is supposed to do additional duties that B-2s are incapable of, such as EW and ISR so even without bombs they can continue to be a battlefield asset.
>>29071879
That whole thing about honeybees was the result of shoddy drunken party mathematics, and was later conclusively disproven.
>>29072100
You're also ignoring the fact that it'll still be using the shitty old '80s composite and RAM coating, which is expensive as shit to maintain, especially compared to the new RAM composites developed for the F-35. Not to mention design provisions for the eventual upgrade to ADVENT engines, which the B-2 was never designed for.
>>29072004
B-2s don't have the numbers. They're getting a hundred or so of these LRS-Bs. Or I suppose I should call them B-21s now. The B-21 will also have the ability to fill up with mixed ordnance types.
>>29072152
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply saying heat, space and power are not excuses for why not to modernize the electronics.
There are obvious reasons to build a new aircraft, electronics isn't a great one.
>>29072162
I'd be interested to know how much the RAM maintenance on B-2 / F-22 contributes to per-hour flight cost.
Seems like a lot considering each time they want to do any work at all they have to break open panels covered in patching putty and take it all off, and re-apply that shit afterwards, on top of the fragile RAM itself.
If it ends up being closer to strike fighters than the B-2's insane cost of something like $170,000/hour, it'll be worth it.
>>29072049
Politicians + lobbying + taxpayer money = $$$
>>29071816
What do you have against Cameros?
>>29071887
The X-32 has its engine too far forward to allow room for s-ducts. So that big idiot grin intake exposes the fan blade, entirely fucking its LRO.
The F-35, on the other hand, is not amateur hour bullshit.
>>29072001
Seems that way. Those things are more than half as old as human flight.
>>29072128
Also much lower maintenance. Remember that fancy radar-resistant paint the B-2 has? They found out that you can bake that into the skin of newer generation aircraft, something they found out with the 35, so they won't have to keep repainting the things.
>>29072004
It's a mass produced-ish version of the B2. It's meant to work /with/ the latter as opposed to replace it, which is why the airframe is so simliar: it's a practically a B2 tooled to be easier to make with modern technology.
>>29071816
Should have been called the "B-3 Spirit II".
>>29072049
Drones don't have anywhere close to the payload, munition options, and no one is going to trust a EW-vulnerable platform with nukes.
>>29071887
>stop tickling me
>>29071816
because it makes me hard. christ that pic makes me wish my parents were shot in an alley and my mom's pearls went rolling in the gutter
