Official B-21 Discussion Thread
>>29894879
Anon, you are mistaken.
That is a B-2.
>>29897273
No, it looks like a prototype. No top venty-things, clearly inferior to the finished product.
>>29894879
B-2.0?
>>29894879
>B-1
>B-2
>B-21
GOD DAMNIT STICK TO YOUR OWN FUCKING NUMBERING SYSTEM YOU FUCKS
Vatniks on suicide watch
>>29897273
>I'mblind.txt
>>29899393
>what are not fielded prototypes
>>29899393
>B-17 came out in 1935
>B-2 came out in 1989
why are americans so retarded
>>29899393
>>29899529
I've wondered about this before, too. How long does something have to be out of service before you can reuse the number? The M4, for example, had to have been something else decades ago.
>>29899543
It's about the specified role that the system plays. Like the m4 was later than the m16, but the m16 was technically a battle rifle, and the m4 is a carbine (folloing the m1-3 carbines based on the garand action)
Previous strategic bombers like the b52 were just heavy strategic bombers, the B1 and B2 serve the "penetration bomber" role. Ie, by adding supersonic speed and stealth technology, they created a weapon with a new role, and therefore a new number role
>hey northrop, we need a new bomber
>okay, great!
>here you go!
>...this looks just like a B2.
>no, it's different! we didn't just add a 1 to the name, honest!
>>29899543
There seems to be no real policy for it. In some cases, the same number is used for different systems with the M2 as an example.
The M2 can reffer to a Bradley IFV or the .50 cal/12.7mm Browning Machinegun (BMG).
>>29899393
He mad
>>29899493
>CGI of WW2 era subsonic vaporwave capable of delivering freefall bombs only
Jesus Christ how terryfiying.
>>29899573
>Hey northrop, we need a lower cost VLO bomber
>Okay, we'll use a proven VLO bomber planform
ftfy, champ
>>29899567
So much wrong with this post.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aircraft_designation_systems
The USAF and USN use to have different naming systems. When they were unified, they restarted at the lowest numbers and grandfathered in the older names.
B-52 is called that because it was grandfathered in.
>>29899527
There were no prototypes that asked for the YB-3 through 20 prefix.
The naming convention is supposed to be that unless it gets a Y prefix to it's role and number, the designation is left empty. The only exceptions to these before the F-35 (because some faggot blurted to congress that it'd be the F-35 and not the F-24) were the F-13 and F-19, the latter purely because Northrup wanted 20.
>>29899515
>IHaveAspergersAndCan'tDetectSarcasm.jaypeg
>>29899580
Yeah, just because the outside is similar doesn't mean any of the internal systems are the same.
>>29894879
If I recall correctly, isn't the current proposal just a lighter, long ranged B2 with additions learned from F-35 development like sensor fusion and better RAM?
>>29899577
How can something be so graceful, yet so menacing?
>>29899702
Trial and error.
>>29899393
The 21 is a reference to the number of B-2s produced.
>>29899543
Designation system got standardized in reset in 1962 because
>Air Force designations were getting unreasonably high
>Navy designation system was pants-on-head retarded
>>29899676
It's the F-35 because they considered it an X-plane program because of the STOVL system testing and multiple take of and landing profiles adaptable design, which meant X-32 and X-35 were available model numbers.
>>29899700
Pretty much. F-35 is the tech dev program to leap all of that ahead, B-21 then adapts it into a new, modern bomber. It'll probably end up doing the Arsenal role as well since it'll have that native integration and be able to go deeper into enemy airspace than B-1s and B-52s.
>>29899829
Potentially feasible for it to fill the AMRAAM truck role, but its never been described as such, ever.
>>29899693
>infacticantdetectitwhereitdoesntexistsfaggot.fuckyou
>>29899902
Depending on when CUDA is forthcoming, B-21 trucking BVRAAMs could become a very scary prospect.
>>29899700
Lighter yes, longer ranged, probably not (the B-2 could launch from Whiteman AFB, fly to Moscow, drop bombs and then fly back to the UK on a single tank of gas). The B-21 will likely have shorter legs, being deployed from regional airbases.
>>29899817
The X-35 and X-32 were legit numbers, but "F-35" only came about because a Lockheed PR rep screwed up and the media ran with it, making the Pentagon run with it. Originally it was going to be something like the F-24.
