Breaking: B-21 Bomber takes flight

[gambit]

Clueless

Yah...That, he is. And I will demonstrate.

 

[gambit]

No idea why Yanks have a hard-on for flying wing aircrafts.

Because the shape is excellent for low radar observability.

Even Nazis ditched them due to their instability and lack of air maneuverability.

The flying wing have been experimented with long before Nazi Germany came to be. The Nazis did not 'ditched' their experiments with the flying wing but were essentially stopped because of the end of WW II. Not because of the shape's shortcomings, of which are not credible reasons to stop experimenting with them because ALL flying designs have their own weaknesses and flaws. Your comment revealed ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

These things are essentially sitting ducks, once detected, so everything rides on their stealth capabilities.

Of course, and there is nothing wrong with that. The flying wing was selected for deep airspace penetration due to its low radar observability.

The F-104 was designed for high speed point A to B and its design made it difficult to fly but accomplished one thing well -- get from A to B faster.

The SR-71 was designed for high speed and high altitude cruise to take pictures that no one else can in time critical situations. The SR-71 cannot maneuver like a fighter can. So just like the B-2, the SR-71 relies on its main strength to avoid enemy countermeasures, whatever that may be.

Your comment revealed ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

Speaking of which, the 'stealth' capabilities of these types of aircrafts isn't exactly foolproof. Yugoslavian army was able to detect an F-117 - a so called "stealth bomber" - with their obsolete Soveit-era long wavelength radar, which was later shot down. From what I'm seeing, the 'Yugos' pinpointed its located the moment it opened its bomb bays:

No, the Yugos did not 'pinpoint' anything. The best they did was generalized the F-117's CONSISTENT flight path, which was our error, then they did what is called 'spray and pray', meaning shoot as many SAMs as possible and hope one will hit. This issue has been debated, discussed, and debunked many times before.

Your comment revealed ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

At over half a billion dollar a pop, I doubt the USAF would risk deploying these fancy B-21s in hairy situations. Plus, it'd be a one-way trip, if the 1999's incident was any indicator!

No such 'indicator'.

https://imgur.com/5nB2WPK

A single B-2 dropped six bombs at the exact intersections of a runway-taxiway network, stopping air operations for at least one day. Your doubt came from ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

Also, multi-static radar systems are a thing (the reason Yanks ditched the F-117 in the first place, thought they won't admit it) and a country like China can surely afford a couple of 'em!

Multi-static radars against 'stealth' have been debated, discussed, and debunked many times before. Use the forum's search feature. What happened to the Ukrainian's much celebrated Kolchuga networked multi-static radar system? Got nowhere, just like the Iran's 'stealth' fighter and the Russia's PRAT-FALL.

https://imgur.com/FphF3BP

Look at the fundamental layout of the multi-static radar design and see for yourself of its weaknesses. Essentially, the entire transmitter arrays has to be inward looking in order to saturate the airborne target in order to create multi-dimensional reflections in order for the radar computer to guesstimate where the 'stealth' target is going to be. A 'stealth' attacker can detect those transmissions and avoid entering that EM field. Toss a bomb at the power generation sources to interrupt those radar transmissions. And that is just a few countermeasures. I have said on this forum many times that the multi-static radar is 'stealth' greatest threat but greatest does not equal to lethality. It just mean that of all threats, the multi-static radar is the best, but even that 'best' can be avoided.

Your comment about multi-static radar against 'stealth' came from ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

 

[TheSolution]

China must match this capability for effective deterrence. The yanks must not become chauvinistic.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

People assume this monster will be shot down just because it is Subsonic altogether forgetting that it will be equipped with world's best Stand-off weapons, world's best sensors to sense the danger and counter it accordingly and on top of that,Loyal Wingman UAVs to extend its sensing capability.

Consider It to be like a mothership launching Hypersonic, Subsonic missiles or future Munitions like

that can butcher any defence system (SAM or Air to Air Combat systems)
And this is just its stand off capability without even penetrating ADSs itself.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It's predecessor the B2's only claim to fame besides exorbitant cost, half a billion a pop is bombing some sandal wearing half starving farmer carrying a 70 year old rifle.

In near peer adversary air space, it will be a sitting duck

There are no ”near peers” around.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Agree. I even think Russia can easily win the war in Ukraine and defeat Ukraine decisivelywithout breaking a sweat. Its just that they don't really want to. They are just playing around/taking their time.

Well even if you are sarcastic here. I am not.
Russia can definitely run over Ukraine if they employ all of their military might in the battlefield.
The objective may be to engage Ukraine in the war in the long run for God knows what reason.
Maybe it's stopping Ukraine to become part of EU or NATO.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Well even if you are sarcastic here. I am not.
Russia can definitely run over Ukraine if they employ all of their military might in the battlefield.
The objective may be to engage Ukraine in the war in the long run for God knows what reason.
Maybe it's stopping Ukraine to become part of EU or NATO.

They are losing a lot of men by just dawdling.
If they are planning on upping their game sometime they should do it before they get a backlash.

Moscow gave a number of 6,000 killed back in September 2022:

Russia calls up 300,000 reservists, says 6,000 soldiers killed in Ukraine

Russia will draft 300,000 reservists to support its military campaign in Ukraine, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday in televised remarks.

www.reuters.com

and keep in mind the total losses of US troops/contractors (2,402+1,822) killed in Afghanistan after 2 decades was less than that.

 

[KAL-EL]

Love how the jokers here think they’re more qualified than USAF and NG aerospace engineers.

You mean they're not qualified? Just a bunch of armchair generals?

I could have sworn by the way they were talking that they knew everything about everything.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

You mean they're not qualified? Just a bunch of armchair generals?

I could have sworn by the way they were talking that they knew everything about everything.

We have flower children in this thread saying we should use the military budget to build libraries.

 

[MeFishToo]

How many Americans when homeless and under poverty because of this ?

Do the homeless and poor even pay taxes in the US?

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Do the homeless and poor even pay taxes in the US?

Don't do off topic discussion dude

 

[Fish]

Because the shape is excellent for low radar observability.

With a larger wingspan than a commercial jumbo jet, it better be!

Of course, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Sure. The only problem is that it goes for over half a billion a pop.

The Nazis did not 'ditched' their experiments with the flying wing but were essentially stopped because of the end of WW II. Not because of the shape's shortcomings, of which are not credible reasons to stop experimenting with them because ALL flying designs have their own weaknesses and flaws.

Au contraire.

The Horten Ho 229 ultimately was a “dead end,” Lee points out, due to its limitations in lateral stability. It contributed nothing to the war. “You could argue that it took away resources from the Germans,” Lee says. “They didn’t need pie-in-the-sky, outlandish stuff. They needed many examples of things that already worked.”

So, my original statement was historically accurate. The end of WWII was just the last straw, something I didn't deny.

Anyhow, and there's this gem:

“Nazi politicians didn’t know aircraft or aerospace, but if it looked cool and weird and they had a piece of paper that said it will go a thousand miles an hour and defeat the Allied bombers, they were going to support it,” Lee says. “So some of these designers stayed off the Eastern front, and they kept their whole crews and crews’ families protected by doing this.”

Replace Nazi politicians with American politicians and allied bombers with Chinese/Russian bombers and voila! History does have a tendency to repeat itself, after all.

https://www.si.edu/stories/desperate-victory-nazis-built-aircraft-was-all-wing

"Make it pointy."

A single B-2 dropped six bombs at the exact intersections of a runway-taxiway network, stopping air operations for at least one day.

And I'd expect nothing less from a $1Bn aircraft.

When you throw enough money at a problem, it usually goes away.

Doesn't mean it's smart!

Your comment revealed ignorance of history and technical knowledge, and last and worst, of arrogance.

Please tell you're aware that you're constantly repeating yourself...

 

[gambit]

With a larger wingspan than a commercial jumbo jet, it better be!

Wingspan? It is not the wingspan that affects radar cross section (RCS). It is the SHAPE.

So, my original statement was historically accurate. The end of WWII was just the last straw, something I didn't deny.

No. You just got lucky. The bottom line is that you are in no position intellectually to discuss the technical issues of the flying wing itself in particular and of low radar observability in general. The Nazis did not dropped their flying wing experiment. They were stopped by circumstances beyond their control.

Anyhow, and there's this gem:

Replace Nazi politicians with American politicians and allied bombers with Chinese/Russian bombers and voila! History does have a tendency to repeat itself, after all.

https://www.si.edu/stories/desperate-victory-nazis-built-aircraft-was-all-wing

"Make it pointy."

Lame. What you cited was a third party personal critique of the Nazis, not of the flying wing design itself.

And I'd expect nothing less from a $1Bn aircraft.

When you throw enough money at a problem, it usually goes away.

Doesn't mean it's smart!

Money talks, bullshid walks. Even the Russians and the Chinese realized that.

Please tell you're aware that you're constantly repeating yourself...

And just for YOU, I will repeat myself.

The best criticism that you can come up with is its cost. So far, I have yet to see you brought on any technical objections as to why the flying wing design is inappropriate and/or inapplicable to warfare.

Your criticism revealed ignorance of history and technical knowledge, of laziness, and the last and worst, of arrogance.

 

[LeGenD]

I don't have to read the brochure, mate! Obviously, the Yanks are going to thump their chest like a bunch of primates and claim it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!

It's all military propaganda.

Now, I'm no "war tactician" or whatever but from what I can tell, they'd have been much better off spending B-21's enormous R&D budget on hypersonic ICBMs or something which, for all intents and purposes, are un-interceptable by conventional means.

Even their fleet of fancy aircraft carriers is at the mercy of 'Mother' Russia and China's hypersonic missile systems, like the Avangard and DF-27s, both of which can carry tactical nukes.

I do not post brochure information, bud. I have posted declassified information that shows how effective stealth aircraft were in Operation Allied Force in 1999.

F-117A (Sortie – Engaged – Loss) ratio in Operation Allied Force = 743 – 2 – 1

B-2A (Sortie – Engaged – Loss) ratio in Operation Allied Force = 49 – 0 – 0

So Yugoslavian defenses were able to engage and defeat one F-117A in war? So this feat has made American stealth aircraft irrelevant in war? Absolutely not. Yugoslavian claim to fame was rather short lived as it suffered heavy losses and lost its grip on Kosovo in a matter of days. Propaganda draws attention to select feats away from the bigger picture, this is the problem.

Soviet technology (or Russian technology) is not bad. American technology is rather found to be vastly superior.

----

Hypersonic weapons are not reliable:

Russia’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Test Launches Failed in Explosions

Multiple tests of Russian nuclear-capable missiles have failed in an embarrassing blow to Vladimir Putin, Ukraine's military intelligence says. Some say Russia's unsuccessful tests of its Yars and Bulava missiles may point to serious issues with Moscow's nuclear delivery capabilities...

www.globaldefensecorp.com

Russians also claimed that Kinzhal cannot be intercepted but this claim was challenged and dismissed in Ukraine. See this and this. Many were in shock at first because nobody knew that Patriot system technology has caught up to these type of threats in TBM class. This was not mentioned in Patriot brochure.

Russia (and China) want to create a perception of having unstoppable (hypersonic) missiles as PSYOPS strategy but American DOD Knows better and is chill for a reason. US is also testing hypersonic technology in its different forms to figure out designs that can deliver results.

Russian Avangard HGV is a copy of DARPA HTV-2 HGV that was successfully tested in 2011.

https://www.darpa.mil/program/falcon-htv-2

But US DOD does not see much benefit in choosing this design.

@SecularNationalist

----

At mercy? SM-6 will surprise Russia, China and Iran in the seas:

MDA Sees Counter-Hypersonic Ability In Present Missiles, Multi-Year SM-6 Order For Salvo Defense - Defense Daily

The head of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) this week said several current missile defense systems likely have a capability to defend against hypersonic

www.defensedaily.com

Missile Defense Agency Test Successfully Intercepts Ballistic Missile Target

PACIFIC OCEAN -- The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, successfully conducted Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 31 Event 1a (FTM-31 E1a).The test demonstrated the

www.pacom.mil

SM-6 is cutting edge and can be used to defeat hypersonic threats. I pointed out the possibility back in 2018 in here. I figured out this reality several years ago.

US is also building NGB to counter hypersonic threats. US, China, and Iran make much noise but US DOD is working on solutions behind-the-scenes. Noise is but useful distraction. It is helpful to have big budget and innovative capacity.

@Kompromat

 

[Fish]

Wingspan? It is not the wingspan that affects radar cross section (RCS). It is the SHAPE.

And the "SHAPE," by design, has a large wingspan!

That thing has more in common with a kite than an 'actual' aircraft. So yeah, it better be stealthy and sh!t!

No. You just got lucky.

I'm not that lucky...

Money talks, bullshid walks. Even the Russians and the Chinese realized that.

Yet your behinds were kicked in both Vietnam and Afghanistan.

And the bullsh!t a.k.a Taliban are still walking, nay, alive and kicking!

The best criticism that you can come up with is its cost. So far, I have yet to see you brought on any technical objections as to why the flying wing design is inappropriate and/or inapplicable to warfare.

Well, I'll give you a hint: There's a reason the likes of China and Russia are betting big on nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicles that can launch missiles into orbit, similar to the old-skool Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), albeit with some twists.

Avangard (hypersonic glide vehicle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea of delivering nukes via stealth bombers just sounds... goofy! No other country is bothering with the idea, which ought to give you a hint or two. Not saying it's impractical or anything but, yeah, it's too friggin' expensive!

And besides, we are no longer living in the 80's when stealth bombers were all hip and cool. But I bet your Boomer generals, who are losing the arms race as we speak, would like to disagree!