US Air Force Unveils Picture Of New Stealth Bomber

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

AFP 21 minutes ago



Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force on Friday unveiled the first image of its next-generation bomber that will replace antique B-52s first developed during the Cold War.

The all-black plane has a distinctive, zigzagging shape and a super-low profile that will make it hard to spot on radar, and bears more than a passing resemblance to the Air Force's B-2 bomber, which is also made by Northrop Grumman.

The new stealth bomber has yet to be built, so Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James displayed an artist's rendering at an Orlando event.

--clip
The Pentagon in October announced Northrop as the winner of the contract to build the bomber in a decades-long program that will likely end up costing in excess of $100 billion.

The Air Force wants 100 of the warplanes, which will replace the ageing B-52s and the B-1 bombers that first saw action in the 1980s.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-unveils-picture-stealth-bomber-160158472.html

[NobodyHere]

1. So what's the difference between this and the B-2?

[jeff47]

2. IIRC, longer range, cheaper per-unit. (nt)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. cheaper per unit.

Just like the F-35, no doubt.

[jeff47]

17. It's not pretending to be three different airplanes, nor is it nearly as "cutting edge" as the B-2

So they've got a decent shot at "cheaper per unit".

[jberryhill]

27. This is cutting edge stuff here...

[jeff47]

30. Those had a tendency to get into a spin and crash.

The YB-35/49 of the late 1940s also had stability problems. We really couldn't do stable flying wings until fly-by-wire advanced enough to make the B-2. And at the time, that degree of computer control was new and hard. Now, it's relatively easy.

Again, it's got a shot at being lower-cost. That doesn't mean it will be.

[jberryhill]

31. It also chopped the crap out of mechanics when Indiana Jones was around

[NeoGreen]

36. Well...someone once told me that each B2 cost more than its weight...

...in gold.

I think the price of gold is down these days...so...therefore....

[StandingInLeftField]

4. It has an extra "1"?

[awoke_in_2003]

34. For some reason

a Spinal Tap line just popped in my head

[backscatter712]

20. In theory, at least...

The technology's supposed to be updated. Newer engines, electronics, new stealth technology. It's supposed to be a bit smaller than the B-2.

Of course, we know how these defense things go. Start off with the theory of building a hundred of these planes for what, $200M a piece.

When it's done, the planes will cost $10B a piece, and budget cuts will ensure that only 15 get built. They'll be late, with capabilities watered down, maybe it'll be a notorious hangar queen like the B-2.

[NobodyHere]

21. Are they going to let these things out of the US?

My understanding is that all B-2 missions start from their bases in the US. Will we be parking the B-21s in other countries?

[backscatter712]

23. I imagine they'll do things similarly to the B-2.

The B-2s have in-flight refueling, and they have big fuel tanks, so they normally do fly from U.S. bases, half-way around the world for a mission, and all the way back.

Part of it is because there's a lot of specialized equipment and training and infrastructure only available at a couple bases for the B-2, but also because the stealth technology's sensitive enough they want to keep the birds as secure as possible.

I imagine it'll be similar for the B-21. The marketing people will probably say the new stealth technology will be low-maintenance, so they could be serviced at bases without the special hangars, and there will be more mission flexibility, but I imagine that requirement won't survive the development process. The way recent defense aircraft contracts have been going, all of these sorts of aircraft are high-maintenance hangar queens.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. You just perfectly summed up

every weapon system we have ever had. Bravo.

[tabasco]

3. I'll let Ike do the talking

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I thought it would look like this:

It's stealth, after all.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

11. There's only one airplane that will defeat it

[8 track mind]

13. Beat me to it LOLOLOLOL n/t

[8 track mind]

12. not exactly so.

I managed to snap this picture over the test area.......

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[-none]

6. Another boondoggle in the making.

We'll be lucky if it only costs us $100 billion. A plane that only costs a Billion dollars a piece? What will their service life be? 20 years? Will that 20 year service life be before or after they get it to fly?
Somehow I think we can do better than this. This is beyond ridicules already.

We could cut the "need" for our expensive war toys drastically, if we would stop killing people and start helping them instead.

[sarisataka]

7. Ooh. Ahh

[MrScorpio]

8. It'll probably end costing a trillion dollars in development costs alone. nt

[Mika]

9. A machine to blow up buildings and bridges...

... that will put Americans on the streets and under bridges here.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

19. +1

No limits for the MIC, but eat your peas (and re-elect us!!) for everyone else.

[lsewpershad]

10. Because

we are not powerful enough so we must have more firepower besides, we could sell the old stuff to the police in the inner cities to keep the ruffians in their place.

[LiberalArkie]

14. I thought the B2 was sold to replace the B-52 and be stealthy also.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Silly LA. I bet you thought the F-35 was

going to be a better, faster, longer ranged, stealthier, and more easily maintained plane compared to the F-18, too.

[LiberalArkie]

22. Yea, I know.. I am kind of a Warthog fan myself. It is a nice machine to be able to get

down in the sand and play games with the troops.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. It still is a hell of a plane.

The F-35 can do nothing that it can. Close ground support. Fly low, slow, accurately for a long time. Keep the pilot safe. Carry and use a ton of ammo.

From an Iraqi source now living in Chi-town, the one thing they feared (before predator drones became the source of almost all attacks) they really feared this place. With a trained pilot, it was almost unstoppable.

[Earth_First]

18. Gross. n/t

[Ratty]

25. War porn

Picturing Rumsfeld in front of his computer right now. Eeew.

[Ford_Prefect]

24. Given the advances in radar technology and the time frame to build them they'll be obsolete.

Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

One key problem with the endless delays and dysfunctions of the F-35 is that there appear to be new ways of using different radar frequencies to see them. I expect that the same improved radars would be effective at spotting the B-21 given the already dated stealth tech it is based on. Good money after bad say I.

Still building weapons for the last war they fought, are they. Still planning to waste fuel and explosives and cannon fodder in uniform rather than evade the imperatives of global empire. They will have us drinking all the oil we can pay blood for.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

26. Does anyone understand spending money on bombers when

we can fire missiles from about anywhere on earth with all our bases and submarines?

[BillZBubb]

28. Yes: Pork.

Wasteful government spending the right wing can bring back home and brag about.

[jeff47]

32. Yes. People assume those missiles carry nuclear warheads

and they are not willing to wait and see if that is actually the case before returning fire.

As a secondary reason, ICBMs aren't as accurate as what we can do with bombs or shorter-ranged cruise missiles. They're good enough when using nukes, they aren't good enough when you're trying only hit one building with a conventional warhead.

[El Supremo]

33. The whole world is waiting.