Posted on 08/08/2024 9:22:19 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
Diffusion panels and mixing in fresh cool air via intakes under the bottom of the plane.
Good luck with that.
A 2024 plane based on 1944 German aeronautical engineering.
Yet the libs scream and yell about the expense every chance they get. I'm sure that started when some tribes went to the bow and arrow after using spears.
You sure about that?
Please tell me I am wrong!
—
You are - because the plane is designed to be pilotless as well as with humans in it who could control a flight of drones.
A horde of small-nuke-armed drones is a vastly cheaper platform in terms of devastation on targets per dollar
—
Yes, but they have to be controlled from somewhere nearby, as satellites can and will be knocked out. Hence the B-21
The MIC LOVES to spend OUR money.
—
and if they did not, who would defend you with what? Strongly worded letters do not cut the mustard.
I'm pretty sure DARPA does. And I repeat to your first claim, "You sure about that?"
No, for a NUKE inertial guidance is of sufficient accuracy.
Good investment own the night.
The drones that are being developed are very stealthy, but it is important to understand that the purpose of stealth is not necessarily to make an aircraft completely invisible to radar. If that can be achieved then of course it’s great, but what really matters is preventing anti-air systems from being able to target the aircraft. Even if the enemy is able to see the aircraft, that’s of little value if their fire control radars can’t lock onto it.
It’s far easier to detect something than to target it. Second, as far as automation and someone’s contention that we don’t need the B-21 because unmanned drones can do its job, the B-21 reportedly is capable of operating in either manned or unmanned modes, depending upon mission requirements. The B-21 is far larger than any drone, so can carry a much larger payload, and where a single aircraft, or a few aircraft meet the mission needs, it would be foolish to send dozens of drones instead. For one thing, the B-21, like the B-2, will have global range, while much smaller drones would likely need to be refueled more often. Imagine one B-21 being capable of flying all the way to a target and only needing to refuel once on the way back, versus let’s say a half dozen drones (just to make up a number - I suspect it could be higher) that would all have to refuel on the way there and on the way back, possibly multiple times. That’s a huge difference in the logistics required, and the number of tankers loitering out there, loitering out there possibly being detected or becoming targets themselves.
We need both the B-21 and combat drones, but they fill very different roles. And until automation (AI) reaches a point where it can be trusted to react correctly to dynamically changing combat conditions, and to make the decision to release weapons, manned aircraft will still be at the center of any attack, with drones possibly serving as force multipliers under the control of the manned aircraft’s crew.
No, for a NUKE inertial guidance is of sufficient accuracy.
—
Not taking about nukes just Drones vs manned
Still a lot of secrecy about this plane. For all we know at this point, it may well be a drone.
I WAS talking about drone nukes, when you "corrected" me with data that reinforced my point: that this manned bomber is about placing numerous high-accuracy conventional weapons. It is not a deterrant against a nuclear power; it is a weapon with which to enforce globalist dominance against those powers who are not nuclear.
Hence, why do we really need it for national defense? That money would be better spent elsewhere.
“The same stuff that powers our drones now.”
That would be diesel, gas or lithium. The US is thousands of miles away from places where we’d be using drones. You have to get them there. You have to maintain them while they’re there. Some drones may last from fifteen minutes to two hours. You have to be someplace close to control them and then refuel or recharge them. Thousands of drones hovering over a battlefield would have a fantastic logistics, maintenance and re-ordinance tail requiring hundreds of people who also must be sustained and maintained. This is why we have huge intercontinental drones that are the size of small planes and those aren’t going to work over a battlefield contested by a near peer. They work fine in places where the guys you’re after don’t have radar or missiles that can reach high altitude. This is why we have the Spirit bomber, B-52’s and some of the largest navy ships in the world. It’s thirteen thousand miles to get to most of the places we need them to be and then they have to maintain themselves long enough to be useful. The Chinese, for example, have adopted a strategy of area denial. We won’t be able to have bases in Guam maintaining drones as, regardless of what we put there to defend it, the Chinese have enough assets to take it out. Everything will come from very far away, stay briefly and then go home.
Having said all that, those huge ships and long-distance planes, when they arrive, will be subject to guys on the ground with small, short-range drones. Defending against those will be the issue, as the Russian fleet has learned.
Drones are fine and have their place, but that place is not everywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.