111–120 of 137 posts
A beautiful plane, shame those 6 engines in line is unreal to see. Similar vibe would be the B1-lancer for engine although in 2s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I know, what actually killed the XB-70 was ICBM advancements. The B-52 survived by becoming a low altitude bomber and an excellent, cheap nuclear-capable cruise missile delivery platform that was comparatively cheap to operate at the same level of effectiveness as the B1-B and B-2A for similar roles. Russia more or less mirrored this with the Tu-95.
Eh, the B52 has survived because it is amazing at being a bomb/missle/etc. dumptruck, and doesn’t have anything fancy which is expensive to maintain or particularly brittle. Even the airframes are mostly still alive 50+ years later, which is mind blowing on aircraft. They have made a new B52 since ‘62 but they keep on trucking. It isn’t super fast (the B1 is that), or stealthy (B2 or B21), or sexy (B1), or nimble (an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. Everything we know about the B-21 indicates that it's probably pretty survivable against the Chinese air defense system. Especially for stand-off strikes near the Taiwan Strait where it wouldn't have to overfly radar stations. The design was literally optimized for exactly that purpose. Ironically the B-21 is probably safest in the air. The greatest kinetic threat is on the ground because forward air bases gener…
The greatest kinetic threat is from drone swarm attacks, which can be delivered to the vicinity of an airbase from a handful of anonymous-looking trucks or vans. One or two grenade-strength shrapnel devices are enough to make a $700m dollar special project useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, you're really doubling down on the aggressive ignorance. Do you have any clue about what's involved in certifying a platform for the nuclear strike mission?
Making such a plane, yes, I have a pretty decent clue. It's not that hard. It was done with early 1950s technology! Certifying, sadly... also yes. I work in government. Do you think the enemy cares whether you're properly certified or not? Similarly, do you think hackers care if your CISO has all of your security audit paperwork nicely rubber stamped? Do viruses care if your unpatched servers have been officially exe…
You would know this if you had bothered to do some basic research instead of posting ignorant and irrelevant comments. Like many arrogant engineers who love to pontificate about topics outside your area of expertise, I'm sure you're convinced you're right and everyone else is an idiot. So I'll pass on any further replies and let you believe that you "won".
As someone who once worked on B-52s, I find it amusing how many "successors" it has outlasted. And I know why, because I worked on many of those, too. It has taught me to be skeptical of unproven claims and promises, especially when someone is particularly passionate about them. Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I have great respect for the XB-70. It's the only strategic bomber I haven't worked o…
They have one at the Air Force museum in Dayton. I highly recommend visiting it for anyone interested in this stuff. It's an amazing museum, and it's totally free!
As someone who once worked on B-52s, I find it amusing how many "successors" it has outlasted. And I know why, because I worked on many of those, too. It has taught me to be skeptical of unproven claims and promises, especially when someone is particularly passionate about them. Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I have great respect for the XB-70. It's the only strategic bomber I haven't worked o…
> Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I don't know anything about B-52s, but I work on a project where we are essentially replacing a 40 year old weapon system with a new one. The new one should of course do the same things, preferably better, and do additional new things. The old system started out simple, but has since had most of its internals swapped both hardware and software wise a number of…
Do not #%{>€!# with the sewer system. You may be tempted to, because it works so well it is invisible, to reduce its budget, or to overhaul it, or something.
Do not.
Fund it. Hire extremely competent people to run it, and do not replace them.
Do not #%*|!%# with the sewer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a peer war it's pretty damn dubious whether a B-52 with four modern engines will be more survivable than a B-52 with 8 antiques. Either way the most they'll be able to do is launch standoff munitions from a distance they hope will keep them safe, and if it doesn't then they're dead anyway. In a scenario short of that, we're just quibbling over the degree of waste American voters will put up with (it's the military…
That's pretty much irrelevant. Engine replacement is about increasing range and/or reducing tanker requirement/airframe wear, and reduction of maintenance costs because existing engines are ancient and their maintenance costs are high. One of the reasons this program has been postponed for so long was retirement of C-141 that left USAF with plenty of still good TF-33s. But now these are starting to run out too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"If the US is going to maintain a credible deterrent against China then something has to change. Either defense spending has to go up or we have to drastically scale back activities in other areas. And no, cheap AI drone swarms won't replace the capabilities of something like a B-21." Assuming the US would actually need B21 capability in a war with China. Those will be probably blown up from the sky very fast. Besid…
Nah. Everything we know about the B-21 indicates that it's probably pretty survivable against the Chinese air defense system. Especially for stand-off strikes near the Taiwan Strait where it wouldn't have to overfly radar stations. The design was literally optimized for exactly that purpose. Ironically the B-21 is probably safest in the air. The greatest kinetic threat is on the ground because forward air bases gener…
They'd likely take off from the US, fly wherever they need to go for their mission without landing, and then fly all the way back to the US. Same as the B-2.
Similarly it's unlikely a drone strike is an issue due to distance.
As someone who once worked on B-52s, I find it amusing how many "successors" it has outlasted. And I know why, because I worked on many of those, too. It has taught me to be skeptical of unproven claims and promises, especially when someone is particularly passionate about them. Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I have great respect for the XB-70. It's the only strategic bomber I haven't worked o…
Well, as i understood it has failed because it could no longer provide the main benefit over B-52 it was initially intended to provide: high-altitude penetration - over it's development time, engagement envelope of SAM systems expanded in altitude and speed so much that even XB-70 could no longer hope to get through. So it wasn't any better than B-52, except much pricier. It could also get to the target faster, but f…
They might have been afraid of the XB-70 getting hit but it likely never would have just because it turned out to be so hard to hit things at 70,000+ feet traveling at Mach 3+.