B2 with machine gun turret

Well what if the escorts were shot down? A couple hundred grand at most to provide extra defensive capability and little to no loss in performance is a good upgrade to make.

Then the B-2 fucks off. The pilot then rapes whoever was in charge of finding out what capabilities the enemy had in regards to air.

>Well what if the escorts were shot down?
the b-2 is fucked.

do you not understand how modern military doctrine works? the operation of singular pieces of equipment isn't that important, what is important is the cooperation between different pieces of equipment.

the b-2 has no air to air weaponry (acknowledged publicly at least), so it relies on stealth escort fighters to not be shot down. if the escort fighters are killed, the b-2 is helpless. to prevent the b-2 from being killed, the usaf will do it's best to keep competent fighter escorts around the b-2 at all times.

you're basically arguing for the m1a1 abrams to have some sort of retarded 360 degree coverage anti infantry gun attached to it, to prevent infantry from just coming up alongside it and strapping explosives to it.

that has no need, since any non-retarded army will provide the abrams with infantry coverage to protect it against other infantry. a weakness in the tank's design is more than made up for with combined arms tactics.

>Escorts already down
>Thinking a dinky little 10mm single barrel MG would do anything to enhance survivability at that point.

Not him, but the Abrams already has that with the CAWS.

I agree with your argument though.

>you're basically arguing for the m1a1 abrams to have some sort of retarded 360 degree coverage anti infantry gun attached to it
It already does retard

The chances of a successful kill are slim sure, but you could also use it as a CIWS.

then we can expand the point to the protection of the abrams from anti tank missiles. the best protection, and the one armies will aim for in the first place, is just bombing the shit out of any position where an anti-tank team might be positioned so that they can't fire.

you get the point, obviously. basically we just need to avoid being as retarded as the arabs.

>It already does retard
sorry senpai, i'm not a tanker.

>escorts already downed by magic pixie dust anti aircraft missiles from a distance
>30mm auto cannon will surely turn the tides of battle
K.

>you're basically arguing for the m1a1 abrams to have some sort of retarded 360 degree coverage anti infantry gun attached to it, to prevent infantry from just coming up alongside it and strapping explosives to it.
Then what are the machine guns for?

>A 10mm single barrel Machine gun can do the job of Pick related
No

Attached: Mk-15-CIWS-003.jpg (1168x1200, 167K)

>10mm caliber

Attached: 153415646333.png (414x419, 241K)

you're not a pilot either, yet here you are saying stupid shit about planes

Attached: 1522839546832.jpg (400x300, 12K)

I cant quite tell but I dont think that was OP

Summer fag get out.

Attached: thats bait.gif (300x252, 2.79M)

>i need to be a fighter pilot to understand that the b-2 is an unarmed stealth bomber that requires stealthy escort fighters to protect it in hostile or contested airspace
user...

Attached: spooked cat.jpg (494x494, 47K)

The go too weapons for Air to Air wine (as far as guns are concerned) is 20/25/30mm Gatling or Revolver action cannons, so a dinky little 10mm machine gun is a waste of time. Not to mention resources developing a cartridge, weapon system, and mounting that do not exist currently.

>You're basically arguing for the m1a1 abrams to have some sort of retarded 360 degree coverage anti infantry gun attached to it, to prevent infantry from just coming up alongside it and strapping explosives to it.

t. brainlet

It does need that, and does have it. Engaging infantry in close quarters is an unfortunate but not unexpected scenario for armored elements breaking through enemy lines.

Should have gone with something more like:

>>You're basically arguing for the m1a1 abrams to have some sort of retarded 360 degree coverage anti-aircraft gun attached to it, to prevent attack helicopters and CAS aircraft from just flying up and launching missiles at it.

if you had read the rest of the thread you would have seen which is me admitting that i was retarded and could have worded that better.

i was talking more along the lines of some absurdly retarded automated 360 degree autocannon or something. you know, not one that the gunner can use to spray down infantry, but one that is so overpowered that it can take down an entire enemy zerg rush without the tank crew doing anything. so something designed under the assumption that tanks do not and never will have infantry cover, so they need to be able to handle literally any threat from enemy infantry. which isn't the case. since the army isn't retarded.

Whats a summer fag?

delete this before the legions of wannabe oldfags spam you with "lurk more faget"
also its a kid on summer break that pollutes the board with low quality content. youre welcome

All tailguns were removed from the B-52 in the 80s and early 90s and replaced with electronic countermeasures.

The last tailgunner kill in the USAF was in vietnam in 1972.

Attached: 1529807025047.jpg (541x569, 25K)

I suggest a tail turret to keep stealth capacities

Attached: b2evolution.jpg (564x734, 102K)

Gun turrets on bombers have been obsolete for 50+ years.

>found an obvious unused section in the airframe

Yeah I'm sure there is so much wasted space in a billion dollar stealth weapon.

the section OP is referring to is the in flight refueling assembly. Northrop-Grumman is very secretive of how it works because it involves a rotating piece of the airframe that actuates when it's ready to take on fuel. since this assembly is very complicated and affects the stealth features when it's being used it's still highly classified hence the omission in the blueprints. here you go

youtube.com/watch?v=d-2_u5f2Eaw

Attached: 1278c9692127ba5e76f159a78c80ac29.jpg (1500x984, 229K)

Fucking summer in here

the whole concept of the B-2 was to penetrate airspace undetected and un-escorted. The whole reason it exists was to go into Soviet airspace and covertly hunt down train-based mobile nuclear launch sites with a (then) revolutionary datalink with ground radar satellites. the more you know.

This is probably bait, but read out loud the literal actual fucking role of the plane.
>"Stealth"
>"Bomber"
If the plane is within gun range of anything it's already dead because it's absolutely massive, slow, and un-maneuverable compared to a fighter. Also you're not going to do shit with such a tiny gun, look at actual CIWS systems and then try and figure out how you're going to cram that into an airframe. On top of that, turrets on bombers are maximally useful when they cover every angle of approach enemy fighters could reasonably take to make an attack run on the bomber with their fixed guns, which is a thing that simply hasn't happened in a helluva long time. The kinds of attacks ball guns were built to defend against don't happen to the B2.
youtube.com/watch?v=DqoUdd9Ge4E

Is no one going to point out that there are no gun kills anymore, and all A2A combat occurs with missiles while the planes arn't even in visual contact?

>t. F-4 Phantom designers.

Because defensive turrets are obsolete. Fighters don't get close enough or move slow enough to be reliably engaged by them. It's all about missiles now.

Dumb for a bunch of reasons. Go back to xbox, kid.

t. Faggot who gets all his knowledge from """History""" Channel documentaries

Adding guns to the Phantom didn't improve kill ratios. Better training and tactics did. Even after adding the guns, the overwhelming majority of kills were still made with missiles.

Because missiles exist fucktard. An enemy plane could just hang back out of the b2's gun range and launch a heatseeker.

I think your understanding of air combat comes from video games and movies

The turret could be used as a CIWS for additional defense against missiles.

B-2 is already slated for retirement when the B-21 comes online. No reason to sink more money into it.

This isn't ww2 even if an engagement happened it would be miles apart

I am ashamed of you.

Navy did fine without guns, user. It was the chair force that forgot to explain to their pilots how to actually use the missiles.

>Modern stealth technology can fail against interceptors
>so we need to put pistol caliber machine guns on our stealth bombers

Attached: image.jpg (567x567, 186K)

You don't understand how CIWS works and are probably underage

Doctrine doesn't allow using missiles intelligently and we don't get A2A kills because ISIS doesn't have an air force.

Attached: zzzerea.jpg (600x600, 16K)

This thread is peak summer.

There's not much of a traffic increase on Jow Forums during the summer, to be fair. It's not much.

>An assembly like this would probably cost less than $100,000
no. It would cost 125 million. PER PLANE.
>what happens when the next gen of Russian and Chinese interceptors fly up behind it
B2 dies. No amount of ballistic weaponry would save it.

you're retarded as fuck.

>It retracts into the plane's body so this isn't an issue.
panel gap isn't an issue? You realize this is real life and not anime, right?
> imagine a B2 with loads of AMRAAMs coming in and fucking everything up.
with what targeting? You either put a LPI radar into it, which you might not be able to do, or you always operate in passive.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

I bet you like battleships being brought back and gliders...

>t. Pierre Sprey

op, any attack on a b2 bomber would be bvr or at least out of range of a fucking 10mm MG.

Go back to warthunder or WOW u knob

Because a fucking pistol caliber tail gun isn't going to save a B2 from a BVR attack you absolute brainlet

what is aerodynamics
>ha air doesn't have mass
>yes a this super sonic jet can do what a WWII prop aircraft can
summer hits hard

underrated

How about sticking two forward firing 30mm cannons so it can head-on chink interceptors?

Attached: horten229.jpg (920x620, 181K)

why not give it a plywood frame, are you aiming for hitlers seal of approval

>40 retards fell for this 10mm shitpost

there's a good chance we'll load them up with long range A2A missiles and use them as a sort of artillery role where the F35 acts as forward observer

>Air to Air missiles
>Artillery
>F35 forward observer

Nigga what.

Attached: nigga_what.jpg (300x256, 14K)

F35 flies ahead of the B2 and provides targeting data for the A2A missiles.

youtube.com/watch?v=no0qB8CVspY

that's exactly how it's going to work

we might even turn the B2 into a drone

Attached: b2.webm (1920x1080, 1.55M)

also the B1 will replace the A10

Attached: B1-R.jpg (1440x810, 121K)

samefag

no shit

Attached: 1514146759746.jpg (943x1200, 632K)

you think that a 2 barreled machine gun turret sticking out of a large, non-purpose built air-frame is going to replace an air-frame made specifically for it's task?

it's already happened really

B1s fly more CAS missions than the A10s do

Sources?

lmgtfy.com/?q=b1 bomber close air support

Im not going to find your own sources for you. Make your argument faggot.

literally the second fucking result

military.com/daily-news/2018/01/14/b-1b-lancers-evolving-mission-take-more-close-air-support.html

Ok, fair enough. But it will be doing so with ordinance, not that retarded thing in

that's real too

military.com/defensetech/2018/05/17/proposed-cannon-would-turn-b-1-bomber-gunship.html

Attached: 1523673631442.png (1069x834, 857K)

Just because it's real doesnt mean it isnt a terrible, retarded idea.

>The company is exploring the possibility of mounting different types of weapons. "A weapon may include or correspond to a machine gun, a chain gun, a cannon, an autocannon, a rail gun, a projectile firing device, or a laser weapon," the patent states.
>a terrible, retarded idea.

Attached: 1522195883876.jpg (352x395, 23K)

whats your point

What's yours?

that a little fuckign turret sticking out of the ordinance bay is a dumb idea, no mater what is mounted on it.

why don't we just make the B2 transform into a big robot dude

Attached: VB1.png (1800x850, 129K)

This isn't Vietnam. If any enemy jet gets into visual range with a stealth bomber then something went horribly wrong on both ends.

And neither are you. Tail guns were taken off the B-52's for a reason

The Chair Force were also the ones who had the majority of heavy ground attack planes that couldn't really fight back against ambushes from light Vietnamese fighters. Most planes shot down were F-105's on bombing missions.

My god your IQ must literally be single digit, subsonic bombers would never be sent on a mission in hostile air space without an escort

>F-4's have the most air-to-air kills in the war by far
Makes me think