Will the Bongs ever build strategic bombers again?

They serve no purpose for a western country in Europe. We can reach everywhere we want with conventional jets and cruise missiles.

We can Launch aircraft from the UK, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Oman, British Indian Ocean Territory or various allied nations. and we have the tanker infrastructure to get our aircraft where they are needed.

We had Tornados flying 3000 mile strike missions in 2013.

We can also launch tomahawks from Submarines and in the coming years T26.

Our nuclear deterrent isn't a triad, so we hve no need fro a nuclear bomber along side our SLBM's.

Attached: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (1501x970, 458K)

Unlike G*rmany, they have an actual aerospace industry. Wanting to keep costs down by buying off the shelf doesn't indicate lack of ability.

London would be enormously improved by a bucket of sunshine.

>bong-posting intensifies
Yeah yeah, lad. Britannia rules the waves and so on with their fucking R A M P.

Not a bong.
They have 2 carriers (More than any continentaloid has) with 5th generation stealth fighters.

Which will probably last only slightly longer than the current Saudi royal family, who are likely to come to a sudden and messy end quite soon.

B-21's arnt for export you delusional bong

Russia should bomb t*rks and br*ts out of Cyprus.

Attached: 14441471952630.jpg (1640x976, 135K)

There's nothing to say B-21 couldn't be exported, it's not early as cutting edge as B-2. It's simply taking a B2 airframe, making it smaller, giving it F135 engines and F35 avionics.

If you can buy F35 you can probably buy B-21 but there just isn't a market for it. And plus the UK has shown no interest in it so i dont know why thinks it's a possibility.

All these Russian shills shitposting about Britain 24/7

It's hilarious, they are getting even more desperate as the skripal incident goes on, everything the Russian government and RT says keeps getting torn apart.

nice b8 m8 I r8 8/8

Attached: 1527646183579.gif (633x600, 176K)

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Not nearly as cutting edge as the B-2?
Its designed to be a direct and cost effective upgrade over the B-2, and in time, will be replacing it all together.
The B-2 is 80's tech, if you thing the B-21 isnt going to be more advanced, youre fucking stupid.
If you also unironically think the USAF and Northrup Grumman's most advanced stealth bomber in the world is going to be put up for export because Lockheed is exporting a multi roll fighter then youre even more retarded.
There has been absolutely zero evidence or talk whatsoever that anyone in the US government has even hinted at exporting it.
saying other wise is just pure delusional bong wank fantasies.

SEETHING
E
E
T
H
I
N
G

B2 was well ahead of it's time.

B-21 is using much off the shelf technology.

B21 being less cutting edge for it's time isn't a statement that means B2 is better. Please work on your reading comprehension.

>There has been absolutely zero evidence or talk whatsoever that anyone in the US government has even hinted at exporting it.

There's been zero talk of an export ban either. As i said, i don't think it would be exported because there's no market for it. Countries in Eurasia don't need to cross huge distances to attack their enemies. Australia could be the only potential use case for it and they have no interest or budget for it.

>B2 was well ahead of it's time.

Yeah so advanced and cutting edge bro. Flying wings wernt anything new in the 80's. Link related. century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/flying wings/northrop.htm

>B21 being less cutting edge for it's time isn't a statement that means B2 is better. Please work on your reading comprehension.

No I understand your retarded ass pretty well. The B-21 will be more cutting edge (for its time), I have no idea why youre being such a blatant retard about it.
It will have:
cutting edge design I.E Cranked kite variation.
Improved and more advanced air frame materials
Absolute cutting edge RAM
Possible brand new ADVENT derived engines
Insane E-warfare suite
Point defense laser systems
And so on and so on.
Circling back to your comment about NG just slapping on LM's F-35 engines and avionics is just talking out of your ass, period.

>There's been zero talk of an export ban either.
So because they didnt say they wernt means the suddenly are?
If they had any intention of export they would have released that information loooong ago like they did with the F-35 to drum up interest. Stop being intentionally retarded please.

and america wont make it into 2050, whats your point?
t. american.

There is no market for export. The US is the only air force with any use for the thing. It'd be like the only gay on the planet trying to market his new "Big Hairy Dave" sex doll.

>2050
you're way optimistic. it won't make it past 2022.

>No I understand your retarded ass pretty well.

No you didnt, otherwise you wouldn't have gone on a rant about how B21 is replacing B2. Someone who says "The B-2 is 80's tech, if you thing the B-21 isnt going to be more advanced, youre fucking stupid." Isnt someone who knows thats being talked about.

>The B-21 will be more cutting edge (for its time)

"Cost would be controlled by utilizing off-the-shelf systems and affordable stealth technologies (JSF technology)."

globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm

This smaller step in technology is deliberate, because that's the only way that the US can hope to have large numbers of them.

>So because they didnt say they wernt means the suddenly are?

Literally nobody wants to buy it, no one allied to the US has ever used strategic bombers post WW2.

Once again your reading comprehension is struggling, you seem to be replying to save face on an anonymous image board.

>Literally nobody wants to buy it, no one allied to the US has ever used strategic bombers post WW2.

I should have said bought not used, obviously the UK made it's own bombers.

2022 will be the year where it passes the point of no return, but only sometime after that will it truly die, much like how the USSR was dead in the mid 80s but truly died in 91. and like the USSR its not going to go out with any civil war or insurgency, but rather voting itself out of existence.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 19K)

essentially, yes. most western countries are.

>Rant
more like explained to you why your ignorant as fuck. Nice of you to ignore the list of flying wings I linked too that shit all over your position.

>Cost would be controlled by utilizing off-the-shelf systems and affordable stealth technologies (JSF technology)
Love that your 2015 write up gives no specifics on what it would actually be when you arrogantly claimed that "They are just going to rip out F-35 avionics and engines and slap them on bro"
When more than likely its just going to share a variation of its baked on RAM coating.

>This smaller step in technology is deliberate, because that's the only way that the US can hope to have large numbers of them.
Couldnt help but notice how you avoided addressing my long list of shit that the USAF wants on the B-21, that again made my point.

>Literally nobody wants to buy it, no one allied to the US has ever used strategic bombers post WW2.
There are plenty of countries who wouldn't necessarily need a bomber, but would love to tear down and study the B-21 and would buy one or two for that very purpose.

>Once again your reading comprehension is struggling, you seem to be replying to save face on an anonymous image board.
Your reddit tactics dont work on Jow Forums friend. Ive been here for 12 years, and have shitposted countless people like you into the ground, and in the end, Ill forget ever having this conversation with your by tomorrow night lel
What else do you got for me big guy?

>The US Air Force has chosen several aerospace companies to work with prime contractor Northrop Grumman on the new long-range B-21 strategic bomber project, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James told a press conference 07 March 2016. James said the companies are: Pratt & Whitney, BAE Systems, GKN Aerospace, Rockwell Collins, Spirit Aerosystems and Orbital ATK. "Pratt & Whitney will provide new engines, the other six will work on air frames [and other systems]," James stated.
globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-21.htm

Yeah bro just going to bolt on F-35 shit itll be EZ!
BTFO by your own source

After Nov election, Maxine Waters, that crazy nigger, will be the speaker of the house.
These are her core supporters.
People who hate and despise America will be literally in charge.

Attached: 1510067785670.jpg (646x1448, 279K)

>People who hate and despise America will be literally in charge.
worse, the people who have no allegiance either way will be in charge.

>Nice of you to ignore the list of flying wings I linked too that shit all over your position.

My position that the flying wing is what made B2 cutting edge? Care to quote me on where i said that?

You're clearly getting upset, you're now making strawman arguments.

Pratt and whitney make the F35's F135 engine genius. I also never said all the systems were from F35, but you can bet they want to reuse a lot of the work that went into the sensor fusion in particular. Another strawman argument from someone who's only arguing because he failed to read my original comment and now he's trying to save face. badly.

well, (((they))) have been in charge all along and are the root of the problem.

Attached: 1541110562547.jpg (480x360, 29K)

>actually thinking that there is a singular cause of the problem
brainlet.jpg

>getting sucked off by the pope
Considering the current pope I would argue that this isn't all that unrealistic.

why does every single thread about the UK attract Jow Forumsniggers?
is american politics that fucking cancerous?

>is american politics that fucking cancerous?

Yes. Completely polarised by a two party system. Plus they get most of their information from clickbait tier headlines in the daily mail that specialise on making money over feigned outrage.

>Care to quote me on where i said that?
You said the B2 was more advanced for its time, and I showed you why you weren't so correct. Then you sperged.

>You're clearly getting upset, you're now making strawman arguments.
I find that the person always claiming the other is mad, is in fact, the actual person who is upset. Try a new tactic pls.

>Pratt and whitney make the F35's F135 engine genius
Yeah no shit ass wipe. No one knows what the B-21 engine is going to be yet. Its only RUMORED to use a heavily modified F135, or whatever P&W's upgraded F135 is.
Pretty far cry away from what you were originally claiming that NG was just going to slap on F-35 engines on a completely new air frame to save money.

>I also never said all the systems were from F35
You heavily implied it in other posts, and even quoted your link to try and "prove" it in your last post. Now youre back peddling. You spouted some bullshit, now own it.

>now he's trying to save face. badly.
As you put it before, its a anonymous image board and im not a trip. there is no face to be had or saved in anyway whatsoever. Ill be back shitpostng tomorrow having forgot all about you friend. And no one will remember or be all the wiser to it. Keep screeching it though. maybe if you try it long enough Ill start to care!!! :^)

Because along with Japan and the Vatican City, the UK is the least Jow Forums country on earth.

>You said the B2 was more advanced for its time, and I showed you why you weren't so correct. Then you sperged.

You haven't quoted me. You're the one who's implied that the B2's most advanced feature is the flying wing. You're making a strawman argument.

>Yeah no shit ass wipe. No one knows what the B-21 engine is going to be yet. Its only RUMORED to use a heavily modified F135, or whatever P&W's upgraded F135 is.
Pretty far cry away from what you were originally claiming that NG was just going to slap on F-35 engines on a completely new air frame to save money.
if you knew anything about aircaft devlopment you'd realise that it costs a huge amount to develop a new engine. they will end up throwing four F135's in there with a few tweaks to make it more suited for efficiency. You have no basis for your claims that it'll be heavily modified. And playing devils advocate, if it is heavily modified, it's still an F135 base and it's still using work from F35 and thats once again sticking to my claim that they are using F35 tech. so really you've just played yourself.

>You heavily implied it in other posts,
So in other words you're making up what i said to suit your strawman argument?

>As you put it before, its a anonymous image board and im not a trip. there is no face to be had or saved in anyway whatsoever. Ill be back shitpostng tomorrow having forgot all about you friend. And no one will remember or be all the wiser to it. Keep screeching it though. maybe if you try it long enough Ill start to care!!! :^)

And you'll still be wrong and i'll still be right. sleep tight brainlet.
Come on buddy, you're smarter than this, apply yourself.

the fact that every politician is a salesman for themselves also doesnt help.
t. american.

I have no idea why you guys haven't put strict limits on the amount campaigns can spend.

Still, we could sit here for days trying to create an ideal political system and some moron would still come along and fuck it up.

>You're making a strawman argument.
says the person that claimed the B2 was so far ahead of its time but never actually posted what made it so. (Hint, the flying wing is a major part of that)

>if you knew anything about aircraft development you'd realize that it costs a huge amount to develop a new engine.
You mean the next generation engines that have been maturing for many years right now? The very same engines the P&W is almost ready to upgrade the original F135 with?

they will end up throwing four F135's in there with a few tweaks to make it more suited for efficiency.
Wow retard alert. It absolutely amazing how you claim to be such a expert but don't actually have a clue what going on with the B-21. All indications are the the B-21 with have 2 engines not 4 fagtron. Here let me educate you YET AGAIN.
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19077/congressman-details-integration-issues-with-the-b-21s-exotic-air-inlet-design

>We have had good indications for some time that B-21 will likely utilize two engines instead of the B-2's four.
>The B-21 will almost certainly be a smaller design, with a payload of about two thirds to half that of the B-2. Thus the twin-engine design with a pair of roughly 30,000lb thrust class powerplants makes some sense.

>You have no basis for your claims that it'll be heavily modified.
You know except for the fact that they have to completely re design for an exotic inlet, ducting and exhaust while still meeting air intake requirements. Ya know, that real easy shit bro!

>And playing devils advocate, if it is heavily modified, it's still an F135 base and it's still using work from F35 and thats once again sticking to my claim that they are using F35 tech.
You sound like a vatnik here
You claimed they are just going to use the plain ol F135 from the JSF. I said you where wrong. Now you're trying to split cunt hairs.

>*teleports behind you*
I win, you lose kid.

Anyways its time for my tendies. Cya tomorrow captian autismo!

>I have no idea why you guys haven't put strict limits on the amount campaigns can spend.
it would likely do very little. people vote based entirely on what politicians are selling them, so personality is the only thing that matters. blame celebrity culture.

Everything post skripal has really made me aware of how much Russian disinformation there is online.

theyre not very good at it.

Is their a reason for any country to build a new strategic bomber in the modern era?

That's wrong though. There are a lot of people in the UK interested in war machinery and equipment. Or do you need to be bubba with a shotgun to have an opinion in your eyes?

most of Jow Forums dont have any guns, so take his opinion with a grain of salt.

Brits should design and build a new one, call it "Big Ben".

Attached: Map Future Earth 50 Mil.png (2700x1655, 745K)

>You know except for the fact that they have to completely re design for an exotic inlet, ducting and exhaust while still meeting air intake requirements. Ya know, that real easy shit bro!

None of which is part of designing an engine. It's airframe.

Sure there are 2 engines instead of 4 (allegedly) but it's still the F35 engine. Which was my original claim. Do you know how may military jet engines have been designed in the last 20 years? Excluding drone engines there's been almost none. Its a sure bet that the design will be used again.

The avionics and sensor fusion will come from F35, hence why they are getting the same companies involved once again.

The entire goal is to make a smaller, more off the shelf bomber than B2 that can replace the whole fleet.

You've spent all this energy trying to save face after you humiliated yourself by misunderstanding what cutting edge meant.

The secretary of the airforce also agrees with me that it's a new airframe full of existing technology.

>“When it came to the B-2, everything was new, meaning it was a new airframe, new components were going to go into that airframe and the integration challenge was enormous. So it was the equivalent of a miracle a day had to transpire,” James said. “In the case of the B-21, we do have a new airframe. Integration is always a challenge, but we are using a mature technology, so the risk is more bounded.”

How about you take your made up "point defence lasers" and end yourself.

>Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine, used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and generally assumed to be the basis for the engines used in the B-21, can produce up to 43,000 pounds of thrust, which in turn requires greater air intake. Hence, the cowling for the B-21 engines may require trade-offs between the air coming in and the stealth characteristics.

All the facts in my favor.

It's almost as if in my first post I said its a new airframe with F35 tech.

Sure feels good tearing people apart.

So........ there is a chance