The undercarriage says different.At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.
View attachment 688237
What is this? A bomber for ants?
Unless the USAF is planning to shift the deep-strike penetrator munitions capability from stealth bombers to TBMs they are developing right now and field them in allied nations in the far east and Guam, stealth bombers should be able to operate MOP and equivalent payloads.Keep in mind that this is the first "dedicated" bomber designed after precision weapons mature over the past 2 decades. So the size of the bomber is designed around their uses. Unlike in the past, bombers need to be big enough to carry conventional "dumb" bombs in order to achieve the same effects.
I seriously doubt that it's not capable of carrying long range missiles. You guys are assuming a lot from basically a frontal profile... And nothing more.Neither will this.The f15 doesn't carry alcms.At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.
View attachment 688237
What is this? A bomber for ants?
Exactly. So does the apparent volume.The undercarriage says different.At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.
View attachment 688237
What is this? A bomber for ants?
That also has to support the plane, fuel, etc.The undercarriage says different.At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.
View attachment 688237
What is this? A bomber for ants?
The B-2 doesn't even carry cruise missiles.I seriously doubt that it's not capable of carrying long range missiles. You guys are assuming a lot from basically a frontal profile... And nothing more.Neither will this.The f15 doesn't carry alcms.At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.
View attachment 688237
What is this? A bomber for ants?
and equivalent payloads.
How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?and equivalent payloads.
B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.
Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support
Good catch - inlets are bifurcated!
Why would they tell anyone?How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?and equivalent payloads.
B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.
Is it me or does the outer portion of the inlet look solid?Ramping up the brightness in the dark spots doesn't reveal a whole lot.View attachment 688241
With what? Nukes?and equivalent payloads.
B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.
They told everybody about all the rest.Why would they tell anyone?How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?and equivalent payloads.
B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.
I'm asking how he's able to say it with so much assurance, so better ask quellish how that's possible, if such thing exists and if they're gonna tell anybody, not me.Why would they tell anyone?How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?and equivalent payloads.
B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.
Four business jet engines would actually make a lot of sense from a design perspective. Still low maintenance due to the reliability of commercial turbofans, and an engine out would be much less critical.Looks to me like it has four engines based on the inlet splitter, unless it's just a structural support?
Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support
Vane to re-direct air flow in extreme side slip conditions perhaps.Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support
Given the aspect ratio, it could also be an aerodynamic guide vane - very much as on the Victor![]()
Wouldn't you just flameout the opposite side with this kind of shape?Vane to re-direct air flow in extreme side slip conditions perhaps.Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support
Given the aspect ratio, it could also be an aerodynamic guide vane - very much as on the Victor![]()
The ground cart is a known variable..... Just sayingBy the way, was that hanger the same hanger they used in 1988 for B-2 rollout? This was also in plant 42 after all. If it is, that speaks a lot in terms of its size, comparing it to the hanger door compartments and overall wing width.
View attachment 688244
View attachment 688243
good pointThe ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying
But the geometry of the lens isn't. Especially since the wings bend back so much, you probably can't get a reliable estimate on size based on something that is so small in comparison to the aircraft.The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying
Looks like they found a way around all the air-data sensors of the B-2.Some panel detail can be seen around the cockpit.View attachment 688250