B-21 Raider: Next step, First flight!

originally posted by: jaydaliz3
where did i say they were useless? and easily defeated when Russian and China have to spend BILLIONS just for a chance to shoot it down stealth is not useless but it isnt Excalibur either.

Well let’s see, you’ve pointed out the one F-117 shot down, touted IADS, repeatedly tried to say other systems are more effective, but yeah, I don’t see how anyone could take that away from your posts.

Base watching doesn't need a human in a lawn chair emitting radio and IR frequencies. You could easily put a passive camera somewhere and collect pics later or hell just MAKE agents sit out side bases and watch or buy housing or land near bases or under flight lines, not all bases are in the US and most of the sightings of various test items have been seen across the pond.

And let’s say you set all that up. Your system catches three B-21s take off out of Ellsworth. Where are they going? All you’ve done is catch them taking off, from a long way off, because there’s no good, accessible spot to get close to the base. You don’t have direction of travel or any other information a human spotter could give you.

Mia Copa on Korean air lines 007 but they still were way off course and were by no fault of their own, shot down because a US spy aircraft was pushing the limits and yeah i know they don't have windows on those aircraft where civilian ones do but as I'm sure you know it was an awful night as far as weather.

So you see 20MM tracer and MiG's wing rock you and decide to keep going? the US would shoot them down as well.

Almost none of which has anything to do with 902. They were in the process of following instructions when they were hit with a missile.

Cargo aircraft ad B52's way outside SAM reach using ER stand off weapons in swarms along with eletronic decoys that can fl0od a radar has nothing to do with stealth

You’re picking and choosing. On the one hand, you say tankers and non stealthy aircraft give away the B-21, while on the other you say they’re the best thing for an attack. No matter where you plan to launch from, those slow, non stealthy targets are in range of fighter interception.

there is no way, not for a million bucks could anyone convince me that we don't have even in a early phase hypersonic missiles with intercontinental reach that is conventional or just launch them at the boarder of your adversary and reduce the flight time even more, and what system does Russia or China have that can intercept a extremally low flying Mach 3+ missile(see flying crow bar)

Well if you believe it, it must be true.

So your saying missiles ,like the S400, SM3, Patriot etc. cant adjust targets on the fly? why have a data link than.

Adjusting using a datalink is a world apart from launching blind, activating its onboard radar, finding, identifying, and adjusting to a target. There is no missile out there capable of doing all that. There’s a reason for those datalinks, and the adjustments they make are fairly small.

Conscripts are who is fighting the war for Russia, sure they have special teams but they are getting deleted every day, who do you think they fill that empty space with?

You’re still the only one that mentioned conscripts.

Its a kind of like fish or cut bait, keep you IAD's up and just maintain them or they get taken out.

Keep your IADS up 24/7/365 and see how long it takes it to fail. There’s a reason that they have redundant coverage in many areas.

the USWAF said the B21 was one part of a family of aircraft so clearly it needs some help in various areas otherwise it would just do it but its self.

Except they didn’t. They said it’s part of a family of systems, such as Loyal Wingman, which will be used to attack high risk targets, and new cruise missiles. Both of which won’t be around until after the Raider is at IOC.

new B-21 pix.

theaviationist.com...

twitter.com...

a reply to: anzha

The last one has the ED tail code, Global Strike Command, 412th Test Wing, and AF Materiel Command on it.

Comparison between the roll out aircraft, and the aircraft seen in July of this year.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's the 412th Test Wing shield in the middle.

Also, it sure makes a big difference when the photographer is not up close using a super-wide-angle lens like some of those earlier pictures inside the hangar.

a reply to: Shadowhawk

Yep, my bad. I typoed that one. Thanks for the correction.

It makes a difference, but I can't see it making so much of a difference that you can see both side windows in one, and not the other. Also if you look underneath, the December aircraft had no sensor openings. It looks like they might have used an incomplete test article, or mock up to roll out.

Is it me or are those 2 different aircraft?

I get the whole camera-angle perspective but the landing gear looks farther apart in one of the pictures.

a reply to: TXRabbit

I'm convinced that the one rolled out was either an incomplete test article, or a mock up. If you look under the fuselage there are no sensor openings, compared to the picture taken in July, and the skin doesn't look quite right.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I work with cameras and lenses for a living and it’s my opinion that lens + camera height can account for the perceived visual differences between the landing gear configuration and the window placement.

It’s hard to see due to lens distortion but I think the main gear doors on both shots are in the same location, the wide angle lens used on the original photos is just effing with the perspective. They possibly used an extreme wide angle for the early photos for this very reason. Or because wide angle closeups look cool.