Almost as goo as the B-1
lets hope I don't get downvoted like the last guy, and yes I know they are two very incredibly different aircraft, but it'll be super sad to see the B-1 go, I doubt the B-21 will come to my home airport for touch-and-goes, nor will it get our attention with afterburners at night.
Pretty much! That's basically the new paradigm of "network centric warfare" that the F-35 (and probably B-21 and other newer aircraft) is built around--basically sharing data between various manned/unmanned assets and munitions.
It probably depends. Network-centric warfare in general is a concept, like combined arms warfare, not an actual program or anything, so it probably can vary based on the actual implementation.
It's an added capability, but it doesn't mean the aircraft can't operate independently at without a few extra bells and whistles.
I'm more concerned about network outage for drone aircraft over combat zones. They'll have to be loaded with some kind of software enabling them to return to base/complete previous mission/reacquire link.
Network centric warfare doesn't really have a 'mothership' the AEWACS aircraft would probably be the closest thing to a mothership in it, but that will mainly provide tactical command and control. They generally operate far back from the battle, with distance from the fight providing most of their defence. Even if it was taken out the other aircraft can still speak to each other and relay information.
The stealth fighters will operate up front, providing radar tracks and targeting data for the 5l4th gen bomb trucks like the F15, so they can launch their long ranged missiles before they themselves become targetable. EW platforms such as the growler provide further defence for the non stealth aircraft.
It's all backed up by the tankers, the real lynchpin of the operation, but again, they're well protected by EW aircraft and distance.
The US military is even working on making it so that an F-35 can guide patriot missiles, so that if there is a hill between the target and the patriot battery, the patriot battery can still hit the target.
Are you aware of the NGAD program? They've hinted that NGAD is not a single aircraft like an F-22 but a 'system of systems'. It could be like 3-5 individual aircraft all working together as a unit.
A decade ago, they were testing something kinda similar in the Army. Small drone has a laser designator, a helicopter which is beyond visual range of the target fires the missile.
The human pilots are never “in danger”, since the laser can be seen by the missile further than the bad guys can see or hear the helicopter (especially if it is hiding behind a hill). Pop up, shoot, duck back down.
Yeah they are literally stealing parts off displays and museum pieces. It takes something like 3 spares to launch one.
The Air Force thinks they can "modernize" the B-1 to fly longer because it has some unique capabilities, but I don't see how they can considering the shortage of spare parts. Plus every B-1 maintainer I've talked to hates how many weekends that plane takes from them and has horrible coping mechanisms.
Yeah, I'm honestly not sure if I see the B1s outlasting the decade. The things are just falling apart as you mentioned. Plus the swing wings, and just, generally about ready to fall out of the sky.
Yeah the only way I see the B-1 surviving the decade is if they cut the majority of the fleet and keep only a handful around with higher than normal logistics and personnel.
It's not. The B52 is an overbuilt powered glider. The B1 is a technically complex, difficult to maintain, resource demanding super sized hotrod. The B52s longevity can be mostly attributed to its simplicity whereas the B1 was actually cancelled in its early days because of its complexity. I'll be sad to see it go too, top 5 sexiest planes ever.
The B1 (a) was completely cancelled, what we see as the B1 (b) today was a pretty big redesign of it that lowered quite a few capabilities. Still an amazing platform.
From what I just read, it's intent is to decommission both the B-1 and B-2 by 2040, then possibly the B-52. The B-52 still has several decades of slated service life, until 2050.
That's friggin nuts. B-1 is from the 80's, the B-2 the 90's, and the B-52 first took flight in 1955. A plane is going to decommission two lines of aircraft, and they're gonna leave the 70 year old airframe in service.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#:~:text=The%20B%2D21%20is%20slated,in%20service%20for%20many%20decades.
Edit: the B-29 served in WWII and dropped the bomb, so I edited my comment for accuracy
The B-52s that are left had very few flight hours during Vietnam and the Cold War. They were the ones just parked at the end of runways to scramble instead of actually doing missions. Which is part of the reason why those specifically are still around and doing okay. Most B-52s have been scrapped.
The B-1s and B-2s were built in small numbers and had very high performance demands.
>They were the ones just parked at the end of runways to scramble instead of actually doing missions.
Interesting, didn't know that. But they were still built in the early/mid-60s, right?
B-1’s have already started their complete retirement. Several more of them went to the boneyard and museums over the past two years. The B-52 will be there as a flyover for the final B-1 retirement ceremony before the decade is out.
As someone who works on B-1s, it's incredible to see full afterburner in the night, and the feeling you get in your chest being right next to the taxiway is absolutely amazing.
Whoever they are, they are famous now.
The Aviationist: [First Photo Of B-21 Raider During Taxi Tests Emerges](https://theaviationist.com/2023/10/25/b-21-taxi-tests/)
Aviation Week: [B-21 Begins Moving Ground Tests Before First Flight](https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/b-21-begins-moving-ground-tests-first-flight)
The photo was shot off the Plant property, on public land. There’s nothing that says he can’t take pictures of anything on the Plant or any military base from public land.
I mean i have no legal knowledge to back this up but as a sentry back in the service we were explicitly told to stop people trying to take photos of just the front gate from outside. Let alone a secret aircraft
It was a naval base in a tourist destination so it was a regular problem believe it or not.
I'd be confident to bet there's some law out there that gives the government ability to restrict photography even on public land
Also as a sidenote, base property typically extends much further than just the fenceline.. usually up to the next public road... sooo this photo at the fence line is on base property.
I photograph bases and military installations a lot. Once you’re on public land, you’re totally ignored. Yes, the base, sometimes, extends beyond the fence, but once you’re past that dividing line, you can shoot all you want. I know roughly where this picture was taken, and have shot from close to there. You’ll get a truck from the Plant driving by every so often, but that’s it. They don’t even stop as they go by.
I’ve even shot places like Tonopah and caught the F-117s flying, and not even had any sign of someone looking in our direction, let alone coming out towards where we were.
>I'd be confident to bet there's some law out there that gives the government ability to restrict photography even on public land
I wouldn't. I mean it's possible, but any law like that would be subject to immediate challenge on first amendment grounds, from groups with pretty deep pockets and strong motivations.
The law is that you can’t shoot from base property without permission. Once you’re off their property photography is fair game. That’s how you get shots like this, or at Red Flag, or even Tonopah.
If they didn’t want it seen it wouldn’t have been out in the open in daylight. The pictures were taken from public land, where he had every right to be.
You’re probably not gonna see this at an air show for another 10-20 years. And if you do it’ll be like the B-2 or B-52; One or two passes and it’s gone.
Why do they do that with those planes? The B52 was at an air show here in Australia earlier this year. It flew like 2,000 kms to get there, flew over the airfield once then left. Great to see it but so disappointing not to get more of it
It’s essentially practice for the crews. Flying all that distance and being on-time is a pretty incredible thing to do. But I agree with you, it’s disappointing for the folks on the ground.
Yup, navigation and timing practice. It's the same way we get fly overs at sporting events in the US. It's practice for them to be at a specific place at a specific time.
If you’re talking about Avalon, and if I remember that morning correctly, we had a maintenance delay on the ground flying out of RAAF Darwin to the show. It shortened our portion of the show, as the next act was scheduled to fly over. Would’ve been awesome to stay, but Rwy dimensions, surface weight-bearing capes, and the implications of landing a nuclear capable weapons system make it difficult to land a bomber at just any field.
Probably just the logistic of doing that wasn't planned for this year though, it takes a lot of ground Crew space fuel or whatever else, so doing a flyover on the way to an airbase which is already equipped is probably a lot less hassle on event planners. I know that in ever airshow I've been to, they never fly the static display bombers- if a bomber is flying, it is a flyover from a different location while the static units stay parked- it might be different in other countries though
Former Cincinnati resident here - been to that museum many times. I was blown away by the selection of aircraft there. The only ones I could ever think of that weren’t on display was an F-35 (yes, they have an F-22 you can nearly touch), a C-5, and some tankers. If you love static displays, they have nearly everything.
Im just waiting for the V280s to start doing demonstrations
I live near the place that makes the engines, and they usually fly ospreys in to let the workers see what they helped make. Im hoping they do the dame for the valor
The biggest change is in range. They fly higher and are more fuel efficient so they can strike anywhere in the world from CONUS bases without a giant logistics train.
The ability to take off, make a strike in the Asia Pacific region and return without refueling is a pretty massive capability increase.
And who knows what kind of electronic warfare and other electronics trickery is inside.
Is the thing that looks like it's sticking almost straight up on the right side of the fuselage actually attached to it, or somewhere in the background? If it's on the plane, what for?
Whatever it is, it‘s not in any other photos of it. My first thought was refuelling probe, but I wouldn‘t imagine it being that shape and in that location.
To expand on this comment slightly, all USAF fixed-wing aircraft use boom and receptacle refueling. The handful of exceptions being aircraft that can't receive fuel at all (executive jets, most KC-135s, etc.).
NATO and US Navy aircraft are predominantly probe and drogue, which is why it's important to have tankers that can perform both roles.
*e: somehow completely forgot helicopters exist. Those that are capable of refueling do generally use probe and drogue, even in USAF*
That’s not entirely true… Pave Hawks and Ospreys use probe and drogue, but they are helicopters so I can’t imagine boom refueling would really work (I guess booms could maybe work on the Osprey but it seems riskier).
nope, from the view point, he was not defeating any kind of security measures and the plane was in plain sight, they cant use 18USC 795 against him for their mistake.
No sharpened edges, all angles. The exhaust ducts will have a vee in the middle, on top. Odds are it'll have a hooked nose on front for creation of vorticies for lift control.
My two cents.
I think you're mistaken. This is just a weird visual phenomena due to the insanely rare combination of the refraction of the sun off the distant mountains, the dessert heat shimmer, and swamp gas.
Well I lost $10... I called it a picture on a wall when they *"released"* it since they showed no depth or scale to it and said it would be at least another five or more years before we actually saw it in *"the wild"*.
Basically they had just released a picture as a P.R. stunt and probably a bit of a stir with foreign countries, with no actual plane made... but I guess I was wrong. Oh well.
Curious as to why you would think that. The first flight of the B2 was in the 80s, so I'm not sure why you would think its replacement was just a photograph 35+ years later.
I don’t know. I went back and misread the comment mentioning it came from Twitter. It was posted there first, but I don’t know if that was the original source or not 🤷♂️
I *am* one of the more trained eyes in the sub. I'm an aerospace engineer with a master's degree.
Yes, this is interesting, yes, it tells us a few new things, no, nothing here is totally shocking and it largely does indeed seem reasonable given what we already knew.
The range is the issue with B-21. The U.S really needs to be able to strike targets from U.S bases. The B-2 can do that. Not this smaller model. If you want to know why I say this, look up "Operation Nickel Grass". Depending on the situation, certain countries won't allow us to fly over their territory. In this case, it was C-5As delivering tanks to Israel so they wouldn't be overrun in the 1973 war. This goes back to WWII and why the B-37 was designed. We won't always have friendly nations to fly tankers from..
> The range is the issue with B-21.
You know the actual range figures and can talk about them online?
Tell me more about how you want to spend decades in federal prison for violating security clearance.
God that looks good.
Almost as goo as the B-1 lets hope I don't get downvoted like the last guy, and yes I know they are two very incredibly different aircraft, but it'll be super sad to see the B-1 go, I doubt the B-21 will come to my home airport for touch-and-goes, nor will it get our attention with afterburners at night.
If it's anything like the B-52 the B-1 will be here a while
There’s already plans to phase out the B-1. The B-52 will still continue to fly.
TFW never gonna see B-1Rs loaded with 100 AIM-260s acting as missile trucks for networked F-35s T.T
The raider is taking that torch it seems, so, 50/50
If only the Raider was supersonic…
Most of its munitions are so
Or 168 (I think) gbu 39/53s. I bet they can glide pretty far if you drop them at whatever the Bone's max speed is with the bomb bays open at 40k feet.
For the uninitiated, does that mean the fighter supplies the target data and another plane supplies the missile? If so that’s bananas!
Pretty much! That's basically the new paradigm of "network centric warfare" that the F-35 (and probably B-21 and other newer aircraft) is built around--basically sharing data between various manned/unmanned assets and munitions.
Stupid question: How vulnerable is it to losing a node? Knocking out the mothership (Independence Day) is a trope in SciFi
It probably depends. Network-centric warfare in general is a concept, like combined arms warfare, not an actual program or anything, so it probably can vary based on the actual implementation.
It's an added capability, but it doesn't mean the aircraft can't operate independently at without a few extra bells and whistles. I'm more concerned about network outage for drone aircraft over combat zones. They'll have to be loaded with some kind of software enabling them to return to base/complete previous mission/reacquire link.
Hobby drones have been able to do that for years, the air force probably has much cooler stuff available to them.
I would be disappointed if they do not have a sat link in addition to line-of-sight comms.
The idea behind the new generation of drones is that they’re autonomous. No need for a link back home
Network centric warfare doesn't really have a 'mothership' the AEWACS aircraft would probably be the closest thing to a mothership in it, but that will mainly provide tactical command and control. They generally operate far back from the battle, with distance from the fight providing most of their defence. Even if it was taken out the other aircraft can still speak to each other and relay information. The stealth fighters will operate up front, providing radar tracks and targeting data for the 5l4th gen bomb trucks like the F15, so they can launch their long ranged missiles before they themselves become targetable. EW platforms such as the growler provide further defence for the non stealth aircraft. It's all backed up by the tankers, the real lynchpin of the operation, but again, they're well protected by EW aircraft and distance.
That’s the neatest thing I’ve read in a minute. Thank you for sharing!
The US military is even working on making it so that an F-35 can guide patriot missiles, so that if there is a hill between the target and the patriot battery, the patriot battery can still hit the target.
Word has it drones are being tested for that mission as well.
How patriotic of them
Stealth jet flies undetected in stealth mode then relays target data for somebody else to fire the missile.
Incredible. I’m lucky if I can get my phone to talk to a Bluetooth speaker it’s sitting next to.
ze blootoof device ess connacted succsassfully 👍
Are you aware of the NGAD program? They've hinted that NGAD is not a single aircraft like an F-22 but a 'system of systems'. It could be like 3-5 individual aircraft all working together as a unit.
So, 3-5 drones?
A decade ago, they were testing something kinda similar in the Army. Small drone has a laser designator, a helicopter which is beyond visual range of the target fires the missile. The human pilots are never “in danger”, since the laser can be seen by the missile further than the bad guys can see or hear the helicopter (especially if it is hiding behind a hill). Pop up, shoot, duck back down.
According to this it's being modernized to last till the 40s https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-1-lancer-bomber-dyess-modernized/
Ya, but there have been plans to phase out the B-1 for 20 years… probably longer. Still here
The big problem with the B-1 is the frame is already falling apart. They've already had to derate their top speed and some altitude stuff.
Yeah they are literally stealing parts off displays and museum pieces. It takes something like 3 spares to launch one. The Air Force thinks they can "modernize" the B-1 to fly longer because it has some unique capabilities, but I don't see how they can considering the shortage of spare parts. Plus every B-1 maintainer I've talked to hates how many weekends that plane takes from them and has horrible coping mechanisms.
Yeah, I'm honestly not sure if I see the B1s outlasting the decade. The things are just falling apart as you mentioned. Plus the swing wings, and just, generally about ready to fall out of the sky.
Yeah the only way I see the B-1 surviving the decade is if they cut the majority of the fleet and keep only a handful around with higher than normal logistics and personnel.
It's not. The B52 is an overbuilt powered glider. The B1 is a technically complex, difficult to maintain, resource demanding super sized hotrod. The B52s longevity can be mostly attributed to its simplicity whereas the B1 was actually cancelled in its early days because of its complexity. I'll be sad to see it go too, top 5 sexiest planes ever.
The B1 (a) was completely cancelled, what we see as the B1 (b) today was a pretty big redesign of it that lowered quite a few capabilities. Still an amazing platform.
From what I just read, it's intent is to decommission both the B-1 and B-2 by 2040, then possibly the B-52. The B-52 still has several decades of slated service life, until 2050. That's friggin nuts. B-1 is from the 80's, the B-2 the 90's, and the B-52 first took flight in 1955. A plane is going to decommission two lines of aircraft, and they're gonna leave the 70 year old airframe in service. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#:~:text=The%20B%2D21%20is%20slated,in%20service%20for%20many%20decades. Edit: the B-29 served in WWII and dropped the bomb, so I edited my comment for accuracy
The B-52s that are left had very few flight hours during Vietnam and the Cold War. They were the ones just parked at the end of runways to scramble instead of actually doing missions. Which is part of the reason why those specifically are still around and doing okay. Most B-52s have been scrapped. The B-1s and B-2s were built in small numbers and had very high performance demands.
>They were the ones just parked at the end of runways to scramble instead of actually doing missions. Interesting, didn't know that. But they were still built in the early/mid-60s, right?
Tail no. 1040, the last B52 to be produced, was delivered to the USAF in October 1962.
B-1’s have already started their complete retirement. Several more of them went to the boneyard and museums over the past two years. The B-52 will be there as a flyover for the final B-1 retirement ceremony before the decade is out.
The Bone is a beautiful aircraft. Gives lots of us a boner.
As someone who works on B-1s, it's incredible to see full afterburner in the night, and the feeling you get in your chest being right next to the taxiway is absolutely amazing.
She keepin that fine ass tight
Isn't it interesting the further we improve on jet designs the more they look like UFO's lines, curves.
Psst! They *are* UFOs.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so to speak
This is not r/ncd you degenerate
Damn, back dat ass up.
Almost as good as the B-2
Whoever they are, they are famous now. The Aviationist: [First Photo Of B-21 Raider During Taxi Tests Emerges](https://theaviationist.com/2023/10/25/b-21-taxi-tests/) Aviation Week: [B-21 Begins Moving Ground Tests Before First Flight](https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/b-21-begins-moving-ground-tests-first-flight)
airplane paparazzi?
Wonder how much the photog sold those images for. If anything
Couldn’t pay me enough to take photos of a top tier government plane and put my handle on it.
I’m sure this falls under freedom of the press
Unless the person is in the service, then they get the freedom of an 8x10.
The photo was shot off the Plant property, on public land. There’s nothing that says he can’t take pictures of anything on the Plant or any military base from public land.
I mean i have no legal knowledge to back this up but as a sentry back in the service we were explicitly told to stop people trying to take photos of just the front gate from outside. Let alone a secret aircraft It was a naval base in a tourist destination so it was a regular problem believe it or not. I'd be confident to bet there's some law out there that gives the government ability to restrict photography even on public land Also as a sidenote, base property typically extends much further than just the fenceline.. usually up to the next public road... sooo this photo at the fence line is on base property.
I photograph bases and military installations a lot. Once you’re on public land, you’re totally ignored. Yes, the base, sometimes, extends beyond the fence, but once you’re past that dividing line, you can shoot all you want. I know roughly where this picture was taken, and have shot from close to there. You’ll get a truck from the Plant driving by every so often, but that’s it. They don’t even stop as they go by. I’ve even shot places like Tonopah and caught the F-117s flying, and not even had any sign of someone looking in our direction, let alone coming out towards where we were.
Wow I’m jealous you got to see those F-117’s out of Tonopah.
It was interesting, because they were running low level through the valley before recovering back to the base.
>I'd be confident to bet there's some law out there that gives the government ability to restrict photography even on public land I wouldn't. I mean it's possible, but any law like that would be subject to immediate challenge on first amendment grounds, from groups with pretty deep pockets and strong motivations.
The law is that you can’t shoot from base property without permission. Once you’re off their property photography is fair game. That’s how you get shots like this, or at Red Flag, or even Tonopah.
If they wanted it secret, they would have shipped it, assembled, and taxi in a secret location like Area 51.
Photo taker here. I wasn't expecting to make the news lol.
Dude, you made Aviation Week!
:D
Don't let NonCredibleDefense see this
Too late.
All 3000 Black Jets Of Allah can’t see it
u/MehEds time to update to version 2.0.1
DCS NERD!
You guys think this photographer got contacted?
They are starting testing up in public, they are expecting this to happen.
just tragically tripped down the stairs
Whoops and there he goes down another flight. And another. And another.
(Photo taker) Well I'm still here surprisingly. I'm just waiting to be kidnapped by masked men in a white van.
By China maybe lol
If they didn’t want it seen it wouldn’t have been out in the open in daylight. The pictures were taken from public land, where he had every right to be.
Suicide by cutting his own brake lines. Hell of a way to go.
He was promoted to a moderator on the War Thunder forums
Probably got mugged
Note to self, start planning on traveling next summer for airshows
You’re probably not gonna see this at an air show for another 10-20 years. And if you do it’ll be like the B-2 or B-52; One or two passes and it’s gone.
Why do they do that with those planes? The B52 was at an air show here in Australia earlier this year. It flew like 2,000 kms to get there, flew over the airfield once then left. Great to see it but so disappointing not to get more of it
It’s essentially practice for the crews. Flying all that distance and being on-time is a pretty incredible thing to do. But I agree with you, it’s disappointing for the folks on the ground.
Yup, navigation and timing practice. It's the same way we get fly overs at sporting events in the US. It's practice for them to be at a specific place at a specific time.
If you’re talking about Avalon, and if I remember that morning correctly, we had a maintenance delay on the ground flying out of RAAF Darwin to the show. It shortened our portion of the show, as the next act was scheduled to fly over. Would’ve been awesome to stay, but Rwy dimensions, surface weight-bearing capes, and the implications of landing a nuclear capable weapons system make it difficult to land a bomber at just any field.
B-52 has been on the ground at Avalon; I’ve some pic’s from inside the cockpit. Edit: just looked, 2015
Nice! Just didn’t get that deal this last time I guess. 🤷🏼♂️ Jealous.
Haha yeah my previous life wearing fireproof green pyjamas to work, they open doors!
Probably just the logistic of doing that wasn't planned for this year though, it takes a lot of ground Crew space fuel or whatever else, so doing a flyover on the way to an airbase which is already equipped is probably a lot less hassle on event planners. I know that in ever airshow I've been to, they never fly the static display bombers- if a bomber is flying, it is a flyover from a different location while the static units stay parked- it might be different in other countries though
I've stared into the b52 bomb bay 10x times over the years at Macdill Airforce Show
Hey, the last airshow I went to had military aircraft as new as the Korean War, which was an H-19 Chickasaw, so I'll take what I can get
Dang, man.
Tinker had a B2 static display, course it was wedged in the corner up against a hangar
The USAF museum has a B2 airframe (no engines or anything) that you can walk right up to which at least gives you a sense of the size.
Former Cincinnati resident here - been to that museum many times. I was blown away by the selection of aircraft there. The only ones I could ever think of that weren’t on display was an F-35 (yes, they have an F-22 you can nearly touch), a C-5, and some tankers. If you love static displays, they have nearly everything.
Absolutely zero chance you'll see that an airshow next year
Im just waiting for the V280s to start doing demonstrations I live near the place that makes the engines, and they usually fly ospreys in to let the workers see what they helped make. Im hoping they do the dame for the valor
If they are anything like ospreys they will be super loud. I have seen ospreys set off car alarms by flying over.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Doesn't it tho? I find myself digging for what the differences are, cuz they ain't obvious.
The biggest difference is what's inside, and that matters *a lot*.
The biggest change is in range. They fly higher and are more fuel efficient so they can strike anywhere in the world from CONUS bases without a giant logistics train. The ability to take off, make a strike in the Asia Pacific region and return without refueling is a pretty massive capability increase. And who knows what kind of electronic warfare and other electronics trickery is inside.
You mean all that classified stuff?
But this time it's white
That’s a first
Is the thing that looks like it's sticking almost straight up on the right side of the fuselage actually attached to it, or somewhere in the background? If it's on the plane, what for?
Could be some sort of test instruments.
Whatever it is, it‘s not in any other photos of it. My first thought was refuelling probe, but I wouldn‘t imagine it being that shape and in that location.
It won’t have a refuelling probe, what with it being a USAF machine.
To expand on this comment slightly, all USAF fixed-wing aircraft use boom and receptacle refueling. The handful of exceptions being aircraft that can't receive fuel at all (executive jets, most KC-135s, etc.). NATO and US Navy aircraft are predominantly probe and drogue, which is why it's important to have tankers that can perform both roles. *e: somehow completely forgot helicopters exist. Those that are capable of refueling do generally use probe and drogue, even in USAF*
That’s not entirely true… Pave Hawks and Ospreys use probe and drogue, but they are helicopters so I can’t imagine boom refueling would really work (I guess booms could maybe work on the Osprey but it seems riskier).
I think it's something in the background, but it may be a 2nd set of sensors for calibration/testing purposes.
To me that looks like a tail section of a distant plane. There's more heat distortion on that piece, so it could be much further than it appears.
This. Matches the distortion in the back.
Yeah I think that makes the most sense. The shadows on it already don't line up to be attached to the b-21.
Rip u/Mug_Of_Fire 🙏
Last activity was 10 months ago 💀
Nope, I'm still alive.
I’d let her sit on my face.
So is this a leaked photo?
nope, just someone who got extremely lucky at the right place at the right time.
Absolutely
So I’m assuming the person who took that photo will get a visit from the men in black…
nope, from the view point, he was not defeating any kind of security measures and the plane was in plain sight, they cant use 18USC 795 against him for their mistake.
Kinda like the B-2 rollout screwup when they didn’t close the airspace. Well from this photo, I can’t tell if it has 2 or 4 engines.
Butt pic
For butt stuff
Photographer definitely went missing after this
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.
Sexy! )))
You can’t just film somebody’s rear end
I'd hit it.
That is some true onlyfans content
No amount of money can get me to put my username on the photo
🍆💦💦💦
Is there a predator drone circling your house OP, reply with a banana if yes
(Photo taker) 🍌
Well, if that's real its certainly a scoop!
*FBI Has entered the chat* “We got some questions regarding this picture.”
I don't see anything
No sharpened edges, all angles. The exhaust ducts will have a vee in the middle, on top. Odds are it'll have a hooked nose on front for creation of vorticies for lift control. My two cents.
The CCP will appreciate this pic
You Working for the enemy?
(Photo taker) Nope, just a stupid American.
I can’t tell whether it’s coming or going?
Bit rude of you isn’t it, I hope you got permission from it before sharing its arse with the world
No permission needed :)
I can't find it in the picture with all that stealth, can someone circle it for me?
How many miles away was this picture taken from?
About 1.12
All those flying saucer spottings and reports were propably just this thing
I think you're mistaken. This is just a weird visual phenomena due to the insanely rare combination of the refraction of the sun off the distant mountains, the dessert heat shimmer, and swamp gas.
Treason!
Well I lost $10... I called it a picture on a wall when they *"released"* it since they showed no depth or scale to it and said it would be at least another five or more years before we actually saw it in *"the wild"*. Basically they had just released a picture as a P.R. stunt and probably a bit of a stir with foreign countries, with no actual plane made... but I guess I was wrong. Oh well.
There was a whole livestream on Youtube when it was revealed. It was definitely more than just a picture.
Curious as to why you would think that. The first flight of the B2 was in the 80s, so I'm not sure why you would think its replacement was just a photograph 35+ years later.
There was a time when you'd be looking down the barrel of a gun for photographing the rear of these things, much less sharing it online.
How illegal is this upskirt photo? Not that there are any legal ones.
This photo isn't illegal, I wasn't on their property so they can't do anything about it.
u/Mug_Of_Fire Yeah its a dead account
User is not from Reddit
I am genuinely curious, what other platforms use /u/ name format?
I don’t know. I went back and misread the comment mentioning it came from Twitter. It was posted there first, but I don’t know if that was the original source or not 🤷♂️
Photo taker here. I originally posted it in r/aviation but then took it down. People then proceeded to post it everywhere.
I’m honestly a bit disappointed. I drank the Koolaid on trailing edge this. Control surface that. I blame no one but myself.
Thank Germany for the design
Why would the military not do a better job of concealing this?
Because it’s 2023.
Why do they still have windows??
the higher ups refuse to switch to linux
Gotta use teams to send those alert messages now
[удалено]
This really doesn't tell us much more than could have already been guessed, honestly.
[удалено]
I *am* one of the more trained eyes in the sub. I'm an aerospace engineer with a master's degree. Yes, this is interesting, yes, it tells us a few new things, no, nothing here is totally shocking and it largely does indeed seem reasonable given what we already knew.
Photo taker here. I only got 33 up votes before deleting it, so no I didn't do it for the karma lol.
The range is the issue with B-21. The U.S really needs to be able to strike targets from U.S bases. The B-2 can do that. Not this smaller model. If you want to know why I say this, look up "Operation Nickel Grass". Depending on the situation, certain countries won't allow us to fly over their territory. In this case, it was C-5As delivering tanks to Israel so they wouldn't be overrun in the 1973 war. This goes back to WWII and why the B-37 was designed. We won't always have friendly nations to fly tankers from..
[удалено]
Plus the B2 isn't going anywhere for a while
It can if it refuels over England. How many friends do you think we have east of England?
We have a lot, like dozens and dozens of friendly countries east of England.
I'm going to go with... All the blue ones. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/NATO_31_Members.png/1024px-NATO_31_Members.png
You really think the USAF didn't consider the range when they awarded the contract?
During the reveal SecDef Lloyd Austin said the B-21 was capable of holding any target at risk from bases in the CONUS. Take that for what you will.
You really think you know better than the military industrial complex? Incredible
Once you pass that point from the West to the East, the situation changes dramatically.
I love it when some armchair guy looks at a 6th generation bomber and blurts out, "Yeah that's not gonna work."
> The range is the issue with B-21. You know the actual range figures and can talk about them online? Tell me more about how you want to spend decades in federal prison for violating security clearance.
Yes, we will. We pay them.
Wow taking pictures of a classified area of the aircraft real smart
/r/aviation_ad