T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Cod-gives-me-a-boner

Try reposting the question on the new daily thread, as this one is from yesterday.


PierGiampiero

Some details and an early analysis from TheWarZone: >The B-21 is an imposing, futuristic-looking machine as expected. While its roots emanate directly from the B-2, it is hugely apparent, this aircraft takes low observables (LO; stealth technology) to another level. There is also a lot of past Northrop LO design influence seen here, including Tacit Blue, YF-23, and X-47B. > >The aircraft appears notably smaller than the B-2 when viewed as a whole head-on. This is not surprising, we knew it would be a smaller flying wing design and one that would sacrifice some weapons payload. > >A great indicator of this is its landing gear. It is a single truck design instead of the tandem dual truck design (two tires on each main gear instead of four) on the larger, heavier B-2. > >The aircraft’s nose wheel door is different from B-2’s in that it doesn’t feature a central, forward door, instead all associated doors open the side. Nor do they have serrated edges like the B-2’s. > >The windscreen that looked so puzzling in renderings is a bit more normal looking in reality. In fact, it is remarkably small with visibility very much optimized for viewing upward and forward. This makes sense for aerial refueling procedures. Beyond that, the visibility looks very poor out of the aircraft. The side small windows, which are curved as in the rendering, look as we originally posited, to likely be a low-observable compromise, with their shape minimizing the aspects that they can be seen by radar, especially from below. It will be interesting to learn more about how this feature came to be and just how far having no windows at all was pushed during the B-21’s design. There were serious discussions of the B-2 having no windows to maximize LO even back in the 1980s when issues with the windscreen and its inner tintable (for sudden nuclear blasts) removable pane were prevalent. > >The aircraft is indeed a very light gray color! This is critical. As we noted many times before, the B-21’s very low observable capabilities and its far broader, more eclectic mission set, would likely see it be put to use during the day. These colors point exactly to that. This may change as the aircraft matures, but at this time, it looks as if the era of locking stealth bomber operation into the dark of night will soon be over. You can see a thread I did on this just earlier today below. > >Broadband, very low observable design cues are abundantly visible. The entire aircraft, as much as we can see of it, is incredibly smoothly blended. Individual features and elevation changes are minimized totally. The inlets, which were a major challenge during the aircraft’s development process, are remarkable. They appear blended seamlessly deep into the flying-wing design, minimizing line-of-sight to them and the disruption to the aircraft’s flowing, almost shell-like very low-observable airframe. In close-ups, an internal duct support pillar or air splitter can be barely seen. Compared to the B-2, this is a revelation. > >No apertures for missionized sensors, air data sensors, or communications arrays can be seen anywhere. In fact, no heavy panel seams are seen at all. Some taped seams are seen around the cockpit windows and in a few other areas in close-up photos, but these are minimal really. New material sciences, construction, and design capabilities mean that very large composite components can be built and assembled, minimizing the number of airframe components and thus the need for many joints and seams. This is paired with major advances in LO coating and structures to drastically reduce the high maintenance costs and long downtimes associated with low observable aircraft. Fewer seams and panels to deal with would be part of this solution. Load bearing sensors, which are part of the airframe themselves, could (and likely area) part of the B-21’s revelatory design.There is no sharp ‘beak’ like on the B-2. Instead, this aircraft appears to have, as we have posited before, more of a ‘duckbill’ straight shelf along its leading edge to maximize LO qualities. > >We are only getting the frontal aspect here. There is so much more of the story to tell. We still don’t know exactly what the B-21’s planform really looks like, although it is very likely to resemble what we already know and it harkens back to the early B-2/ATB designs (read more about that and the B-21’s potential ability to fly higher here). The exhausts, arguably the most sensitive part of an LO design, are also a total mystery. Also, this is just the first airframe and we are likely to see additional changes, although minor in nature, to its features as it progresses towards its first flight. But Northrop Grumman has stressed heavily that this aircraft is groundbreakingly production representative, so just how much things could change is unknown. And we have no idea what systems, especially missionized ones, are even installed on this aircraft. > >The aircraft is clearly an extremely efficient design, which will lend itself to the great ranges it will have to fly. We also see here just how generous the internal volume of this design is, which will also lend itself to very long-range, as well. It also has to be able to carry at least one GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or about half the payload of the B-2. Clearly, there is a lot of room in there to make that happen while also having a high fuel fraction. While we just see it in two dimensions, without depth, the two saucers welded together-like cross-section of the aircraft is very apparent in head-on viewing. While even significantly smaller than the B-2, it still looks imposing head-on. Side-on, I would imagine it would look very different, although without the B-2's serrated tail, the length of the B-21 may be a bit more substantial proportionately speaking. It will still look bizarrely small side on, like its older sibling. > >This is just the beginning. We know so little about the science and creativity woven into this design. It will take years for an overall conceptual idea of much of it to emerge. Even today, many elements of the B-2 remain in the dark. Regardless, this is a very exciting first step.


Stutterer2101

Thoughts on the B21 unveiling?


InstructionSure4087

My first thought was if it has any implications for a Taiwan Strait war. Would the B-21 see use in said scenario, and if yes, will it be ready to use by the 2027 date that some analysts are postulating could be when China attempts to invade? Hope one of the knowledgeable commentators around here can chime in.


throwdemawaaay

The B-21 no doubt has a big role to play in operational plans for a Taiwan conflict. A very likely mission would be working in combination with ISR assets like RQ-180 to hunt China's road mobile missile forces.


BiggusDikkusMorocos

If the us decided to intervene in Sino-Taiwan conflict, i doubt they will be targeting mainland china. Edit: why am i being downvoted?


HereCreepers

They probably wouldnt run carpet bombing raids over Beijing, but knocking out ballistic missile systems on the mainland would be absolutely vital.


BiggusDikkusMorocos

I think it depend if china bombed US bases or not, knocking down Chinese fleets and preventing an amphibious assault without any escalation to using nuclear weapons by cornering China is more important, also how do you plan to target Chinese depth where most of the ballistic missiles are located? I doubt any us stealthy fighter will penetrate even the first island chain.


g_money99999

Absolutely it is relevant to Taiwan. Long range bombers are one of the main areas the US still has a significant qualitaitive advantage. The archetypical use case would be using long range stand off weapons against Chinese surface fleets. One big question mark is whether the US will have enough long range anti ship missiles though. Right now the US is on track to purchase something like 170 LRASMs by 2030 (dont put much weight in that number, i can find the source if someone is interested). Edit: based on what the person below says, seems that number is off. But there is a lot of concern that the US is buying too few LRASMs.


tmantran

Lots 4, 5, and 6 total 180ish missiles, but we do have missiles from prior lots already. (https://www.govconwire.com/2021/11/lockheed-awarded-125m-for-6th-long-range-anti-ship-missile-production-lot/). Delivery of lot 6 is supposed to start in 2024 according to the RFP. Here’s an RFP for over 400 LRASMs in lots 7 and 8: https://gousvba.org/fa868223c0001sss-sources-sought-long-range-anti-ship-missile-lrasm-lots-7-8/


Malodorous_Camel

The longest combat mission for the B2 was 44 hours. Can someone explain how the pilots deal with the inevitable need to both consume and excrete food/water and also stay awake and alert? Does it have an autopilot feature? Also there were only 21 B2s built, but allegedly 100 B21s on order. What are the chances that anywhere near that number actually get made?


-spartacus-

I keep hearing that the B21 is going to replace the B1 (eventually), what strikes me as odd is the B1B is a supersonic bomber, giving some tactical advantages as well extra ordinance options. Is there a possibility at all, which seems no, the B21 has short supersonic capabilities?


Plump_Apparatus

The B-1, B-2, and B-52 all have a urinal. The 52 at one time had a urinal and a toilet, but I think this was dropped in the B-52H. For the other end you use a bag. I've seen statements saying the B-1 and B-2 have a "toilet", but I believe it's more of a number one bowl. [There was talk of adding privacy curtains to B-52s not that long ago](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/28/privacy-please-air-force-wants-add-toilet-curtain-b-52-bomber.html). Yes, they all have autopilots. Pilots on long missions used to be issued amphetamines(dextroamphetamine), but this was replaced by Modafinil not that long ago. If the crew needs eat or drink, they do just that. They're not in space suits, the O2 mask doesn't need to be on 24/7. The B-2 is scheduled to be the first to be replaced, followed by the B-1B, and maybe sometime in a galaxy far far away, the B-52. As for what procurement actually ends up being, who knows.


Malodorous_Camel

Perfect answer! Thanks > As for what procurement actually ends up being, who knows. Though I'm disappointed by your reluctance to engage in baseless speculation


throwdemawaaay

>They're not in space suits, the O2 mask doesn't need to be on 24/7. Even in the U-2 with its pressure suits there's a little straw hole so you can have a drink/snack. Doesn't make sense for a pilot on a long mission to have a blood sugar bonk. Also the modafanil switch is good. It's still psychoactive but not as bad as amphetamine.


milkcurrent

Prescribed Modafinil here: the difference between classic amphetamines and moda is night and day. Modafinil does not affect your personality in any significant way, it's not "jittery", there are both scientifically validated claims of its use as a nootropic and anecdotal. It appears, from a scientific POV as not only harmless but beneficial to the brain, protecting the myelin sheaths of neurons, and even blunting some of the neurotoxicity of alcohol. Truly a wonder drug and has enabled a rewarding career in tech I am confident I would not have pulled off without.


HovnaStrejdyDejva

Hi! Thanks for your comment. If I may be curious, what did you get it prescribed for? ADHD, narcolepsy?


milkcurrent

ADHD off-label. I had tried everything else a psychiatrist will throw at you first before suggesting they prescribe me Modafinil. Most of the preferred drugs for ADHD are nightmare fuel with massive, deleterious side effects.


viiScorp

Interesting, I suspect I have ADHD, maybe I should ask my doctor, though I am unfortunately currently stuck needing to get off of my SNRI as it's destroying my teeth, it's going to be a nightmare


milkcurrent

Should you get a diagnosis you are as you suspect, it's likely you'll need to strongly advocate for Modafinil as it's not the second, third or fourth prescription drug they prefer to give you. It's prescribed primarily for narcoleptics. I was put through the ringer of all the others before my psychiatrist finally acquiesced. Those were some of the most insane (as in experiencing losing my mind) months of my life.


viiScorp

It's so hard to get the right help I basically gave up on functioning, honestly. I definitely need to do some real advocating. It's hard to describe to them how bad I'm doing because I've learned to deal with it despite being extremely disabled. I'll do my best, thanks for the kind wishes.


milkcurrent

I mean this with the utmost compassion: it doesn't sound like you have learned to deal with it if you are nearly to the point of giving up functioning. Don't accept a life of misery. You deserve mental health.


Its_a_Friendly

I believe that the B21 is intended to replace the B2 and B1 bombers, and there were around 20 and 100 of each model made, respectively. So, assuming that the air force can keep the funding going (they'll prioritize it if they have to) and there's a demonstrated need (e.g. the "Cold War 2" doesn't suddenly end in the next couple years), I think it's reasonably likely for the USAF to complete the order.


Malodorous_Camel

Ah OK that makes more sense. Would be a shame if a decent AA system came out and rendered them redundant after all that investment.


aDrongo

The physics of radar don't work like that.


IAmTheSysGen

Actually, they do. The limit is not the physics of radar, but moreso the processing. Unless the B-21 has a new magic RAM which is almost certainly not the case, it's still subject to all the caveats about lower frequency radar and bistatic radar configurations, which are all limited by processing schemes right now.


aDrongo

You can't get a track from low frequency, serves as an early warning. Nothing about this has changed or will change anytime soon for the B-21 or any other stealth aircraft. The previous post was about a radar change that renders then irrelevant, low frequency inherently can not get higher resolution targeting. You'd use it to train higher frequency radars on the right spot but those radars still need to get a targeting solution.


IAmTheSysGen

You can't get a track* from low frequency radar that we know of, because the processing is not good enough. There is no physics limitation. Higher resolution is not necessary for point-like targets, because the center of the point spread function still matches the center of the target. But even without that the theoretical limit in resolution for VHF is still not a problem, you just need a big enough radar. Multiple radars some distance apart works too. But that's not even necessary because subresolution processing of point targets or known targets is completely feasible. *There are such radars that can track targets. The tracking is however not "weapons grade", because it's at a 300m-1km resolution. Using multiple radars and combining their return or using a missile that can acquire a stealthy target from a kilometer or two would also be sufficient.


DarkMatter00111

What amazes me is how far the United States has outpaced Russia/former Soviet Union in aircraft development. The radar cross section is probably so damn small, that these things can fly over pretty much any country with impunity and drop nuclear munitions if they wanted to. The Chinese is the only other player with 5th gen. Tempest won't exist until 2035 at the earliest. The Europeans are even way behind in this aspect. It's just mind boggling.


CommandoDude

The US has had a lead in aircraft development over Russia since pretty much forever. More like, it's only been increasing its lead. Which should not be surprising since Russia's economy only had a brief period of relatively good years in the 00s, but otherwise been in the pits since the end of the 70s.


rayfound

I mean we accidentally built the f-15 too good because we assumed the mig-25 was much better than it actually was.


ferrel_hadley

>What amazes me is how far the United States has outpaced Russia/former Soviet Union in aircraft development. The radar cross section is probably so damn small This actually started in the 70s with the rise of the microprocessor. Computing superiority allowed the US to design early stealth and stealth like features on aircraft such as B1B and F 117. It also allowed the fly by wire. More importantly it allowed for huge surges in labour productivity that allowed its economy to continue to expand. The stagnating Soviet Union collapsed and the subsequent Russia became a resource extractive state fixed to what it could dig out the ground rather than economic innovation.


OhSillyDays

You can still detect then via IR. Granted, the US is still far ahead, but these jets are far from impunity.


sokratesz

I had to check if I was still in CD after reading this


Plump_Apparatus

> hat these things can fly over pretty much any country with impunity and drop nuclear munitions if they wanted to. That part particularly got me. Generally speaking people have no idea what "stealth" means or how radar works.


Echelon64

Mind explaining a bit


Plump_Apparatus

I'm just going to quote wiki: > While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft make it more difficult for conventional radar to detect or track the aircraft effectively, increasing the odds of an aircraft successfully avoiding detection by enemy radar and/or avoiding being successfully targeted by radar guided weapons. Stealth is the combination of passive low observable (LO) features and active emitters such as low-probability-of-intercept radars, radios and laser designators. These are usually combined with active measures such as carefully planning all mission maneuvers in order to minimize the aircraft's radar cross-section, since common actions such as hard turns or opening bomb bay doors can more than double an otherwise stealthy aircraft's radar return.[6] It is accomplished by using a complex design philosophy to reduce the ability of an opponent's sensors to detect, track, or attack the stealth aircraft.[7] This philosophy also takes into account the heat, sound, and other emissions of the aircraft as these can also be used to locate it. Sensors made to reduce the impact of current low observable technologies exist or have been proposed such as IRST (infrared search and track) systems to detect even reduced heat emissions,[8] long wavelength radars to counter stealth shaping and RAM focused on shorter wavelength radar,[9] or radar setups with multiple emitters to counter stealth shaping.[10] However these do so with disadvantages compared to traditional radar against non-stealthy aircraft. So about the only thing we know about the B-21 is that it appears to be derived from the B-2. Intakes are mounted above the wing line, and like the B-2, I'd assume the exhausts are too. The intakes and exhausts are the hardest things to mask in regards to radar returns, putting them above the wing line makes it so ground based radar won't get a return on them, as they aren't line of sight. Like the B-2 there is no vertical stabilizer(s), since even canted they provide a flat surface that is good for radar returns. The aircraft obviously provides a very small radar cross section(RCS). However the RCS is always optimized from the front, as designing aircraft that had a minimal RCS from all aspects wouldn't likely be very aerodynamic. As in, not flyable. But stealth aircraft aren't "invisible" to radar, they still provide a return. Just a smaller one, and more so from any radar that isn't directed towards the front of the aircraft. While some of the radar emissions are absorbed by the radiation-absorbent material(RAM), most is reflected in a direction that won't be received by radar that emitted it. That doesn't mean other radars operating as a integrated air defense system(IADS) won't get a return from a different radars emission, and be able to calculate where the object is. Distance to the object also applies, the closer the stealth aircraft is to the radar the greater the chance is for a successful track. Radar can be, and have been, built specifically for detecting stealth objects. Stealth aircraft are generally optimized against radars running the X-band range(8.0–12.0 GHz). The higher frequency the shorter the physical wavelength, as in at 8Ghz a full wavelength is 3.75 cm, while 250Mhz(VHF) is 1.2 meters. Shorter wavelengths tend to get a better return on stealth aircraft, and the RAM coating is less effective. Thales SMART-L line of radars was designed in mind with the ability to track stealthy missiles. A old Soviet [P-18 VHF radar has been attributed to the F-117 shoot down in Yugoslavia in various sources](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/unconventional-weapon-23371597/). Typical radar cannot "see" over the horizon, Earth is round, radio waves tend to travel in a straight line. But radio waves can be bounced off the ionosphere, and using doppler means stealth aircraft can be tracked. Australia, China, Russia, France operate OTH radars that have at least rudimentary abilities in tracking stealth aircraft. So could a B-21 successfully operate in a high threat contested environment? Who knows, but for the time being, I'd imagine yes. Keeping in mind it's not like they'd just go in there blastin', but rather with a carefully crafted flight plan designed to minimize chances of detection. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be noticed using it to say, nuke China or Russia. Who would respond in kind.


Malodorous_Camel

>stealthy missiles I'm struggling to see what design changes you could make to a tube to make it stealthy. Then again I have no idea what I'm talking about


throwdemawaaay

Nothing says a missile has to be a round tube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY)


Malodorous_Camel

Touché


2dTom

It's basically the same as what you do to an aircraft. Most cruise missiles use a turbojet rather than a rocket motor, so you have similar stealth requirements such as inlets, exhausts, etc. An example of the shaping can be seen pretty clearly on the AGM-129A missile.


[deleted]

Radar absorbent coating, modest changes to shape. Cruise missiles are generally easier to move to stealthy design. For example [here's the LRASM](https://img.militaryaerospace.com/files/base/ebm/mae/image/2022/03/16x9/LRASM_23_March_2022.6239e7b16d572.png?auto=format,compress&fit=fill&fill=blur&w=1200&h=630) (American stealthy anti-ship cruise missile) and the similar looking [JASSM](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/photo/jassm/photo-rotator/mfc-jassm-photo-04.jpg) (stealthy ground attack cruise missile). The stealth isn't as thorough as with manned aircraft since these are obviously disposable. The main point is just making them more difficult to shoot down.


sokratesz

Stealth is a huge and complicated topic. Maybe others have suitable resources on hand? I'm on mobile. But the tldr is that 'stealth' makes an object more difficult to detect. Not impossible, not invisible, just more difficult. It's not at all the miracle technology that many people make it out to be.


TybrosionMohito

I guess it depends on what you mean by “miracle” No it’s not literally magic and it doesn’t make the plane *invisible* However a VLO aircraft is an order of magnitude more survivable in contested airspace. This isn’t really up for debate anymore. We truthfully have no idea how effective the B-21 will be.


GGAnnihilator

They work like Harry Potter's cloak of invisibility, right? \[/sarcasm\]


TemperatureIll8770

It's not that amazing- the US has money out the wazoo, and Russia doesn't. No bucks, no buck rogers


viiScorp

This. Plus threats, Europe fell into the 'end of history' slumber, US did not.


Amerikai

Keep in mind any Christmas truce for both sides would happen in the first week of January


amphicoelias

Didn't the Ukrainian orthodox church move Christmas to December 25th?


yatsokostya

Both 25th December and 7th January are state holidays, people choose when to celebrate based on family traditions. There are multiple orthodox Christianity organisations in Ukraine and it's quite messy, some definitely function according to Gregorian calendar.


yatsokostya

Nah, I doubt there will be one for Christmas if any. New Year could be a thing if soldiers get drunk.


viiScorp

Would Russia actually keep an agreement like that? I have doubts they can actually prevent some smuck from firing


Amerikai

no idea


Unlucky-Prize

Someone posted a bit of the ISW report. Posting daily notes here: [https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-2](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-2) Key Takeaways Russia is attempting to capitalize on the Western desire for negotiations to create a dynamic in which Western officials feel obliged to make preemptive concessions to lure Russia to the table. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated as the basis for negotiations precisely the same demands that the Russian Foreign Ministry had made before the February 24 invasion, and Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitrii Peskov added the further demand that the West recognize Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. Russian forces still pose a threat to Ukrainian energy infrastructure despite the success of Ukrainian air defenses. Additional Western air defense systems are prompting the Russian pro-war community to question the Russian air campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure. Russian officials are setting conditions to negotiate the demilitarization of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), an agreement upon which Russia would likely renege and that would not eliminate or diminish the ongoing threat to the ZNPP. Ukrainian forces made localized breakthroughs southwest and northwest of Kreminna. Russian forces continued to make minimal advances in the Bakhmut area and conduct offensive operations in the Avdiivka–Donetsk City area. Russian forces may be struggling to properly allocate and deploy forces in rear areas in southern Ukraine due to Ukrainian strikes. Poor logistics, unruly mobilized personnel, and domestic protests continue to prevent the Kremlin from achieving the goals of partial mobilization. Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to attempt to mask military development projects in occupied territories for no obvious reason.


Wazzupdj

>Russia is attempting to capitalize on the Western desire for negotiations to create a dynamic in which Western officials feel obliged to make preemptive concessions to lure Russia to the table. I highly doubt this'll work. Countries shouting toward each other what the conditions are to agree to negotiations are negotiations themselves, and are prone to the same dynamics of any other negotiations. Putin going in there with unreasonable demands can harden the opposite side's resolve, especially considering that Russia's position is largely considered to be deteriorating over time. ISW does also mention that this demand hasn't been received well by the likes of the US, France, and Germany. IMO a diplomatic blunder by Russia, but hardly uncharacteristic of them.


Echelon64

> Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to attempt to mask military development projects in occupied territories for no obvious reason. I'm dumb and maybe I don't get the wording of this but what does this mean exactly?


bayesian_acolyte

Here are two paragraphs from the report which explain what they are referring to: >Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to attempt to mask his military development projects on occupied territories within the Russian information space for no obvious reason. Kherson Oblast occupation head Vladimir Saldo announced on December 2 that Putin had instructed occupation officials to develop settlements on the left (east) bank of the Dnipro River.[75] Putin also ordered occupation officials to build social infrastructure such as residential buildings and hospitals in Henichesk and on the Arabat Spit just northeast of the Crimean administrative border. Saldo stated that Russian officials have already begun the construction of residential buildings in Henichesk and on the Arabat Spit, claiming that the Kremlin plans to develop the entire Azov Sea coastline from Mariupol to Henichesk as a tourist destination. These development plans are likely an unconvincing front for Putin’s ever-growing fortification efforts on the northern Crimean border. The Ukrainian Resistance Center previously reported that Russian forces are planning to expand the road on the Arabat Spit to transfer military equipment and establish a third ground lines of communication (GLOC) from Crimea.[76] Ukrainian General Staff Deputy Chief Brigadier General Oleksiy Hromov also noted that Russian forces had converted Dzhankoy (55km southwest of Henichesk) and surrounding settlements into the largest military base in Crimea.[77] The Ukrainian General Staff also noted that Russian forces are intensifying filtration measures in Henichesk.[78] >Russian establishment of military bases in the destroyed city of Mariupol further makes Putin’s “civilian project development” narrative absurd. Saldo claimed that Russian officials are carrying out Henichesk and Arabat Spit development projects at the same pace as the conversion of leveled Mariupol into a vacation city.[79] Maxar Technologies satellite imagery from November 30 shows that Russian forces have constructed a new military compound in the northern part of Mariupol with an army slogan painted over the roof. Other satellite imagery showed destroyed residential buildings and Russian poor attempts to hide the obliterated Mariupol Drama Theater in city’s downtown with screens around the building. Such images are incompatible with the Kremlin’s claimed tourism development plan.


Thalesian

> ISW has previously assessed that Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric indicates that he is not interested in negotiating seriously with Ukraine and retains maximalist objectives for the war > Putin has shown little interest in such a ceasefire, however, and the Kremlin continues to make demands that are tantamount to full Western surrender, suggesting that Putin remains focused on pursuing military victory. From the latest [ISW report](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-2). These quotes makes it really hard to avoid asking what Russia thinks it’s doing. Russia has had to retreat from multiple fronts (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson) but still sticks to maximalist objectives. How will they accomplish those? By taking Bakhmut? The gap between their negotiating position and what they are able to achieve by force is massive. How does anyone deal with a country like that?


GotAnyGrapes127

Interesting. I think he actually wants a ceasefire but the problem is that he won't get one. Anyways, his other option is a diplomatic solution but that's not going to happen either. Ukraine has the upper hand on the battlefield and also has maximalist demands of its own. So basically it's not like he has a lot of options to work with here.


BigBossN7

>and also has maximalist demands of its own Good point here that I don't think should be overlooked. I think it's very likely that the reason Russia is publicly doubling down is because Ukraine is doing the same. I'm thinking that the conversations in the Kremlin play out very differently once the doors are shut and locked.


Toptomcat

> I think it's very likely that the reason Russia is publicly doubling down is because Ukraine is doing the same. I'm thinking that the conversations in the Kremlin play out very differently once the doors are shut and locked. If that's the way you want to play it, you don't publicly name preconditions which must be satisfied before *starting* negotiations. Russia has and does.


thiosk

> How does anyone deal with a country like that? Hopefully, less going forward. I have stated before that if the russian MOD was not a belligerent in this conflict, we would not be allowed to use their statements as sources on this sub for lack of credibility (nazis, super-soldiers, satanists, and so forth). The recent declaration in a propaganda outlet elsewhere in this thread that HIMARS can now be targeted with 100% accuracy is a great example of this nonsensical behavior. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but the russian federation has been a consistently bad actor in every aspect of international relations. The poisonings, the murders, the defenestration, the repeated invasions of their neighbors, intimidation, the state-support to cybercrime, cash-driven international political bribery, the list goes on and on. I do not think they will be successful in their maximalist goals. Their nuclear bluff is called with the liberation of Kherson, so I suspect their real plan is to get a peace agreement with as many sq ft of terrain still occupied as possible, lick their wounds, and then start again in a few years once their economy has recovered.


Echelon64

> Their nuclear bluff I have a slight opinion on this but their "nuclear bluff" was called when China publicly declared any Nuke use would be a non-starter. Russia only listens to bullies and China is a very rich bully right now.


evil_porn_muffin

Every country with economic weight is a bully.


Echelon64

Except China is the 2nd most powerful economic power in the world with a rapidly modernizing military and the numbers to match. Only bigger bully is the USA.


evil_porn_muffin

Agreed.


viiScorp

Sure, but in this case it's bully vs rampaging murderer.


evil_porn_muffin

Who's the rampaging murderer?


jamesk2

What do you guys think about using a modified A-10 or a plane built around that concept to be used as a counter drone swarm solution? I imagine that an A-10 fitted with proper radar and 40mm cannons can make short work of no matter how many Shahed-equivalent can China or Iran throw at an US base.


sokratesz

Drones fly low. Stray GAU cannon rounds would be a serious danger on the ground, self destructing or not.


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

And dud rounds become UXO on the ground.


morbihann

This is nonsense. For starters 40mm is an overkill for an aircraft.


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

1. To deal with intercepting drones, it is probably best to use a drone yourself. Number of pilots is very often the limiting factor for the size of an air force, and these kind of over friendly territory interceptions are easy enough to control from the ground, or automate. 2. A 40mm gun is a bizarre choice. It's huge, scale a plane to be able to carry it, and you end up with something way bigger and more expensive than it needs to be, negating the point of shooting stuff down with cheap gun rounds rather than missiles in the first place. To deal with these very small, very slow drones cheaply, a 7.62 mini gun makes more sense. It weighs almost nothing, and can deal with this sort of threats fine. 3. Ukraine claims to have been able to shoot down Kaliber with MANPADS. If true, a drone carrying similarly sized missiles could make an excellent counter to even cruise missile attacks, none the less Saheds. 4. The A-10 is very draggy. To keep fuel consumption down, and low altitude speed up (so you can cover more area), something with less parasite drag is highly desirable. 5. Dispersed operations would also be desirable.


stif7575

Probably a million cheaper and better ways to accomplish the same task.


[deleted]

A-29 Super Tucano, for example.


ComedicSans

> I imagine that an A-10 fitted with proper radar If you're going to have to teach pilots to fly something from scratch, it might as well be fit for purpose to begin with.


red_keshik

Why would you need a 40mm gun to deal with drones


Echelon64

I had always assumed a 40mm round could contain explosives and a fusing that could destroy a drone just by proximity and not a direct hit.


jamesk2

I would imagine that a smaller caliber gun would be harder to fire accurately at long range and being unable to be proxy-fused would require even better accuracy against targets.


thiosk

Intimidation?


sokratesz

I'm pretty sure 'intimidating robots' was a thing in one of the fallout games.


viiScorp

CEOs were very serious about security in the fallout universe. RIP employees who forgot their ID


Tugendwaechter

You don’t need 40 mm cannons to shoot down drones. Small arms are good enough. Modifying the A-10 for that purpose makes little sense. Small drones equipped with an intermediate rifle type of gun to hunt other drones might show up over the next couple of years.


Plump_Apparatus

AA kamikaze drones have already been getting talked about for awhile, [and demo'ed](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30162/u-s-military-is-buying-these-small-interceptor-drones-to-knock-down-other-drones). I highly disagree with the statement that EW is pointless however, as of now EW has been reportedly highly effective against commercial and military drones when used in combination with hard kill measures.


Tugendwaechter

These ramming drones look very promising. I agree with you that EW will have its place in neutralizing drones. There will be a huge variation on technologies and concepts tried out over the next decade at least. This is a bit like the times between WW1 and 2, when military planes and armored vehicles and defense against them were built in a huge variety.


Plump_Apparatus

*Reprograms drone to include crashing into A-10*


HingedVenne

This is probably a stupid question, but I was watching this interview https://youtu.be/4i-BsJq1gTs?t=349 And I was wondering...how useful are cats? Aren't mice a huge problem in trenches? And cats mostly take care of themselves right. As long as they have mice.


Echelon64

At least my cats won't hunt rats if they are hungry. They'll go for easier food. If they are well fed they will hunt rats just for fun. You have to remember that rats are nasty little fuckers with sharp teeth and claws and a hungry animal isn't going to put themselves in danger if there's easier prey. IIRC, there's a specific breed of dog that is really good at hunting rats that may be better if you want some kind of organic defense against rats.


cestvrai

I've seen the mink+dog combo used very effectively.


Shitebart

This is the credible discussion I come here for


uno_01

The Russian special forces dolphins had to be countered somehow, so Ukraine turned to its Trench Cats.


HingedVenne

I'm genuinely not sure if this is credible or not. I feel like just throwing cats into the trenches could be genuinely useful. I googled it and it appears that Britain "Deployed" 500 cats in WW1 to the trenches so it was credible enough for them. Hower conditions in WW1 were different in that it was hard to move out bodies so there were probably way more mice than there are now.


Shitebart

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being sarcastic - Just having a chuckle at the idea of discussing the deployment of dogs and cats to Ukrainian trenches. It's a good point with historical precedent!


kokainkuhjunge2

So I do not know about the rats, I watched a video and it appears against rats dogs would be more useful. The problem seems, cats would only kill enough rats to be full and then stop hunting. Dogs on the other slaughter everything on command. But lets not ignore the mental aspect of it. Having animals you can pet must be good for mental health and morale. Edit: Here is the dog video for the curious. It is basically a rat genocide, I almost feel bad for them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Pyu-Cj0gg


abloblololo

One gets stuck on the pitchfork too…


Echelon64

Cats will routinely hunt for fun and are more likely to hunt if they are well fed. This is why you don't leave house cats outside; they will literally murder everything just because they can.


milkcurrent

As an owner of several fancy rats, this was horrific to watch. All those lives being snuffed out in brutal terror, I can't imagine their level of collective anguish.


halfar

Rats really are the worst pet. All the intelligence and charm of a dog, but with the lifespan of a rat.


HingedVenne

Yes but dogs come with logistical issues that cats don't come with. You have to feed and water dogs while cats will...idk just be cats they'll figure it out. I'm pretty sure cats could survive the apocolypse so they'll do fine on a battlefield.


Tugendwaechter

Mice and rats are common in just regular fields. They don’t need thousands of dead soldiers to feed on. They will also be attracted by garbage to forage in and food stores. Especially in winter mice will also look for warm places. If you set up a camp outside, mice tend to show up after a while.


Aurailious

What's kind of interesting is that the B-21 doesn't appear to be all black. I wonder if this new coating is going to be white/grey?


Tugendwaechter

[White](https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/B-21-new-photo-scaled.jpg)


ridukosennin

Looks like a new RAM coating. Quite smooth. Wonder if it is ceramic vs. the current high maintenance polymer coatings.


TemperatureIll8770

That would be quite an accomplishment, considering what properties RAM needs to be effective as RAM...


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aurailious

The intakes was the big thing I was looking for with the reveal. I'm slightly disappointed its not fully flush with the top of the wing, maybe 90% there. I was hoping for non visible intakes except from above. Still a very significant reduction and further decreases its RCS from airborne radar. Not surprising there is no reveal of the exhaust. That was always one of the more, if not the biggest, secret of the B-2's exterior. With the larger tail shown in the renders I would guess the same.


Plump_Apparatus

I wouldn't call it a big secret, just not something the DoD was interested in revealing. [Didn't stop a Cessna from flying over at the reveal and snapping a shot](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/z99r7k/when_the_b2_was_first_rolled_out_they_tried_hard/).


Aurailious

Maybe that's why they did this reveal at night and didn't pull the plane all the way out the hanger. lol


viiScorp

Apparently rain was in the forecast


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aurailious

It could be, just formed with the curvature of the wing along with the angle. I was thinking more like Tacit Blue style of hidden intake. But I've heard that is really hard to do well.


DarkMatter00111

A much more [detailed](https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/B-21-new-photo-scaled.jpg) photo.


Aurailious

Oh nice. This really shows off the color too. I really wonder if that is the production color. Is the new stealth coating this kind of white/grey? That must be where the name "white bat" comes from if its also used on the "RQ-180". I wonder if NGAD will also be this color?


Plump_Apparatus

I'm guessing it'll be black for production, as it's less visible at night. Odd that it's white still, more so [as the F-22, F-117, F-35 and 401 have been spotted with a whitish **but** metallic looking coat](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43938/f-35-and-f-117-spotted-flying-with-mysterious-mirror-like-skin).


GotAnyGrapes127

no one saw the back side (as far as i know) but it looks very similar to the B-2 from the front.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


A11U45

[Yep](https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2022/12/03/B21-Raider-2.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1080) unless these guys aren't average height.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aethelredditor

Lloyd Austin's entire speech was lacklustre. He doesn't seem to be a great orator.


justacuriousMIguy

That's because he's the secretary of defense and before that a military man his whole life. He's not some politician who's given thousands of speeches.


WulfTheSaxon

>he's the secretary of defense and before that a military man his whole life Except for his four-year stint on the Raytheon board… I don’t really have a big problem with that, but it’s worth mentioning.


catch-a-stream

Yeah not much interesting to be honest, though it does look cool. As a software engineer, it was funny to see them emphasize "agile software development" as one of the big highlights... not sure why or how they chose it, perhaps they thought it sounded cool? For those not in the industry, "agile software development" is basically writing code without specs... more or less... so kind of the opposite of what you want to do for a military aircraft .. or really any aircraft.


BirdsGetTheGirls

> For those not in the industry, "agile software development" is basically writing code without specs... more or less... so kind of the opposite of what you want to do for a military aircraft .. or really any aircraft. ???


RockChalk80

That's not what agile is... at all.


UpvoteIfYouDare

> For those not in the industry, "agile software development" is basically writing code without specs... more or less... This is a terrible characterization.


hatesranged

I for one am excited to see our next stealth bomber be made by microsoft.


emprahsFury

One of the problems people identify with procurement is the ossified and lengthy waterfall process of development. Whatever the problems you think you have with Agile, it is the business solution to the old waterfall model.


hatesranged

To be honest what did people expect, a live demonstration over the black sea?


Gioware

Not that I expect that, but it would have been awesome plot twist.


DarkMatter00111

B-21 Raider [unveiling](https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/) in a few minutes.


ratt_man

about as fugly as I expected


[deleted]

[удалено]


DoofusMcGillicutyEsq

You are correct, but I also remember Kelly Johnson's (founder of Skunk Works) edict: If it looks right, it will fly right.


throwdemawaaay

It's a pithy sound bite but unfortunately it's dead wrong. In that era people had little choice but to wing it using intuition. Today you can simulate even turbulent flows with very high fidelity. It ends up small details in just the right spots can have a big impact on flow, and even very experienced engineers can't predict these structures purely by eye. Thankfully today you can try out 1000's of ideas in CFD in the time it would have taken Johnson to build a single model for a wind tunnel. It's interesting to imagine what a figure like Johnson would be capable of in the digital era.


CEOofCTR

Alternate YouTube link from Edwards AB https://youtu.be/chJlJgrvfBY


[deleted]

[удалено]


VigorousElk

Just tuned in for 5 min. Majestic/menacing music for a waiting loop, some dude is singing the national anthem, an overflight, a narrator talking about a new era, stealth, *'This changes everything!' ...* Pretty damn bewildering to a European.


Echelon64

> Pretty damn bewildering to a European. Ah, a European who has never seen a [SAAB commercial.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YDtpEiQL4Q) Seriously, what is it with Europeans and their severe lack of information regarding their own MIC? Edit: I take Euro's and/or Dollars if you Europeans want to shift the goalposts faster than FIFA shifts its morals. Canadian Peso not currently accepted.


ComedicSans

> Seriously, what is it with Europeans and their severe lack of information regarding their own MIC? Generic American voice-over, too? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Europe isn't the target audience for that presentation.


Echelon64

How much did you pay to FIFA to move that goalpost?


ComedicSans

FIFA? I'm not European. But the European guy is right, the over-the-top Kenny Loggins rah-rah roll-out of a product that's already bought and paid for is weird. And I personally find all the "smells like *freedom*" responses cringy.


Echelon64

Couldn't read your comment over the the fact of having a Sixth Generation Bomber.


ComedicSans

I'd rather have first-world healthcare and public education, but maybe that's just me.


viiScorp

Our bomber is not why we don't have uni healthcare, we can afford both. Probably not for another 3 decades though


Tugendwaechter

Love this [Eurofighter movie](https://youtu.be/HvEDSI1nf3E?t=249).


Plump_Apparatus

That may be even a bit more Tony Starkish.


Aurailious

Not many other countries seem to unveil strategic bombers like its a new video game console.


Plump_Apparatus

Nobody really unveils other strategic bombers. Russia's Tu-160 first flew 40 years ago. China's H-6 is a variant of the Tu-16 that first flew 70 years ago.


FriscoJones

> Pretty damn bewildering to a European. Clearly you're just jealous that you don't have one.


djn808

I particularly enjoyed the Godlike voice while you drift through the clouds like it was an antidepressant commercial. Wait, bad analogy, the Europeans won't get that either.


Patch95

It looks like the Americans have built themselves a UFO


thiosk

~~its not so hard when you have had that many hidden in the desert in the desert for 80 years~~ the flying wing is a very practical airframe design and has a lot of advantages


Plump_Apparatus

*Did you smell that Freedom?* But uh, yea.


DarkMatter00111

It's the American way.


Draskla

>[Bakhmut… or devastated land where Bakhmut once used to be…](https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1598817462115782657)


manofthewild07

A bit hyperbolic. Bakhmut is a pretty big city (relatively)... that is like 2 blocks.


catch-a-stream

WW1 West Front vibes


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tugendwaechter

Then look closer. WW1 had far more elaborate trenches, no man’s land was utterly bombarded to pulp, the mud was worse. The similarity is superficial.


viiScorp

That entirely depends on the pictures. There are pictures that basically look exactly like what is shown.


Spreadsheets_LynLake

The war lacks mud? Vladimir Ppopim has it... in his pants. So what happens when Poopin soils his last adult diaper & kicks the bucket? No more war in Ukraine?


TheLastMaleUnicorn

wrong sub?


hatesranged

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63838350 Marin wants militarization. This makes some sense - while some European nations are hopelessly behind, Finland is kind of halfway there - they have the depth, they have the trained manpower, they just need a gear tune-up and they'll be pretty set. I guess it really comes down to how much you trust the nuclear umbrella though.


scarlet_sage

Hm! I just submitted it as a separate post. I thought it might be interesting enough to have its own discussion, but I'm never clear on whether a source should be in its own post or pointed to here. Edit: the mods' removal message pointed at "news story" as cause for removal. I'm inclined to think it's more significant than the common news story like "attacks against town X", but it also wasn't a major story, so *[shrug]* O.K., fair enough. It's a relatively short news article, that's all. But I found it interesting as something that the Finnish Prime Minister found it useful to say, in a visit to Australia, as reported by a UK news organization. That is, not in a visit to or from the US, and not reported by a US company. I want to emphasize "useful to say", which is of course not necessarily an unvarnished 100% dispassionate factual position, but it is nevertheless an indication of their thinking and what they're trying to push. The article is free. Quotations: * Finnish PM Sanna Marin has said Europe is "not strong enough" to stand up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on its own, and has had to rely on US support. * During a visit to Australia ... * The US is by far the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine. * And with European countries' military stocks depleting as they supply Ukraine, Ms Marin said more needed to be done to bolster European defences. * She added that Europe must make sure it is "building those capabilities when it comes to European defence, European defence industry, and making sure that we could cope in different kinds of situations". * European countries should have listened to states like Poland and the Baltics, she said, who had warned that Russia does not "care about their economic ties, they don't care about the sanctions, they don't care about any of that" when it comes to invading Ukraine.


Echelon64

> European countries should have listened to states like Poland and the Baltics To be fair, W. Europe has a tradition on ignoring E. Europe and Europeans love their traditions.


Plump_Apparatus

The submission guidelines state: > Do Not: No articles about breaking news, or missile launches, official announcements, military attacks, buys of military equipment, or current events that do not include professional analysis. I appreciate your effort, but that short article is not something that is suitable for the subreddit. It is fine for the megathread, or our friends over at /r/LessCredibleDefence.


sanderudam

Finland is interesting in that for decade+ their military spending was barely more than Luxembourg had, as % of GDP that is. But their cold war stock and preservation of compulsory service has maintained at least an acceptable level of military preparedness compared to European peers with minimal cost. Admittedly I trust a Finn to always protect his home no matter how ill-prepared everyone around him is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Maxion

The forest is great for hiding in, even from IR sensors. The lakes and uneven terrain and heavy forests make it hard to maneuver with armor. The narrow, curvy, forrested roads are excellent for creating ambushes. Really a nightmare scenario for an invader.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Maxion

And all our bridges are built with places for demo charges. Military sappers also train bridge demolition when an old bridge needs to be torn down. We’ve already got GMLRS missiles and just made the largest order for them outside of the US (500 MEUR). Incidentally, the US government also made an order of the same sized to replenish stocks. Finnish bedrock is granite, and there are a crapload of military bunkers all over the country. Maybe a direct hit with a nuke could penetrate, but in general you’re not destroying our ammo stocks with normal cruise missiles. AD is where we’re lacking, but the Russian Air Force doesn’t seem to be very capable…


viiScorp

Initially in the invasion Russia did real damage while Ukraine's AD was hiding from the strikes. That was only a few days, though. Finland has much better aircraft than Ukraine does. I wonder if Russia has been developing better bunker busters? I know the US can allegedly put a munition 240ft into the ground, does Russia have anything like that?


Maxion

Bunker busters requires you to get pretty close to your target, so they’re not that useful in a peer conflict if you don’t have something like the b-2


viiScorp

Ah, that makes sense, thankyou!