America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,973 comments
  • 1,693,770 views
Sidebar: there's like 2-3 discussions about Twitter in different threads, perhaps bundling them into one thread is in order. Or disorder, however it's going.
 
Pupik
Sidebar: there's like 2-3 discussions about Twitter in different threads, perhaps bundling them into one thread is in order. Or disorder, however it's going.
Click to expand...
I wasn't super thrilled about it all going here, or really even going here at all, but it does seem a fairly appropriate place.

Depending on the topic of discussion, other threads may also be appropriate. Take this:



Gym Jordan here is, sadly, a member of the United States Congress, but is also threatening action against a private party's alleged expressive act (only it turns out Apple didn't stop advertising on Twitter, much less in protest against...whatever) and bringing up product feature decisions made for the Chinese market, which the pasty tech daddy he so desperately wants to give a sucky surely makes or delegates regarding vehicles sold there.

So that's this thread, the one for free speech, the one for China, the one for Tesla (in another subforum entirely) and even the one for conservatism if only because it exemplifies modern American conservatives abandoning conservative principles such as limited government and the free market. I suppose there's even an Apple thread in another subforum.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
Sidebar: there's like 2-3 discussions about Twitter in different threads, perhaps bundling them into one thread is in order. Or disorder, however it's going.
Click to expand...
We are about as well organized as Twitter is right now with these discussions.
 
Scapegoats are convenient when one wants to blame someone else for their problems.

 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
Would it be cultural appropriation if Kanye decided to rock a Hitler 'stache?
Click to expand...
Once upon a time Michael Jordan had one.

DQJH8RJX4AA4i05.jpg:large
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Alex Jones files for bankruptcy after Sandy Hook verdict

He was recently told to pay almost $1.5bn (£1.2bn) for claiming a 2012 school shooting was a hoax.
www.bbc.co.uk

Alex Jones has filed for moral bankruptcy...

Unrepentant, Jones truly is the future of 'Free Speech' - I despair for what comes next when utter POS, despicable scumbags like Jones are making hundreds of millions in profits peddling hateful bull and no doubt will not be significantly harmed by the billion dollar plus damages that he owes to those he has injured and treated so horrifically. I hope he gets what he deserves.
 
Keef
You know what's pretty freakin Murica? The world's first sixth-gen stealth aircraft and our new stealth bomber set to replace the B-2.
Click to expand...
I'm excited and all but marketing is trying hard to make terms meaningless. It would be 6th generation if it was a fighter. Generation is less often used for other types, but if one were going to applying to stealth, this would be 5th gen at the latest, no?

F-117 - 1st
B-2 - 2nd
F-22 - 3rd (but probably really 2nd)
F-35 - 4th (but really 2.5?)
B-21 - 5th
 
Keef
You know what's pretty freakin Murica? The world's first sixth-gen stealth aircraft and our new stealth bomber set to replace the B-2.



@TexRex @Danoff @Eunos_Cosmo @Omnis LFG bois lets get this freedom
Click to expand...

Is the military-industrial complex ridiculous? Yes. Does the US spend entirely too much money on the military? Yes. Does the US come out with some of the most badass weapons of war? Absolutely.
 
Exorcet
I'm excited and all but marketing is trying hard to make terms meaningless. It would be 6th generation if it was a fighter. Generation is less often used for other types, but if one were going to applying to stealth, this would be 5th gen at the latest, no?

F-117 - 1st
B-2 - 2nd
F-22 - 3rd (but probably really 2nd)
F-35 - 4th (but really 2.5?)
B-21 - 5th
Click to expand...
That's not how the generations are defined, they're not like video games lol. It's more about technological advacement, and what defines sixth generation is still up for debate, but generally it focuses on battlefield integration, information sharing across coalition forces, and compatibility with AI weapons. Typically we discuss fighter jets in this context, mostly because there are so many variations of them, but bombers fit as well. A plane like the B-52 would be a third generation aircraft at best while everything from the F-15 and F-16 to the F-117 would be fourth-generation aircraft. The F-117 had a short lifespan but the F-15 and 16 have been heavily upgraded with modern avionics with the newer variations being a "4.5" generation like the Eurofighter and Rafale. The B-2 would be a fifth-generation plane like the F-22, having a similar level of technology in general but still a lack of overall integration. The F-35 is becoming a bridge between fifth and sixth generation, basically being the testbed for the communication and AI integration of the future. The B-21 will be the first truly sixth generation plane in the world, fully designed to integrate and grow with evolving future tech. We're very likely to see things like a single manned B-21 leading a squadron of drone bombers while a single F-35 - or a single NGAD - would be leading a squadron of drone fighters for protection.

As for what little we could see of the bomber itself - probably an early design mockup, as F-22s were testing and flying before various modifications were made to the airframe - it's got some really notable aerodynamic differences to the B-2.

It doesn't actually look anything like the renders we've seen. The B-21 isn't shaped like a flying wing as we know it, it looks like a wide-stretched cranked arrow wing. I'd call that a blended wing, like those super wide airline concepts you've likely seen. It looks to me like it's got a thicker and longer fuselage section than the B-2, with a more swept triangle along the front, and then kinks outward to slightly straighter wings.

I also see that those outer wing sections are severely twisted which is a characteristic of all efficient high-speed wings but is even more vital when there is no vertical tail. The wingtip twist actually creates forward lift which helps with yaw stability and fights adverse yaw while rolling. You'll notice that most images of the B-2 show split spoilers slightly opened near the wingtips - that is how the computer actively controls yaw, a really blunt-force method of doing it. The B-21's wings are clearly more advanced, controlling yaw the same way a bird does, not by controlling drag but by creating thrust at the wingtip. While straight and level, this extreme wingtip twist will also decrease drag and increase efficiency and speed. The B-2 alledgedly has a max speed of mach .95 - hard for me to believe - but regardless I'd expect the B-21 to be able to operate well within the transonic range.

The fuselage area seems much thicker than the B-2 while the wings are thinner. This tells me that much of the lift is created over the body which lines up with the thin, efficient wings. The engine nacelles are buried deep in the fuselage while the cockpit greenhouse seems thinner. The entire leading edge is more rounded while the nose area of the B-2 has a bird beak type of shape. This would be necessary to maintain airflow into those deep engine intakes and to keep the body creating lift at high angles of attack. Speaking of which, the wing twist has another added benefit of keeping the ailerons effective at high angles and slow speeds.

I'm pretty sure that once we get a good look at this thing we'll see that aerodynamically it is a completely different plane than the B-2 and that the B-2 is actually obsolete from a fundamental design standpoint, not just a technology or capability standpoint. Kinda crazy to think that despite how advanced the B-2 still is, we've learned a lot about the fundamentals of wings in the 30+ years since it first flew.
 
Last edited:
Keef
That's not how the generations are defined, they're not like video games lol. It's more about technological advacement, and what defines sixth generation is still up for debate, but generally it focuses on battlefield integration, information sharing across coalition forces, and compatibility with AI weapons.
Click to expand...

I know. The F-117 is first generation because it was the first attempt at applying Pytor Ufimstev's equations to predicting radar cross section. Due to limitations in computer technology, they had to do this with a faceted shape. The B-2 is second generation due to advances in computing (and RAM) that allowed for more aerodynamic shapes while maintaining stealth features. The ATF, which became the F-22 used the same technology and belongs in the same generation, but I considered it 3rd gen just for the sake of pushing the B-21 generation to a higher number (although that still wouldn't get to 6).


Keef
Typically we discuss fighter jets in this context, mostly because there are so many variations of them, but bombers fit as well. A plane like the B-52 would be a third generation aircraft at best while everything from the F-15 and F-16 to the F-117 would be fourth-generation aircraft. The F-117 had a short lifespan but the F-15 and 16 have been heavily upgraded with modern avionics with the newer variations being a "4.5" generation like the Eurofighter and Rafale. The B-2 would be a fifth-generation plane like the F-22, having a similar level of technology in general but still a lack of overall integration. The F-35 is becoming a bridge between fifth and sixth generation, basically being the testbed for the communication and AI integration of the future. The B-21 will be the first truly sixth generation plane in the world, fully designed to integrate and grow with evolving future tech. We're very likely to see things like a single manned B-21 leading a squadron of drone bombers while a single F-35 - or a single NGAD - would be leading a squadron of drone fighters for protection.
Click to expand...
Well one thing to keep in mind is that fighter generations didn't really come into common use until 5th gen. 1-4 were kind of retconned. 5th gen itself has also been subject to the whims of marketing. Lockheed originally included Mach 1.5 supercruise as part of the definition, then retracted that when the F-35 came along since it lacks the F-22's supercruise ability.

Calling the B-21 6th generation is an attempt to link it to upcoming 6th generation fighters. It is in a way fair since it will share technology with these planes, but bombers haven't gone through the same evolutions as fighters. The B-52 is actually more of a second generation bomber if we're going to equate bombers with fighters, with the B-47 possibly being 1st gen but bomber generations aren't very common in literature as far as I've seen so it might be up for debate. The B-52 being second generation fits because it was built when speed and altitude were still considered defense measures for bombers, but before supersonic bombers, which would define the 3rd generation. Unlike the case with fighters though, the 2nd generation supplanted the 3rd when it came to bombers. This was mostly because of SAM's pushing design requirements from high and fast to low and slow and standoff weapons which could perform bomber missions with less cost, risk, and faster reaction times. The same factors lead to 4th generation bombers (B-1) to go through troubled development and then basically become relegated to being outdated by 5th generation bombers (B-2). I think it's also worth noting that 4/5 th gen bombers basically only exist in the US. The Tu-160 is pretty much the only competitor for 4th gen. Besides standoff weapons, weapon miniaturization make lighter strike fighter preferable to dedicated bombers for many nations.

So in short, looking at technology alone, calling the B-21 6th gen makes sense, but it's just odd since historically generations were based on fighter design goals which don't line up with bomber design goals historically.

Keef
As for what little we could see of the bomber itself - probably an early design mockup, as F-22s were testing and flying before various modifications were made to the airframe - it's got some really notable aerodynamic differences to the B-2.

It doesn't actually look anything like the renders we've seen. The B-21 isn't shaped like a flying wing as we know it, it looks like a wide-stretched cranked arrow wing. I'd call that a blended wing, like those super wide airline concepts you've likely seen. It looks to me like it's got a thicker and longer fuselage section than the B-2, with a more swept triangle along the front, and then kinks outward to slightly straighter wings.

I also see that those outer wing sections are severely twisted which is a characteristic of all efficient high-speed wings but is even more vital when there is no vertical tail. The wingtip twist actually creates forward lift which helps with yaw stability and fights adverse yaw while rolling. You'll notice that most images of the B-2 show split spoilers slightly opened near the wingtips - that is how the computer actively controls yaw, a really blunt-force method of doing it. The B-21's wings are clearly more advanced, controlling yaw the same way a bird does, not by controlling drag but by creating thrust at the wingtip. While straight and level, this extreme wingtip twist will also decrease drag and increase efficiency and speed. The B-2 alledgedly has a max speed of mach .95 - hard for me to believe - but regardless I'd expect the B-21 to be able to operate well within the transonic range.
Click to expand...
I'm hesitant to speculate on the design without seeing the rear. They may have taken some lessons from the X-31 and X-36 and incorporated some form of thrust vectoring to lower trim drag. I'm sure that just like with the F-117, they were purposely hiding the rear to prevent anyone from seeing the IR signature reduction techniques being used. They also hid the control surfaces, meaning that they could be similarly advanced. If we're willing to just let imagination fly to the moon, I wonder if it might use aeroelastic control inspired by the X-53. There is a good chance that what we were allowed to see was the more boring half of the plane.
Keef
The fuselage area seems much thicker than the B-2 while the wings are thicker. This tells me that much of the lift is created over the body which lines up with the thin, efficient wings. The engine nacelles are buried deep in the fuselage while the cockpit greenhouse seems thinner. The entire leading edge is more rounded while the nose area of the B-2 has a bird beak type of shape. This would be necessary to maintain airflow into those deep engine intakes and to keep the body creating lift at high angles of attack. Speaking of which, the wing twist has another added benefit of keeping the ailerons effective at high angles and slow speeds.

I'm pretty sure that once we get a good look at this thing we'll see that aerodynamically it is a completely different plane than the B-2 and that the B-2 is actually obsolete from a fundamental design standpoint, not just a technology or capability standpoint. Kinda crazy to think that despite how advanced the B-2 still is, we've learned a lot about the fundamentals of wings in the 30+ years since it first flew.
Click to expand...
I agree, we were only given a tiny spoonful of information. There are probably many interesting secrets and design decisions hidden in the areas we weren't shown. The good news (for enthusiasts and spies alike) is the plane is probably going to be flying soon, so it's going to be hard to hide all the details.
 
Last edited:
My wife just told me one of the worst things ever. She met someone who worked as a film editor in LA. For their first job in the industry they paid to do the work. Eventually they worked their way up to unpaid and ultimately got paying jobs. That's like... PhD program level bad.
 
Last edited:
Exorcet
There is a good chance that what we were allowed to see was the more boring half of the plane.
Click to expand...
I agree, but even the more conventional half they showed us renders the B-2's basic airfoil obsolete which is already very impressive.

Danoff
My wife just told me one of the worst things ever. She met someone who worked as a film editor in LA. For their first job in the industry they paid to do the work. Eventually they worked their way up to unpaid and ultimately got paying jobs. That's like... PhD program level bad.
Click to expand...
Unionize! Strike! Force their hand! The airline industry just forced airilne operators to double regional First Officer pay. My company wasn't even union but was forced to follow suit. It can be done but it takes concerted industry-wide pressure, in airlines' case literally caused by so many people leaving to get better jobs at other companies. Corporations must be faced with total collapse before they bother changing their awful ways.

Maybe wear some "overworked and undervalued" laniards for emphasis.

Edit: Let's be clear, my company instituted a 90% pay raise and people are still leaving just as fast because they also instituted forced upgrades as a clapback. Clap clap bitch, when you force employees to do what they don't want they're gonna leave even faster. I got captains making $180,000 telling me this job sucks and they're getting their apps in elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
My wife just told me one of the worst things ever. She met someone who worked as a film editor in LA. For their first job in the industry they paid to do the work. Eventually they worked their way up to unpaid and ultimately got paying jobs. That's like... PhD program level bad.
Click to expand...
As someone who has always worked in an Unionised industry that's totally incomprehensible to me.

You do come across that type every now and then in management who think or expect you do something for nothing for some strange reason. Happened to me once and I replied to the manager "if you're looking for charity mate try the Salvation Army not me", never asked again in the limited time he was with the company.
 
Shaun
As someone who has always worked in an Unionised industry that's totally incomprehensible to me.

You do come across that type every now and then in management who think or expect you do something for nothing for some strange reason. Happened to me once and I replied to the manager "if you're looking for charity mate try the Salvation Army not me", never asked again in the limited time he was with the company.
Click to expand...
Even to me it is totally ridiculous. The worker is paying to do a job as opposed to being paid to do something? There's a stark contrast to being asked to volunteer and being asked to pay for work.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
583K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
437 438 439
Replies
13K
Views
693K
jesse100190
J
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
669
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back