Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "B-21 Raider: What we're allowed to know on US' new top-secret aircraft" video.

  1. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Launching your hypersonic missile from an undetected location closer is a big advantage.
    8
  2. Honestly, this makes me think the opposite, that we don't need US level spending. This is a superpowers weapon looking for the ability to protect power anywhere at anytime not a country looking to defend itself. For me Ukraine has shown Russia is less of threat conventionally. If it struggling with Ukraine it would get nowhere with only the European part of NATO.
    4
  3. If it was worth keeping the USAF would keep it (see B52), if its not worth keeping why would the RAF want it.
    4
  4.  @xXtuscanator22Xx  I don't think you'd know until pushed. The UK never wanted F22s, it won't want these (plenty of higher priorities to spend money on). Nuclear subs are one of the highest protected techs but they are working in AUKUS on them.
    3
  5. You may mean the B2, because this didn't exist 10 years ago to rip off.
    3
  6. It depends on your scale. Fundamentally we still do a lot if bombing, be it by fighter, drone or missile. For most countries its not worth having dedicated bombers, especially not $700m ones, but the US military is big enough it's worth the dedicated platforms.
    2
  7.  @TheRogueElement  without the US, Europe out techs, out mans and massively out spends Russia.
    1
  8.  @jej3451  Harriers show some countries will buy others retiring kit but on specifics it's great example against the initial post. It's the RAF getting rid of old kit and the USAF wanting to run it, the opposite to the suggestion. The Harriers were also bought to support existing aircraft not as a new operation.
    1
  9.  @a_huddz7866  B52 was one example, but see also F16, F15, A10. The USAF is happy to use old kit if it's still effective even when there is a better version available. So if the USAF is getting rid there is problem, this may well be a cost/benefit rather than obsolescence one but cost will only be be worse for a country buying without the existing expertise or maintenance set up.
    1
  10.  @springbok4015  China is definitely becoming a super power and may already be one, but its not alone like the US has been for a couple decades.
    1
  11.  @sih1095  the decision to ban F22 exports was already a debated one, and that was in the context of the UK not interested, it could quiet possibly have been overturned with a bit of political pressure. But then production was stopped and that ended any future questions.
    1
  12.  @sih1095  Japan isn't the UK. As I mentioned earlier, the US works with the UK on top secret tech like nuclear subs. The UK has F35 tech transfer as the only tier 1 partner.
    1
  13.  @TheLastCrumb.  It depends on the specific missile your talking about but chances are your wrong on both accounts. There's nothing intrinsically unstoppable about hypersonic missiles (though they will certainly be difficult to stop) and the ability to circumnavigate will generally be a waste of resources.
    1
  14.  @jayneryan6395  that's before the B2 was even introduced. It just shows how little "in development" means.
    1
  15.  @nodisalsi  if that's even true it's only as a launch platform that could be replaced by various alternatives.
    1