It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meet the B-21

page: 10
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: BASSPLYR

But you told them who is cool though right...RIGHT!?






posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

I've always been sort of partial to the FB-23.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: BASSPLYR

How about a contender for the F-111/F-117 replacement? I thought the comment about dumping fuel into the burners would have been a dead giveaway.


I dunno. it looks a little big to be a fb or light tactical strike.

www.deploymentessentials.com...

looks like a good replacement for something else though.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Whatever it is, it certainly looks like one BIG girl...



At least, if these renderings are anything to go by...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

That looks strikingly like another aircraft.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Then why is it shaped for supersonic performance? Care to explain that?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

It MIGHT have a mach 1 dash, but the requirements were for high subsonic, which is what it was designed for speed wise. That is the shape they settled on for the best stealth and payload capabilities to meet the requirements put forth in the RFP.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Supersonic speed would add a huge cost to the aircraft and limit payload and stealth for little benefit. If the requirements were for high subsonic then why add so much extra cost when the program was going to be highly scrutinised all along? Boeing & Lockheed aren't stupid. It doesn't even make sense that one proposal would be supersonic and the other not.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

That's why I said it MIGHT have a very limited mach 1 dash. They're not stupid and they know what it would do to costs.

The flying wing design that you said was their entry has been clearly identified as the Next Generation Bomber, which was from 2010 or so. Everything leaked about the LRS-B, including an early concept drawing from Boeing themselves showed the design in my post as their entry for this competition.

As the RFP was for a subsonic aircraft, and Boeing showed similar costs to the NG entry, then logically, their design was subsonic. There's no way they could have a supersonic design and similar costs.


edit on 2/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Note that the inlets are mostly blanked out (although notice the planform alignment in the part of the inlet that we can see). Also the exhausts are not visible.

I wonder what this means.
edit on 27/2/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Its the B-21 MOCK UP, what is the difference between NGB and LRS-B its exactly the same plane. When we look at the Boeing proposal it's the USAF drawing of yesterday. There is no difference in fact may be the Boeing proposal was the same plane than Northrop.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BlackDog10

That's why I said it MIGHT have a very limited mach 1 dash. They're not stupid and they know what it would do to costs.

As the RFP was for a subsonic aircraft, and Boeing showed similar costs to the NG entry, then logically, their design was subsonic. There's no way they could have a supersonic design and similar costs.


Then why go for supersonic configuration? Because they didn't, the Boeing/LM offer would have looked very, very similar.


Everything leaked about the LRS-B, including an early concept drawing from Boeing themselves showed the design in my post as their entry for this competition.


If that were true then why did most think Northrop was going for a cranked kite? Because everything didn't leak. Since when do concept designs always end up as the final offer? There have been countless early concepts of a program that looked almost nothing like the final product. Heck just look at Northrop's concepts for the LRS-B.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

No it is not the same plane. The requirements for the two were different. Northrop used the same basic airframe but updated it to meet the LRS-B requirements. The Next Generation Bomber was for a medium bomber capable of loitering and hitting targets of opportunity. The LRS-B is for a heavy, nuclear capable bomber.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I like to think of it as the B-2.1

rev 2 so to speak.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

That looks strikingly like another aircraft.


I remember something about fighter size and inward canted tailplanes described by an eyewitness in 'another incident' discussed on this forum or was that too long ago?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

And yet, if you actually look, especially at the picture I added above, the Boeing design you think is the LRS-B very clearly says Next Generation Bomber on the model.

So you know for sure that it's supersonic. You can tell that from the picture huh.

Yeah concepts change. They don't go from a fairly conventional fuselage to a flying wing. Boeing offered the one that I posted. You can find any number of articles that all show that as their concept, as well as a few other documents around the net.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BlackDog10

And yet, if you actually look, especially at the picture I added above, the Boeing design you think is the LRS-B very clearly says Next Generation Bomber on the model.

So you know for sure that it's supersonic. You can tell that from the picture huh.

Yeah concepts change. They don't go from a fairly conventional fuselage to a flying wing. Boeing offered the one that I posted. You can find any number of articles that all show that as their concept, as well as a few other documents around the net.




I am wondering, is the concept of the mach angle still valid these days? If so you may conclude it is a trans sonic design at best...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
In the end the transonic and high subsonic is the same thing mach 0.95like B-2 is 1100 km/h , the transonic regime is mach 0.8 to mach 1 . Mach 1 is 1230 km/h there is little difference in speed between 1100 km/h and 1230 km/h. The flying wing design of the B-2 is very near to the mach don't you think it can be possible to be mach 1 with the engine in full gaz to escape a danger ?
edit on 27-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Passenger jets go nearly Mach 1 as well, they're not designed to go over so it wouldn't really end well if they did



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Pictures don't tell the truth... not always...

Anyone who was around during the Jimmy Carter administration may remember his release of pictures of the new and upcoming 'stealth fighter'. The pictures released to the press (what the media was called back then) showed a sleek aircraft with the air intake on top and behind the cockpit.

Everyone was ooohing and ahhing.

Then came the F-117 and it looked nothing like that! Then the question was why and the answer was fairly simple; it was during the Cold War and the administration wanted to send the Rooskies into a tailspin.

Carter still emits his infamous grin whenever asked about this.

The B-21 may well be the same game being played here in the second decade of the 21st century...

...



new topics




 
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join