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: 11
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

en.wikipedia.org...

The design goals in January 2011 were:
Subsonic maximum speed.

Source here but link is dead
Majumdar, Dave. "U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers." Defense News, 23 January 2011.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: redoubt
Yes the final LRS-B will surely give us some surprise when it will roll out, in fact for what we read on the different site it is a image rendering of the start of the program may be since the start it will be possible of evolutive design. I don't know why Northrop give us false picture in the pas t year tease of the LRS-B when we look the plane Under the white wrap it's still a flying wing too.


edit on 27-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
redoubt and darksidius make good points. If you review the text from the USAF press release:

Air Force Reveals B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber



Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James revealed the first rendering of the Long Range Strike Bomber...



While there are no existing prototypes of the aircraft, the artist rendering is based on the initial design concept.

Let me emphasize "first rendering" and "initial design concept". We have no evidence that the current iteration of the B-21 looks like the image. Where is the archetypal platypus exhaust nozzle(s)? Are they really sticking with the sharp wingtips? No cranked kite? What about pilot FOV?

Their presented "initial design concept" could date back to the 1980's just after the ATB studies - for all we know. Perhaps not likely since C2 surface shaping, inlet OML, etc. weren't known quantities back then, but something to consider.

They say it may cost an adversary only a tenth of the resources to counter any given threat. There's nothing stopping the artist from dusting off 30 year old 3-views of the original design and giving it a modern finish and features to match the new images seen from today's airframers. We should expect marked changes from the initial image release to the EMD bird(s).
edit on 27-2-2016 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

And? You're going to tell me, yet again, that you can look at a drawing and know that it's supersonic?

breakingdefense.com...

The NGB is not the LRS-B no matter how badly you want it to be.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

twitter.com...

SecAF tells press B21 pic is "altered to align with enhanced security program".

= Not what it looks like.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone
Yes its right " a sort of what it's look like " not " What it look like " you are right. Since yesterday the debat is passionate


edit on 27-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

To an extent the planform says much about an aircraft.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

And you can't just look at a concept drawing and say that it's supersonic. It's a concept, that's all. There's nowhere near enough to say that it is, and far more evidence that it isn't.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What advantage would that configuration bring if it isn't supersonic?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

Payload, efficiency. You can put a bigger payload bay on a fuselage like that. You might get a slightly higher top speed too.
edit on 2/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

To go back to the automotive analogies. The faster I go in my roadster, the more gas I burn and the more often I have to fill up. Even in a modern sub-compact the math is the same. Drive it 90mph all the time and your gas mileage will be in the toilet. As for sub-sonic efficiency, the Enola Gay was sub-sonic.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonofaSkunk
a reply to: BlackDog10 As for sub-sonic efficiency, the Enola Gay was sub-sonic.


Ooooooh, harsh...

I was hoping someone would go there!



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Seems some people here only like super sonic. I've got something for that:


edit on 27-2-2016 by PhantomTwo because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2016 by PhantomTwo because: let's try this whole youtube thing again



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhantomTwo
Seems some people here only like super sonic. I've got something for that:



Fixed it for you. You only needed the part after the youtube.be, not the whole link.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Congressional leaders already saying its done.

Message boards all over the internet laughing at this "copy" of the B-2, I've been reading all sorts of articles, and their comments.

This bird is dead.

Will never be built in quantities they want, maybe 1 or 2 from initial funds already committed, but its over.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

So, basically you're reading message boards of people who, like you, have no idea what they're talking about. Got it.

The only person in Congress threatening the bomber is McCain, and that's because he doesn't like the fact that the development portion of the contract is cost plus. If they're already saying it's done, you should be able to post the quotes. So put your money where your mouth is and prove it. Congress hasn't been happy about them not telling how much it costs, but no one is saying anything about it being dead.

Keep dreaming. And even if they were to kill the Northrop bomber, and give it to Boeing, which would be borderline illegal anyway, you still wouldn't get your precious Mach 4 bomber, or your B-1R, so again, keep dreaming.
edit on 2/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
as much as we talked smack about the b21. in the end if you analyze the facts about this new bomber you'll realize procuring her will be like having a moderrn day army of shinobi strike aircraft at the USA's bidding.

perfect for dealing with the eastern threats for the 21st century.

can't see em, can't stop em. n theyre packing a lethal bite.




edit on 27-2-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Barnalby
Fast forward to 2016, and there's another, equally impressive car on the road with very similar numbers, though you might be surprised at what it is.

That car is the 2016 Honda Accord V6. Mass-produced in Ohio, it ships from the factory with a 3.5 liter V-6 that redlines at 6900 rpm and produces 278 horsepower, which through its 6-speed manual is enough to rocket the 4-door Honda from 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds, which is faster than the M5. It also returns double the gas mileage (34 highway vs 17 for the M5), runs on 87, and only needs its oil changed every 10,000 miles (compared to every ~3000 for the BMW).

Furthermore, this impressive package ships from the factory with LED headlamps, power everything, a backup camera, parking sensors, heated rear seats, an integrated satnav/infotainment system with bluetooth and CarPlay connectivity to Apple and Android smartphones, automatic hi-beams, and many other features that would have been science fiction in 1989. What does all of this cost you? An MSRP of $34,000 for a top-spec model, in 2016 dollars.

What I'm trying to get at is that the things that make the Accord such an impressive piece of engineering in 2016 aren't its absolute performance specs (which are still impressive even today), but the fact that it makes performance levels that only a generation ago would have made it a supercar so accessible, reliable, and mundane that you wouldn't think twice seeing one drive by, all while adding features that didn't exist even a decade after the 1989 M5 first rolled off of the lots.



I don't mean to go too far off topic, but your numbers on the speed of these vehicles are slightly skewed. The '89 M5 had a factory spec 0-60 of 6.3 seconds. The accord is claimed to be 5.8 (slower than the 2013 model), also the 1989 Corvette ZR-1 was both more powerful than the M5 (375hp) and faster 0-60 (4.4s).


On topic: I enjoy the flying wing design of these crafts, and like previously stated it's not about what's on the outside -- it's what's inside that counts. I love me a good "sleeper."



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

THOSE People are reporting that the design of the B-21 shouldn't have been a surprise.

warisboring.com...

They sure imply the BoLock design was also a flying wing of a very similar design. I'm a bit surprised at that given what we know.

Maybe they hate us so much they want to be contrarian?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

About half the people out there are convinced that the NGB is actually Boeing's entry in the LRS-B so I'm not surprised in the least.




top topics



 
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join