Meet the B-21

A bit off topic (please feel free to move), but I didn't think it required a whole new thread, and these discussions tend to meander a bit so here goes:

With the talk of activity out at edwards, the new developments with LRSB, and my own trip out west, I've been keeping an eye on the flight activity around Tonopah, Edwards/Palmdale and the like - yesterday I actually caught a flight "Strike 1" doing zig zags that seems to be in that complex north of LV. Not that this has anything to do with the B-21, but:

1) is it fairly common to catch flights in there? (using flightradar 24)

2) Is "Strike 1" a generic callsign that is probably something boring.

I can post some screen shots if it's deemed anything interesting, and Thanks in advance..

a reply to: Zaphod58
In the same time when you look the Boeing NGB you see the drawing of the B-21. The Polecat in my opinion is a very UGLY machine.

a reply to: darksidius

Because everyone thinks that is what they offered so that's what they used.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I think people excpected realy something new and more exotic than the B-21 concept, I realy understand the critics about that. The first thinking when I see the drawing was " hey guys what you do in design since 3 decade ?" for us the hobbyist it look like a facelift on the same car surely we are completly wrong but it is my personal feeling . Its the first 21 program and since decade we saw B-52-B-1-B-2 and for now the B-21 look B-2..1 realy no surprise its not a critic more a feeling.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think it's because we've reached an apex in terms of aerodynamics and we can't deviate too much from standard designs until we figure out anti-grav/magnetic levitation ?

How do these beasts achieve yaw without a seemingly visible rudder/tail ?

===

I am going to suggest two possible designs for the Manta-like craft
that would usually fly along with the F117 in it's heyday that MIGHT
work one WITH vertical stabilizers and another without:

Manta-like Aircraft with Vertical Stabilizers:
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Manta-like Aircraft without Vertical Stabilizers
using double flaps in back for yaw control:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

And for kicks here is another more-diamond-like shape
I like calling the "Diamond-Shark":
files.abovetopsecret.com...

These are fairly plausible designs as are THESE ONES
that have been actively looked at by the USAF:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

The one in Kansas, COULD HAVE been something SIMILAR to this one:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

or the more classic A12 Avenger shape:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BigTrain

Anyone with any power whatsoever who judges the B-21 because it looks like the B-2 should be removed from their position. Likewise, my opinion is that any post criticizing the B-21 for looking like the B-2 (with no-analysis) should be removed from this thread for being off-topic.

Who cares what idiots in the comments for articles say. Who cares what it looks like - it's a war machine not a piece of art.

The requirement was for a subsonic extremely stealthy bomber - it was always obvious that an aircraft shaped like B-2 would be likely. Physics don't change.

a reply to: Virgil Cain

Strike-1 could be the Polecat UAV which
is sometimes called StrikeStar which sometimes
is flown from nevada but the MORE LIKELY sign
is attributed to an F-18/F-15 from
the Naval Strike Warfare Center at
Naval Airstation FALLON Nevada.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe you'll know. That rendering looks real bad, just how much detail do they give the artists who make those things? It looks like they told someone to make a B-2, soften the edges to give everything a more rounded look, and then covered half of it in shadow.

Would something like this have an actual official chassis they could have modeled the look after or would it have just been say a paragraph long description and then left to the artists imagination so that no actual classified material on it would be released?

I'm one of those weird walking contradictions who loathes weapons and weapon systems, but is nevertheless fascinated by and appreciative of the ingenuity, technology, and even aesthetics of these machines. Just as I don't own or want to own a firearm, but can appreciate their design and engineering. (To the extent a layperson can.)

In that spirit, far from the criticisms of its not being "out there" enough, I actually think this thing looks beautiful and very interesting. But what do I know?

Peace.

a reply to: Aazadan

They usually have their own art department, and they have an idea of what it looks like. They'll give them a list of things that they don't want shown, and alterations to make and then approve the final drawing.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
I'm one of those weird walking contradictions who loathes weapons and weapon systems, but is nevertheless fascinated by and appreciative of the ingenuity, technology, and even aesthetics of these machines. Just as I don't own or want to own a firearm, but can appreciate their design and engineering. (To the extent a layperson can.)

In that spirit, far from the criticisms of its not being "out there" enough, I actually think this thing looks beautiful and very interesting. But what do I know?

Peace.

---

How about this one for an unusual aircraft design
just a basic render for fun (mostly!)......

files.abovetopsecret.com...

With enough computer horsepower it MIGHT BE ABLE TO FLY!

a reply to: AceWombat04

You may loathe weapons but from reading your post I'd recommend going to a range, renting a gun & shooting a box of ammo. Just to see.

originally posted by: PhantomTwo
a reply to: AceWombat04

You may loathe weapons but from reading your post I'd recommend going to a range, renting a gun & shooting a box of ammo. Just to see.

I've fired guns before in a controlled environment. It was alright, but not really something I have any inclination to do again. I wasn't even a bad shot ironically lol. But I appreciate the intent.

Peace.

a reply to: Discotech

Could be trust vectoring.

a reply to: StargateSG7

Polecat? Didn't anyone tell you? The only one Polecat LM built crashed in 2006 and was never called the strike star.

a reply to: StargateSG7

That looks a lot like a craft that was being tested at L-3 in Greenville tx a couple years ago. Damn near silent, and capable of hovering.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: StargateSG7

Polecat? Didn't anyone tell you? The only one Polecat LM built crashed in 2006 and was never called the strike star.

Interestingly on one of my call sign sheets
a Polecat UAV is called Strikestar and I thought
(could be wrong tho!) that there were MULTIPLE
prototypes with a some being transferred POSSIBLY
to NASA for high altitude research work but I have
not heard anything else from that for a very long time.

P.S. It was an UGLY plane --- X45c and X47 look Waaaaaaay cooler as UAVs!

In fact I thing the X-45c should have been SCALED UP to full B2 size
and flown autonomously or have a REMOVEABLE crew module!

a reply to: StargateSG7

Polecat was never a prototype, it was a demonstrator built on Lockheed's dime to show that they could build a low cost, stealthy UAV, quickly. They accidentally activated the range safety system on it's second or third flight, and it impacted the desert and was destroyed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

activated the range safety system? what they shot it Down or something?

picturing Johnny 5 posted up at the ranges perimeter, his eyes suddenly turn red. "Polecat leaving controlled airspace, polecat must be destroyed!" pew pew "johnny 5 is alive!!!"
rolls away, arms flapping wildly around "los lobos kick your ass, los lobos kick your face...."