Meet the B-21

a reply to: anzha

With some of the insane numbers put up with new engines, and what they've already said about ADVENT numbers they can probably get away with two. Knowing the AF though they'll go with 4.

originally posted by: TAGBOARD
a reply to: Zaphod58

The project 175 range safety event was the official story, but I've been told is not what happened. It makes for a logical ending that reduces further questions, I suppose.

This is what drives me nuts about this board; all the hints & mystery. How about you just tell us what you heard & be done with it?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've heard good things.

However, the number of engines will depend on lots of requirements we're not yet aware of, not just payload lifting power.

Do they want more electrical generation capability? As was said up thread, given the time frame, they may be putting in a zap gun.

Can they play games with thermal by having more?

Do they think they may want to expand the payload capability in the future?

Do they want superredundnacy?

etc, etc.

You know this, Zaph. I'm doing the expose for others.

originally posted by: PhantomTwo
This is what drives me nuts about this board; all the hints & mystery. How about you just tell us what you heard & be done with it?

Please review American information classification laws and find out why this would be a dumb thing to do.

a reply to: PhantomTwo

Because if it's something that only a few people know, congratulations, you just burned your source hard. Many agencies keep a close eye on this board, and I'll be dammed if I'm going to burn someone like that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: PhantomTwo

Because if it's something that only a few people know, congratulations, you just burned your source hard.

I get it, but my impatience gets me in trouble.

Many agencies keep a close eye on this board, and I'll be dammed if I'm going to burn someone like that.

But wouldn't those agencies have the inside knowledge to be able to figure out what you're talking about & therefore narrow down the sources just the same?

a reply to: anzha

Also adding to your list would be the added cost to the production aircraft with 4 engines and the fuel load that will require, as well as the added maintenance and support costs for an overall more complicates system. That might be enough for the AF to invest in K.I.S.S.

a reply to: PhantomTwo

Unless we cross a line, that most people know not to cross, then they can't prove where it was heard. It could be something that people are really good at putting together, or a third hand rumor that changed as it went, so they tend to let it slide and deal with more critical things on their plate.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: PhantomTwo

Because if it's something that only a few people know, congratulations, you just burned your source hard. Many agencies keep a close eye on this board, and I'll be dammed if I'm going to burn someone like that.

---

I'm going to take a VERY WILD GUESS and say that the
FULLY AUTONOMOUS FLIGHT CONTROL system went
rather wonky and starting doing maneuvers out
the range bounds or far to close to ground
....AND/OR.... the probable directed energy
weapons test system onboard (laser?) started
directing fire at on-ground personnel or buildings.

So they had to blow the system and kill it dead!

OTHERWISE it was an F-16 chase plane that accidentally
bumped it and tossed into the ground blowing up
$35 million worth of RnD......OOOPS!

a reply to: C0bzz

Theres a reason its called the B-21 and NO its not because of 21st century, its plain to see this is B-2 Revision 1.

Same manufacturer, same shape, same speed, same everything.

Just stop with the following...

1. Its more stealthy, well it had better be, its only been 40+ years since they designed the first one.
2. Its got so much cool electronics, well it had better, its only been 40+ years since the vacuum tubes the first one has.
3. Its so quiet. It had better be, its only be 40_ years of engine advancement.

These arguments are total hogwash. Northrup is getting DOD welfare here for doing really no advancements at all. The DOD made the requirements the same so they could go build another slow mover.

Everyone except Zaphod, who obviously has a serious love affair with Northrup, says this is a waste and is a letdown.

And no Zaphod, you don't know much more about this bird than the rest of us.

a reply to: BigTrain

Still waiting for you to prove that Congress is killing it and giving it to Boeing.

I know more than you do about it. It's not a love affair, it's reality. You're not getting a mach 4 bomber that you're so obsessed with, or a starship, which is the only way you seem to think anything is more advanced.

Just stop with the following. And no, you don't know as much about this bird as most of us, as is apperant by your droning on about an artist's drawing.

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: C0bzz

Theres a reason its called the B-21 and NO its not because of 21st century, its plain to see this is B-2 Revision 1.

Same manufacturer, same shape, same speed, same everything.

Just stop with the following...

1. Its more stealthy, well it had better be, its only been 40+ years since they designed the first one.
2. Its got so much cool electronics, well it had better, its only been 40+ years since the vacuum tubes the first one has.
3. Its so quiet. It had better be, its only be 40_ years of engine advancement.

These arguments are total hogwash. Northrup is getting DOD welfare here for doing really no advancements at all. The DOD made the requirements the same so they could go build another slow mover.

Everyone except Zaphod, who obviously has a serious love affair with Northrup, says this is a waste and is a letdown.

And no Zaphod, you don't know much more about this bird than the rest of us.

a reply to: BigTrain

QUOTE from bigtrain: "And no Zaphod, you don't know much more about this bird than the rest of us. "

Kinda beg to differ on that...he IS/WAS POSSIBLY an LMCO guy
so I think he would know SOMETHING about a competitor!
(if that is a true supposition/educated guess on my part!)

---

Anyways, I personally think of ALL the designs I've seen for UAV's
and "bombers", I like the NEW SR-72 design and the Boeing X45c
the best in terms of a design that LOOKS GOOD.

They could scale EITHER ONE UP for a
big bad new gen bomber IF they wanted
to spend the money!

Hey! After a spending spree that will be almost
ONE TRILLION DOLLARS on the F-35 (JSF) over a period
of 30/40 years, what's a Billion or Three of American
Taxpayer dollars on a scaled up UAV design!

a reply to: BigTrain

I love the fact that the three things you want to change are:

+Manufacturer
+Shape
+Speed

Whereas the three which everyone should stop talking about and ignore are:

+Stealth
+Electronics (presumably sensors, countermeasures, etc.)
+Sound

Now of these two lists, which one contains things that actually affect mission performance? Exactly, the one you want everyone to stop talking about. Just the talk of someone who prefers appearance over substance. It isn't, and was never going to be, your hypersonic fan-boy dream.

originally posted by: aholic
I like to think of it as the B-2.1

rev 2 so to speak.

The artist conception is closer to the predecessor of the B-2 design than the final iteration.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The design of which was more or less similar to the "hopeless diamond", as in, it was a shape that was essentially obtained mathematically (rather than aerodynamically) as the "perfect" low-observable shape that *might* be able to work as an aircraft.

The ensuing design changes that we ended up seeing, from the hopeless diamond to the have blue and finally to the F-117, were driven by limitations in computing power and flight-control software, which in turn led to an inherently compromised design in terms of VLO abilities.

Similarly, the deviations between the THAP and early ATB concepts and the B-2 as built were driven by deficiencies in flight control software and materials science, though the technology had nevertheless matured greatly since the XST program.

Part of what's so exciting about the B-21, is that we've gotten to the point where flight control software, fluid modeling (as well as a host of exotic aerodynamic "augments") have now matured to the point that we can build and fly those inherently stealthy shapes, without having to make any compromises in the name of aerodynamics or materials science.

Which is why this thing may look just like a B-2, but it's as different from it's predecessor on the inside as a 787 is from a 707.

a reply to: Barnalby

Honestly the drawing has some striking differences between it and the Spririt. The lack of control surfaces alone appears to me to be fairly huge. Though rumor has it the Spirit doesn't always use the ones she has anyways....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Its nothing more than a giant flying target waiting to be shot down by any nation with a supersonic fighter.

You think we've been tested by Iran and Iraq and Libya???? We went into Bosnia against not much more capable military and lost a F-117, and you've got every excuse in the book as to why it was lost.

Point was, they tracked it and blew it away once they "saw" it. Forget your stealth, once its visible its over.

Slow and worthless. If slow was soon special, why is F-22 mach 2+ plus?

Nobody ever gonna touch a Mach 4+ bomber, everybody knows it, and stop complaining about price.

You could build 20+ SR-72s for the price of this bomber package.

originally posted by: SonofaSkunk
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.

Agree 100%. It's written by the very name of the program: Long-Range Strike Bomber.

As everybody aeronautical has pointed out, long-range is not compatible with supersonic speed and substantial payload.