Meet the B-21

a reply to: BigTrain

The Boeing 787 is a whole bunch more advanced than the Boeing 707, even though they look very similar.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Daughter of the lady in green?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: argentus

It's smaller than the B-2, but at the same time there are rumors that it can carry things no other bomber can. Supposedly it will have a limited air to air ability, and the sensor fusion makes the F-35 look like something from the 70s.

As always, the LRS is always quoted as "family of systems".

If you have a stealthy airframe & engines, does the payload have to be bombs for everything? Not ISR? Not ECM? Not JSTARS? Not a missile truck? Not a communication relay for UAV's if the sats are down or jammed?

And what about the shockingly obvious? Where is the strategic hole?

Long-Range Strike. There is a desired outcome and political limitations. All the planners are talking about scenarios unlike Cold War, where there are not nearby friendly (and defensible) aircraft bases. What doesn't have a whole lot of land owned by anybody? A really big ocean. Who's on the other side?

So, the strategic goal is Long-Range Strike from defended US territory. What do you need to get it? Ordnance, intelligence, and .... gas.

Why hasn't the US govt strongly advocated and procured a SR-71 replacement? We know why.

Where is the stealth tanker project? Bueller, bueller, anyone, anyone?

a reply to: Bfirez

Hence my bit about those exotic aerodynamic "augments", that technology most certainly hasn't stood still over the past few decades.

And you would be correct about the B-2's somewhat unorthodox approach to flight control when in "World War III mode".

a reply to: mbkennel

Large payload

Long range

High speed

All of those things are nice to have, but you can really only get any two of them, especially in a stealth platform, and doubly so when low cost is a must.

Something big and fast will by necessity have a short range (or be expensive as hell), something fast and long-range will have a miniscule payload (think the SR-71), and something big with long legs will ultimately have to sacrifice speed.

The USAF, a bunch of adrenaline-fueled fighter jocks who usually can't give two #s about anything that can't manage mach 2 (hence our deteriorating tanker, ground attack, and transport fleets), has decided that in the face of everything else the LRS-B can do, that speed is ultimately the most expendable of those properties.

I'm curious about what some of the doubters here might know, what juicy inside knowledge they might have that all of those pathologically fighter-worshipping higher ups at the USAF have apparently missed out on.

a reply to: BigTrain

Once again you're proving you don't know crap. ONE stealth aircraft was shot down out of thousands of combat missions over some defenses that were so tough that non stealth aircraft were forbidden to test them. Yeah that proves that stealth is a pathetic joke alright.

They're getting up to 100 bombers with this program as it is now. But yes, let's buy a fifth of that and put ten times the strain on the force. What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that plan.

The F-22 is mach 2+ because it's called a fighter. That speed is also not nearly what you think it means. They can supercruise for about 350 miles. The rest of the flight, if they want to be able to stay in the fight, has to be subsonic. So try again.

a reply to: mbkennel

It has repeatedly run into issues with the boom.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's almost feeling like they'll need to use something other than a boom if they want the concept to work.

a reply to: Barnalby

They may end up going another route, but they're pretty limited with the amount of fuel you're talking about transferring. One reason the Navy gets away with a hose and drogue is they're moving small amounts of fuel. With even a C-130 you'd have to move do much a hose or similar system wouldn't be feasible.

Can someone explain to me why it would be important for a Stealth Bomber to be super fast? It would burn out its fuel before it even reached the target.

I can't wait to read more about the B21. I hope it can carry drones. That would freaking RULE.

a reply to: TomLawless

It wouldn't be stealth if it was supersonic. You can either go fast, and leave a fairly noticeable signature, and rely on speed to keep you safe, or you can go slow, and try to be nearly invisible.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. I don't understand the wigging out over it being "slow".

It sounds to me as if it's going to be an exciting aircraft. I'm kinda stoked.

a reply to: TomLawless

There is a crowd that is obsessed eith speed being the ultimate stealth. Get in and out fast and no one can touch you is their philosophy. Damn costs and fleet size.

And yeah ,the demonstrators were eye watering.

originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. I don't understand the wigging out over it being "slow".

It sounds to me as if it's going to be an exciting aircraft. I'm kinda stoked.

I have a theory about this. I think that the military design stuff for what they need, but the general public want stuff that is UFO type wizardry with freakin' lazers coming out of its head!

The reason for that is 'cos most of us want that tech to bleed into civilian life, and thereby live our futuristic Jetson's lifestyle today.

It sounds like a joke, but there is a kernel of truth in there I think.

a reply to: Jonjonj

You're pretty much dead on. The B-21 is perfect for the requirements, as was the Boeing aircraft. But since they don't look 25th century and they haven't said anything about them people jump straight to "it sucks".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TomLawless

There is a crowd that is obsessed eith speed being the ultimate stealth. Get in and out fast and no one can touch you is their philosophy.

And that doesn't even work: missiles which go at Mach 3-4 can easily attack from the front now. If the craft is detected---launch missiles from various places, converging on the target.

The SR-71 could probably have been shot down over USSR given some warning and pre-planning.

a reply to: mbkennel

And they're only getting better. The K-77M is one of the scariest missiles I've heard of.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Sound reasoning, to be sure. That's most likely the case.

originally posted by: Barnalby
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.

Oh, I was just relating that the NG ATB shape was pretty much exactly like that before the B-2 got the saw teeth for the low-level flight requirement. In that light it's less "2.1" than it is 2.0 beta.
If you want a subsonic VLO aircraft with endurance and payload, it's pretty much the shape. Physics don't change much, and they weighed all the potential compromises 30-some years ago. Talk about "mature" technology!

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.

It's going to be quite different in several ways.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I do wonder how accurate the drawing is though, especially considering everyone and their mother figured NG was going cranked kite