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: 20
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Personally I'm hoping it goes with some real sexy engine and energy generation technology it could potentially use. I hope they don't bypass the options to augment the birds capabilities.




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman
Yes I m like that all my gift open in few seconds
too long awaiting now, USAF open our apetite last week .



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would it be safe to say these two are one in the same?

Referring to your response on page 10.
edit on CSTth3120162016p3988 by TStoops88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

No. If you don't get how amazing multispectral stealth is, I suggest you do some reading.


Sensorcraft.. fancy skin.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TStoops88

No, that is a different mission. There is some overlap, but not the same.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
When we look the rendering of B-21 it look a lot like the B-2 at the start of the program for the high altitude capacity, it mean that the B-21 will be more for high flight instead of the low level like B-2 ?



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Woops. I completely messed up my last post.

Do you think this is what the guy saw?

www.deploymentessentials.com...

www.dreamlandresort.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Since it was posted somewhere, there are two very good reasons for this shape. Anyone care to guess?


my guesses:

Fewer geometric 'features' at the intermediate frequency radar wavelength compared to the B-2's tail serrations.

The rear 'tail', being a single triangle, extends out longer, and the engine exhaust can cool over a longer length inside the duct, and besides lower IR emissions, it gives some length to provide MHD electrical power generation for various propulsion and ECM needs.

edit on 6-3-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Since it was posted somewhere, there are two very good reasons for this shape. Anyone care to guess?


I will take a bite at this:

1) Low and Slow --- High Wing Area means you can fly LOW AND SLOW
A10 Warthog style which means the mission parameters have changes
to an tactical attack-style craft and NOT just a pure strategic bomber!

2) If multi-spectral stealth is an issue, I would suggest that
it is more an issue with skin coating than anything else!
I am really surprised yet that someone at Northrup/LMCO/Boeing
hasn't tried SIMPLE Polyurethane/Polyvarathane
(aka spray-on Rhinoliner Truck Bed liner) with stamped
into the skin fractal patterns of microchannels that
would TRAP 10, 20 30 GHZ and the 600 MHZ to 5.5 GHZ
and other radar and radio bands. THAT would give it
millimetre wave and otehr bands of stealth.

Other deeper-cut fractal patterns could trap lower
frequency acoustic imaging waves and for light
I would try something like 340..800 nanometer
fractal microchannels to trap light waves making
the craft REALLY dark at Infrared, UV and visible
light EM bands.

You can actually cut SMALLER fractal patterns
into LARGER AND DEEPER-CUT fractal patterns
so as to trap MULTIPLE EM bands using the
same skin!

AND the Rhinoliner is COMPLETELY WEATHERPROOF and
TOUGH AS NAILS therefore it would be so much easier
to maintain the skin than on the CURRENT B2 bomber!

3) Was it also SIZE-reduced so that it can be
SHIPPED secretly via secretive cargo ships?
Are the wings are FOLDABLE and/or REMOVEABLE
for storage and flight OFF OF AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER?
Whoooaaa! That would be something NEW!


edit on 2016/3/6 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

1) Low and Slow --- High Wing Area means you can fly LOW AND SLOW
A10 Warthog style which means the mission parameters have changes
to an tactical attack-style craft and NOT just a pure strategic bomber!


Lower wing area would be better for both ride comfort and airframe life down low. And if you're down in the weeds in indian country, you really don't want to be puttering around... You don't build 550 million dollar CAS platforms.




2) If multi-spectral stealth is an issue, I would suggest that
it is more an issue with skin coating than anything else!

Then you'd be really wrong.

Rhinoliner


Or maybe you could use something that you tune...



3) Was it also SIZE-reduced so that it can be
SHIPPED secretly via secretive cargo ships?

Size=weight=cost
The whole idea was to get a VLO platform fielded (relatively) cheaply. Bigger would actually be better at low-frequencies, however.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Reason 1: VHF radar defeat

Reason 2: Boundary layer ingestion



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7




Now the DF-21 (Dong Feng) is ONE BAD-$$$$$$$$$$ missile and the ONLY defense is lasers or ultra high velocity kinetic kill vehicles. (i.e. Rods From God weapons).

Nothing public in the US arsenal that can easily defend against that YET!


Zaph, is this true?

I'd think the SM-3 would be able to handle this...



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The DF-21 is either a boost glide weapon or MARV, it's not clear which. Either way it's going to make it very difficult for an SM-3 to kill unless they are in range to hit it early.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Pretty sure its a MARV.

Though they are probably working towards a boost glide as an upgrade.

Yet another reason to get the railguns working. Lasers are not so great for something hardened for reentry, alas, unless its a REALLY high powered laser and pulsed.

I sure as shoot hope the navy doesn't cancel the at sea demo. Testing in realistic environments is really freakin important. That's why I was thrilled with the laser test in the gulf. Might not be a full military power weapon, but getting experience in REAL conditions counts for a lot.

Goes with my "in theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is."



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

General feeling is a MARV. Either way it's extremely hard to kill.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: StargateSG7

1) Low and Slow --- High Wing Area means you can fly LOW AND SLOW
A10 Warthog style which means the mission parameters have changes
to an tactical attack-style craft and NOT just a pure strategic bomber!


Lower wing area would be better for both ride comfort and airframe life down low. And if you're down in the weeds in indian country, you really don't want to be puttering around... You don't build 550 million dollar CAS platforms.




2) If multi-spectral stealth is an issue, I would suggest that
it is more an issue with skin coating than anything else!

Then you'd be really wrong.

Rhinoliner


Or maybe you could use something that you tune...



3) Was it also SIZE-reduced so that it can be
SHIPPED secretly via secretive cargo ships?

Size=weight=cost
The whole idea was to get a VLO platform fielded (relatively) cheaply. Bigger would actually be better at low-frequencies, however.


Other than building the WHOLE THING
out of Carbon Composite fibre (i.e airframe
AND skin AND CERAMIC ENGINE to get
passive multiband stealth, you are right
in that a TUNEABLE active stealth system
would be needed. And by that, I mean
everything from on-purpose EM emissions
of GHZ/IR/UV/Visible Light/Acoustic to
"fake another less-capable craft outline"
to fool radars and vision recognition systems,
all the way to plasma sheathing and then
up to metamaterials with negative
refractive indexes tuned to
specific EM bands to completely
hide the aircraft but THAT would
be horrrendously expensive to do!

---

In terms of mission parameters I am now
believing that take-off from and landing on
aircraft carriers is ONE REASON why the
size and wieght has been reduced.
I would NOT be surprised to see folding
wings as one B21 configuration!

The B21 with it's wing area could
ALSO be used to hold a large relay
antennae for live video/radar feeds
from AND live pilot control of swarms
of attack and surveillence drones.


edit on 2016/3/7 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
Other than building the WHOLE THING
out of Carbon Composite fibre (i.e airframe
AND skin AND CERAMIC ENGINE to get
passive multiband stealth, you are right
in that a TUNEABLE active stealth system
would be needed.


First, the what of it is less important than the shape of it. By orders of magnitude. Features will figure more prominently than materials.

And why restrict yourself to active tuneable systems...


I'd bet you a tasty beverage that you'll never see one on a flattop.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Contractor names, precious! Weezzz have them!

www.defensenews.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: StargateSG7
Other than building the WHOLE THING
out of Carbon Composite fibre (i.e airframe
AND skin AND CERAMIC ENGINE to get
passive multiband stealth, you are right
in that a TUNEABLE active stealth system
would be needed.


First, the what of it is less important than the shape of it. By orders of magnitude. Features will figure more prominently than materials.

And why restrict yourself to active tuneable systems...


I'd bet you a tasty beverage that you'll never see one on a flattop.


---

I've seen a Hercules take-off from a carrier deck
and ONE nutty guy I know wanted to do a modified
business jet off a CVN-length carrier so THAT is why
I am thinking of folding wings and carrier take-offs
and landings for the B21!

--

I AGREE that shape is more important than
materials BUT I do say form does follow function
and that reduced size and lighter load reeks
to me of tactical bombing rather than just
pure strategic-level delivery systems.

I know it ain't no A10 Warthog, but I wouldn't
be surprised to see it take some of the load
off the old Rockwell B-1 bombers in terms
of LOW-level intrusion and bombing!
edit on 2016/3/7 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Hey Anzha,

In the article the guy says something like "the B-2 had too many top secret systems and we keept them classified for too long. With the b21 we will be more transparent.

First of all. Why would he make a statement like that? Was it because the technologies associated were so compartmentalized it made it difficult for various contractors to work together since nobody knew the big picture technology wise on how everything was supposed to fit together in concert. And so development lagged. Or are they actually saying " yeah, were going to be more open about our stealth technology" cause I don't actually see that happening.

was he saying with the B21 were going to make it more affordable and capable by sharing technology data with the involved contractors?

typing this quickly while at work, not sure I'm conveying what I mean. hoping enough makes sense to be a viable question for the forum.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join