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.

 

NG went back to the future for the B-21

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Interesting article today in 'The War Zone". Its talking about the B-21 and how NG basically went back to its initial incarnation for what became the B-2. The USAF decided it wanted a low level capability with the then in development B-2. To make it low level capable forced compromises in stealth and added weight, which in turn cut its max attitude etc. The B-21 it seems pending any last minute change of heart by the USAF will be geared towards high altitude and extremely efficient cruising. The high altitude only requirement may explain why NG did not bid their cranked kite configuration. The article also speculates that versions of HALE UAV's like the RQ-180 may be flown as a companion aircraft on missions. Its a fantastic read and worth a few minutes.........

www.thedrive.com...

a great background article on Senior Peg
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...
edit on 10/6/17 by FredT because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

code named aurora eh? that should interest some of the people who follow planes on this site



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Only the initial portion was. That's what started all the crap of a Mach 6 pulse detonation engine aircraft that replaced the SR-71.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Only the initial portion was. That's what started all the crap of a Mach 6 pulse detonation engine aircraft that replaced the SR-71.


Wasn't Aurora a budget classification for the stealth program at the time? I think that's what Ben Rich said.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I've been saying it for I don't now how long, there are only so many ways to design aircraft. If you want a strategic bomber, you build it fairly large. If you want stealth that handles low frequency radar, that means tailless, or even larger. That combination almost guarantees a flying wing design.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PokeyJoe

It was the initial procurement for the B-2, before it went grey. Someone saw it on the budget, and lost their mind, and before you knew it we had a ridiculously high mach aircraft, and those donut on a rope contrails could only mean it was a PDE engine.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My question is on what logic did they tie aurora to a sr71 replacement. Howd they pull that out their ass?

What if aurora was going to be the initial name for sonething else. Word leaked out and they made the b2 procurement as a cover story and then changed the name of the actual project? I mean this is a conspiracy site after all. What if ben rich was doing some deflecting....aurora uhhh i think thats like northrops deal n stuff...
edit on 6-10-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Also for aircraft pde engiens are dumb. But so are combined cycle turbine based ideas.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It was classified, and the SR-71 was old. 1+1=62.

What if Aurora was simply the name for the initial B-2 procurement. Not everything is a conspiracy.
edit on 10/6/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But this is ats. Besides everybody knows 1+1 is 11.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What if aurora was sonething intended to go i to the b2. Just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks here.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Ok lets get away from the aurora nonsense.

The b21 demonstrator almost crashed n burned during trials or something because they couldnt get something to work with some proprietary methods northrops known for.

Conspiracy time. What if they originally wanted that something for the B2a but just couldnt get it to work at the time and downgraded the b2a to the b2b. So they went with suoerior lift and altitude for the b2b and put aside that something they couldnt get to work. But boy oh boy if they could get both to work together youd have the who kit n kaboodle and one seriously badass bird. But now with the b21 they got it to finally work with the other....but lockheed still built a better more capible bird and its a damn shame Northrop got the contract. Cause that other bird was rad.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

What sticks is that it was B-2 funding. Aurora was seen on the budget around 1985. That's about the time the design changed to what we have how. The B-2 was rolled out in 1988. It was funding for it, possibly for the design change.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
It could be anything. It could also be Ben Rich's attempt to misdirect where money is going. he spent about a paragraph in his auto biography. At that time there was alot of questions being asked about large amounts of money in the budgets of the primes with no explanation. Im not saying it was a PDE mach 6+ replacement mind you



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The B-2 was redesignated the B-2B after multiple upgrades were performed. The B-2 mission was altered to include low altitude, which was kind of a stupid thing to do, but it's what the Pentagon is known for. For low altitude stability, they included the Beaver Tail and altered the trailing edge of the aircraft to make it more stable.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

What sticks is that it was B-2 funding. Aurora was seen on the budget around 1985. That's about the time the design changed to what we have how. The B-2 was rolled out in 1988. It was funding for it, possibly for the design change.


Possibly but that was a major redesign and Im skeptical that they could have done it so quickly. They rolled it out in 88 but how long was it flying prior to that?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I have it on fairly good authority that it went to the B-2. It was possibly for the design change that they required, but it was for the B-2.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

In this case, they didn't fly it before hand. They've only really recently started doing that, except for black projects. The B-2 started life grey. From what I've heard Northrop had two designs, one high altitude, one low altitude. Three years really isn't that fast for a design change though. The rest of the aircraft stayed the same, with the back of the wing being the big change.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR
which was kind of a stupid thing to do, but it's what the Pentagon is known for. For low altitude stability, they included the Beaver Tail and altered the trailing edge of the aircraft to make it more stable.


Yeah I never understood that at all. You already had a low level bomber in the B-1B which was in test by 83 so why would you similarly modify you stealthy bomber to do the same. Perhaps they thought they were really going to buy it 100+ numbers and replace the Buffs and Bones



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

True, I suppose I'm tainted by the decade long procurement projects we have recently. They should require that the Pentagon FREEZE the design at some point early in the development like the do with commercial stuff




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join