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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

The B-2 is one of the reasons that they do technology maturation beforehand now.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

The B-2 is one of the reasons that they do technology maturation beforehand now.


Did they forget that with the F-35?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

They had already pretty much decided before The Bastard Who Will Not Be Named announced it in 91 that they were doing to a largely stealth fleet. Buy adding low altitude to stealth just defeats the purpose of stealth IMO.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

The B-2 started the process, the F-35 finished it.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
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.



Would this have something to do with the leading edges vs trailing doing something...different?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

Heres what i never understood about the crazy conspiracy's around the whole leading edge rear edge thing. How in the heck are idiots like paul laviolette going to make a jump to it must be anti gravity or gravitokinetics. His whole theory is huge voltage potentials make a gravity wave. If thats the case why arent those huge power lines you see cutting across countrysides on those towers swaying from anomalous gravity waves being created. The b2 having anti gravity is right up there with the tr3bs method of propulsion. Proposterous.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I never bought into the anti gravity thing either.

I HAVE read in more than one place, however, that the end product (assuming this is even a thing) helps the plane slip through the surrounding air much easier. Less drag = increased range. Even if it was a marginal improvement, it's still an improvement. A few percent here and there add up to a lot. There is also the idea that the leading/trailing edge ionization essentially became "invisible" wing extensions. Larger wing surface = better lift. So who knows? Maybe it was all just a cover for the inflight entertainment system.

Honestly, I don't have the background to really understand the nuts and bolts of how such a thing would even work, or IF it would work.

I've always felt that whatever was going on in there had more to do with the RCS from certain angles. After the redesign of the back end, they had some hurdles that shape and RAM couldn't manage at the time. Or...maybe the B2 was being used to prove out some other technologies that didn't have anything to do with its primary role with the understanding that there would absolutely be a do over in 30-35 years after Senior Ice was given the go ahead.

Again, this is all just fanciful speculation on my part

edit on 6-10-2017 by sqd5driver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

An aircraft with lighter wing loading has better performance all around. If there is a way to take a large wing area (the B-2 is essentially all wing), but give it a light loading factor, you'll see improvements in climb, cruise, and range.

By the same token, at low altitude, a shape like the B-2 originally had, is a brutal ride. By altering the trailing edge, and adding the Beaver Tail, they were able to alter the flight characteristics at low altitude.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

because it sounds cool and had allot of money allocated to it and auroras are high up in the sky


but as far as the 180 flying with the b21 i figured that was a forgone conclusion.
edit on 6-10-2017 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

also here is a picture of a NG concept for a low altitude bomber




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: penroc3

also here is a picture of a NG concept for a low altitude bomber



Ahhhhhh I cannot wait to see the end product!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Cavrecon22

This was a design study that practically dates back to the Carter years, and was Northrop's idea of what an ideal stealth low altitude platform would look like. Heavily loaded wing, perfectly clean top surface, big beaver tail trailing edge, you name it.

It was the low-altitude counterpart to the early B-21 looking B-2 designs, and the B-2 as built is the halfway point between the two.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

www.thedrive.com...

a great background article on Senior Peg
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...


Great article, but it misses the other half of the equation. QUARTZ/AARS.

www.tailsthroughtime.com...

The long standing assumption always was QUARTZ/AARS went into NGB which morphed into NGLRS-D which will be the basis for the B-21.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I KNEW I had seen that plane somewhere before!

The first photo in the article you linked...


As long as I've been lurking around here, one common statement that I've seen several of the guys "in the know" make is that for a given mission, airplanes are going to start looking very similar. Obviously for good reason. The first time I read that, it really got me pumped because it occurred to me that with just a rendering or model and nothing else, one could draw a lot of conclusions about its mission. Conversely, with just a basic mission profile, it's not THAT difficult to have an idea of what it's going to look like. Apart from the F117 companion, that is. I've concluded that things has to be a smallish gigantic plan with very smooth, pointy, long, stumpy wings and may or may not have been a cross between a pumpkin seed, a Piper Cub, and a hot air balloon.

This is fun.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

here is a strange picture




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I just read the article mentioned in the original post. Its very insightful and the artists rendering is supposedly very accurate.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: intelgurl

insightful in what ways? i was under the general impression all that stuff mentioned was pretty well established?

what are your thoughts as far as the B21 being the control point for its family?
edit on 7-10-2017 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What wasn't insightful in that article, nor accurate, was the statement that the B-2's operational altitude is below 40K..What a laugh that gave me..



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: EBJet
High altitude capable B-2?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

The B-2 has a ceiling, on paper, of 50,000 feet. That's not exactly low altitude.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join