NG went back to the future for the B-21

a reply to: darksidius

Higher than 40K feet that's for sure...The U-2 fleet was re-engined with a slightly modified version of the F-118 engine used in the B-2, and they didn't do it because of it's efficiency below 40K..

Sure the redesign of the B-2 midway through development hurt LO and weight goals, not to mention cost (which is what that Aurora budget item was) but it didn't impact altitude performance nearly as much as that article suggests..

The thing that stood out most to me in the 2 articles from the OP was this:

What is most interesting when it comes to the LRS-B initiative is that the physical requirements for the aircraft are said to be more like Lockheed's Senior Peg then Northrop's B-2A Spirit. For instance, the LRS-B will be smaller than the B-2 and it will represent lower risk than the B-2 did decades ago. Additionally, the LRS-B is said to have a smaller weapons payload, around 30,000lbs compared to the B-2's 50,000lbs. The jet will also have about 20% less range, and will utilize more off the shelf components than the B-2 ever did. Additionally, its design will be modular so that different capabilities can be fitted for different missions and upgrades later in its service like will be less costly. In other words, the USAF is trying buy their new bomber on a minimal requirements basis in order to get the total production run up and thus the unit price down.

Sounds like another F-35 all over again. Jack of all trades, master of none, and we can make it look real cheap on paper, until all kinds of problems come up integrating the different modules and parts from a billion subcontractors.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

I dunno. It seems stupid now, but at the time they didn't know what the future would bring. The way the B-1 program was stopped and started, it would look even dumber if they didn't make this modification, and 5 years later some new type of radar came out that rendered the high-altitude version completely visible. If you didn't have a B-1 either, you've got a pretty much useless B-2 and no backup except the aging B-52. I can't really blame them for hedging their bets a little.

originally posted by: FredT

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

They did originally intend to buy a lot more B-2s, so I would say it's fairly reasonable for them to have considered that.

originally posted by: face23785

Sounds like another F-35 all over again. Jack of all trades, master of none, and we can make it look real cheap on paper, until all kinds of problems come up integrating the different modules and parts from a billion subcontractors.

Thing is, the bomber needs to look real cheap on paper. The USAF needs to buy them in actual numbers at this point, another B-2 procurement desaster and the bomber fleet is done.
And its not comparable to the F-35. Cant land vertically on a carrier for once. It wont be a jack of all trades from the beginning like the JSF, there will be the opportunity to do different stuff with the airframe later. Think of it more like the Hornet, Super Hornet, Growler evolution.
And all of this is just speculation anyway. We dont know how white, grey and black members of the LRSB family of system will shape up in the end.

I dunno. It seems stupid now, but at the time they didn't know what the future would bring. The way the B-1 program was stopped and started, it would look even dumber if they didn't make this modification, and 5 years later some new type of radar came out that rendered the high-altitude version completely visible. If you didn't have a B-1 either, you've got a pretty much useless B-2 and no backup except the aging B-52. I can't really blame them for hedging their bets a little.

No reason to go in low if the enabler was supposed to go in high...

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: face23785

Sounds like another F-35 all over again. Jack of all trades, master of none, and we can make it look real cheap on paper, until all kinds of problems come up integrating the different modules and parts from a billion subcontractors.

Thing is, the bomber needs to look real cheap on paper. The USAF needs to buy them in actual numbers at this point, another B-2 procurement desaster and the bomber fleet is done.
And its not comparable to the F-35. Cant land vertically on a carrier for once. It wont be a jack of all trades from the beginning like the JSF, there will be the opportunity to do different stuff with the airframe later. Think of it more like the Hornet, Super Hornet, Growler evolution.
And all of this is just speculation anyway. We dont know how white, grey and black members of the LRSB family of system will shape up in the end.

I dunno. It seems stupid now, but at the time they didn't know what the future would bring. The way the B-1 program was stopped and started, it would look even dumber if they didn't make this modification, and 5 years later some new type of radar came out that rendered the high-altitude version completely visible. If you didn't have a B-1 either, you've got a pretty much useless B-2 and no backup except the aging B-52. I can't really blame them for hedging their bets a little.

No reason to go in low if the enabler was supposed to go in high...

I didn't mean it would do the same things as the F-35. I meant the program sounds like it could wind up going a similar direction with a ton of cost overruns and delays, while not performing as well at any of its multi-role functions as a dedicated platform would.

a reply to: face23785

Nothing like the F-35. If they have the B-21 do more than one thing, they're freeing up other aircraft, and reducing future requirements. If the B-21 can do it, you don't need F-22s and F-35s to go with them, or large strike packages to help with SEAD or EW.

Unlike the F-35, the B-21 is using existing technologies, both white and black.

I think the B-21 will be surely a awesome plane and a member of a family of a strike package, surely it will have some air /air combat/defense capability. So now impatient to see the roll -out.

a reply to: sqd5driver

I believe this is what you are referring to. Plasma actuators for all sorts of fun applications! (reduced RCS and slipping through the air like a wet watermelon seed between your fingers) Also, cross-reference Bedlam (ATS member) and plasma...the guy seems to know an awful lot about the subject

a reply to: Tajlakz

Hey thats a great thread. I always enjoy the futile spectacle of the misinformed arrogant try and out argue physics and engineering with MBKennel and Bedlam.

Bedlam also has a thread on just plasma actuators and northrops history.

Are they back compatible?

a reply to: Tajlakz

Yes! Thank you! I haven't seen that thread yet. I know what I'm doing today

Hmmm, I did search ATS, but couldn't find those threads by Bedlam. I dont suppose you still have any links do you ?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Tajlakz

Hey thats a great thread. I always enjoy the futile spectacle of the misinformed arrogant try and out argue physics and engineering with MBKennel and Bedlam.

Bedlam also has a thread on just plasma actuators and northrops history.

a reply to: nelloh62


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Admittedly its not a long thread but theres sone interesting links

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Thanks BASS, I did try but could not find that thread.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Makes sense. I'm sure the plans for how smooth and cheap the F-35 was supposed to be made sense to a lot of folks too. Hopefully they can pull this off the way they drew it up. Different manufacturer too so maybe that will make a difference.

a reply to: face23785

Most of the F-35 is new and cutting edge tech that was still being developed. The B-21 is more like the F-117.

a reply to: face23785

all the stuff that makes the Lightning II so amazing is classified, for a reason.

as the saying goes people that speak don't know and those that do don't speak.

The F-35 is an amazing aircraft, revolutionary is a fitting description on many fronts regarding the lightning II.

a reply to: penroc3

Rumor has it the most advanced part of the f35 is the new D.U.D.E. AI system.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: face23785

all the stuff that makes the Lightning II so amazing is classified, for a reason.

as the saying goes people that speak don't know and those that do don't speak.

The F-35 is an amazing aircraft, revolutionary is a fitting description on many fronts regarding the lightning II.

The F-35 is hardly the be all end all. It is quite buggy. I don't know if they fixed it yet, but it would go bingo for insufficient fuel to cool electronics, not to fly the plane. It is poor for CAS. You can't even look backwards.

Generally Swiss Army knife designs are compromised. This is true for many things, not just aircraft.