Meet the B-21

a reply to: grey580


Ummm...actually that boeing model looks alot like the B2...looks like all they did was change the inlet design...and the trailing edge...




YouSir

a reply to: PhantomTwo

Their had to be a fly off..... Would they treat it like the atf ..jsf programs ?

a reply to: Discotech

The B-2 also uses differential thrust for yaw control in it's "go to war" mode...

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: grey580


Ummm...actually that boeing model looks alot like the B2...looks like all they did was change the inlet design...and the trailing edge...

YouSir

In the case of this a/c, it might be what is under the skin.... AND the skin itself that might be quite different than the B-2.

I wonder if the new bomber will come with the lawn chairs for pilots to sleep on.

instead of pilots having to get theirs from walmart.

originally posted by: nelloh62

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think it's because we've reached an apex in terms of aerodynamics and we can't deviate too much from standard designs until we figure out anti-grav/magnetic levitation ?

How do these beasts achieve yaw without a seemingly visible rudder/tail ?

I think it might be controlled by the engines. But exactly how they do that is still a military secret

That's probably the secret sauce that is highly classified on the rear of the plane.

These bombers shouldn't even need a pilot in the seat and could be flown remotely, or should be fully autonomous considering the range of the missions they fly.

I bet the range and cruising speed is much faster than the original B-2 and it probably can carry more of a payload too.

Also the B-52 and Tu-95 have been the same for ages, yet have vastly improved since they first came out yet look pretty much the same with a few subtle differences.. They are designing machines to carry out missions not to look good.

Exhaust?
Control Surfaces?
Machine guns?

Where's all this stuff?

a reply to: butcherguy


Ummm...too true...just because my SAAB 95 AERO...looks...like the rest of them...doesn't mean I havn't improved on the input/output under that skin...or the skin itself...




YouSir

a reply to: PhantomTwo

I knew I ought to have gotten up earlier.

No prototypes doesn't mean there wasn't a tech demonstrator. This would be like the Have Blue was for the F-117 or the X-2 will be for the F-3.

originally posted by: darksidius
a reply to: Zaphod58
Its areal deception for me to see this design ,its a B2 it look like there is no progress in design since the eighties.

That's like saying there has been no progress in the B-52 since the 1950s.

The B-52 flying today may share an airframe with the B-52 from the 1950s, but that's about it. The avionics, engines, defensive countermeasures, and the bomb-dropping capabilities of today's B-52 is very different than the first B-52s that flew in the 1950s. And the B-21 doesn't even share an airframe with the B-2.

By the time the B-52 is retired by the U.S. Air Force (which is schedule to happen almost 100 years after they were first introduced) it may still superficially look like it did in 1955, but it will be much more advanced.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I notice it looks nothing like Amarillo nor kansas. Guess those two are still a "mystery"

Also looks nothing like that cranked kite that was offered up by the internet as the "B3" between the announcement and now.
(Didnt the thing in that superbowl ad even have at least a suggested cranked kite ?)


If that's not confusing enough:

Why is it called a B21??
Why does it look almost exactly like the supposed Lockheed entrant renderings based on Polecat??

Seriously they're calling it the B-21 because its the first Bomber of the 21st century.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Made me roll my eyes.

With a valley girl accent:

That's sooooo 90s...

Look. Until we start using anti gravity, then we are going to maximize the airframe by making it a flying wing. This is obviously sub-sonic, like the B-2/B-52, so aerodynamics are relatively simple.

A twin engine flying wing is pretty simple. The biggest advantages will come from time aloft and payload. The rest will be advances in avionics/sensor fusion that will give the deciders more options to target as late as possible.

I mean, how sexy can a subsonic bomber get? No machine guns, it's a heavy bomber. No pointed nose/moveable surfaces, it's subsonic. The driving factors should be radar detectability, payload, and length of flight time.

Now, the new hypersonic recce platform. That should be super sexy.

Don't worry guys and get too depressed there's other bombers out there that are exciting. B1, B2, B52 etc...


I don't know if anybody caught this one but a few years ago Lockheed had a commercial which I can't find anymore and for a second there is a CGI clip of what looks to be the "Sr-72" but it read Prompt Global Strike. It soars across the screen right to left launches a missile or something and races off.

Been searching Lockheed's videos and commercials but haven't seen it in over a year. The only screen capture I can find comes from a blog wondering if its the LRS-B that nobody responded to. see below. Personally I don't think it's intended to be either the LRS-B nor the SR-72.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

Anybody have any thoughts.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

That's a rendering.

I'll speculate with the need to redo the nuclear triad and with the radical changes coming from the Chinese tech advances there will be a lot of aviation programs over the next ten years. Far, far more than the previous 20.

If DARPA is really chasing AFRE, then we're likely to see something like an SR-72. What its role will be, idk. Bomber, orbiter, idk.

It ought to be noted that Mitch Burnside Clapp is now at DARPA. If his current programs work out (and he'll likely cycle out and then back in again), we're likely to see some amazing stuff. He is the originator of the Black Horse concept after all and he's increasingly in a position to make it happen.

reply to: BASSPLYR
The same BASSPLYR, it doesn't look anymore like the Texas sighting so what can be the Texas mystery triangle ?
Another thing that the LRS-B look like the ngb concept or the Boeing rendering so may be the real LRS-B will be a Northrop cranked kite and this picture is an artist rendering in fact the Northrop bird may look little different. For sure the today picture don't look exciting it back us in the 90's we saw a lot of interesting pictures since year about LRS but not this. We saw posting here on the forum that the LRS-B will look awesome ??

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I have sent you a pm sir

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wait! Wait! Where's the Sweetman rant!?!

I need a good chortle this morning.

a reply to: anzha


I agree with you.

I also believe if my understanding of AFRE is correct it's fairly straight forward to miniaturize. So I would expect it to be a massive game changer (Which is why I'm not discussing it in anything other than vague wording) and potentially applicable across several systems or aircraft.

I also feel it's farther along than its believed to be.

Funny thing about South Base. There's a lot of telling stuff if you pay attention to the google maps sat images.

I often wonder if the unveiling of the "SR-72" was a tacit way to unveil a lot more than just that capability. To, you know, make jerks like Putin and others scamper back under their rocks where they belong.