Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

dark sidius said:
The return of the B2 I don't understand how it can be better with the same design and surely the same performance. For me its a real deception I awaiting something different than the 80' years design it look like no progress since the 80's.
Click to expand...
That's nothing more than uneducated guess. You can also say that 787 has 'the same design' as Dash 80
 
dark sidius said:
The return of the B2 I don't understand how it can be better with the same design and surely the same performance. For me its a real deception I awaiting something different than the 80' years design it look like no progress since the 80's.
Click to expand...

If you'll look, there are many detailed differences (look at the trailing edge and the intake location in particular). But in the end, if the goal is basically unchanged (LO against specific frequencies from specific look angles), there's no reason to expect a radically different shape.
 
flateric said:
TomS said:
I don't see anything here that doesn't fit under that sheet in the commercial.
Click to expand...
To start with, aircraft in the commercial has a cranked kite planform.
Click to expand...

OK, fair point. I'd been looking at a still that was cropped off at the edges and only showed the nose for some reason.
 
www.defensenews.com

US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber

The US Air Force secretary unveiled the first official rendering of the new Long Range Strike Bomber and revealed its official designation: the B-21.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Some aditional info
- b-21 stands for 21st century
- looks like b-2 because it uses as much existing technology as possible
- no existing prototypes, rendering based on the initial design concept
 
TomS said:
So, what can we guess based on the image.

1) The Air Force Nomenclature Office has given up. But we knew that already.

2) Apparently it's hard to do much better than a flying wing for a stealth bomber.

3) This one might be smaller than the B-2 (based on the barely visible cockpit windows).

4) Either they omitted the exhausts entirely or they exit on the under side of the aircraft (which seems unlikely).
Click to expand...

I'm still skeptical but if that's the real design, remember, they smoothed over the exhausts in the original B-2 as well. As for the designation it strikes me as a "focus grouped by a committee" designation. What a joke.
 
We don't even get any landscape in the illustration??? :p
b-2_02.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks suspiciously similar to:

b3_large.jpg


And keeping in mind that:



It seems to be just a "Northrop-ified" aberration of the first pic.

I bet 10 dollars it ain't anything in common with the real Northrop proposal. Not even the planform.

Honestly they could have done better than releasing an half-a**ed rendering...

I feel rick-rolled...
 
On AFA's daily brief they stated that the B-21 designation is meant to evoke "21st century." Just like the silly SSN-21 designation for the Seawolf class. Just dumb IMO. F-35 should be the F-24 and this thing should be the B-3.
 
Skip completely past any technological advances this may have, the PR problem is going to be "that looks like a B2".....

They shouldn't have to change it, if this is what it actually looks like, but they need to gear up a PR first strike ASAP.
 
At least they could hire a decent concept artists to snazz up the picture a bit. Add some lens flare, an American Eagle.

I'm not so worked up on the B-21, numbering schemes are out of control anyway.

As for names, I'd like to see Fortress continued somehow.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
So, what can we guess based on the image.

1) The Air Force Nomenclature Office has given up. But we knew that already.

2) Apparently it's hard to do much better than a flying wing for a stealth bomber.

3) This one might be smaller than the B-2 (based on the barely visible cockpit windows).

4) Either they omitted the exhausts entirely or they exit on the under side of the aircraft (which seems unlikely).
Click to expand...

I'm still skeptical but if that's the real design, remember, they smoothed over the exhausts in the original B-2 as well. As for the designation it strikes me as "focus grouped by a committee" designation. What a joke.
Click to expand...


Well - here we are. Perhaps what was "under the sheet" was part of the risk reduction projects that have been going on the last few years, or just the full-up design NG initially provided? Gates was pretty practical - we need an aircraft, the wing works, we have the electronics, build it for a reasonable price. Perhaps this is what we'll get. To be sure it is a "rendition". Maybe they haven't finished the analysis of what level of detail they can release.

Are there any advantages to the "wing" vs "cranked-kite"? Is it possible that NG has "learned" more about how to optimize the wing such that that cranked-kite isn't desirable for performance envelope of this plane?

Do we know how many planes will be part of the EMD process? Is it two, four?
 
The line seems to be that we're specifically not looking at major technological advances in capability, but in affordability. That's why it looks like the B-2; they took a proven concept and made it cheaper.
 
TomS said:
The line seems to be that we're specifically not looking at major technological advances in capability, but in affordability. That's why it looks like the B-2; they took a proven concept and made it cheaper.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense, so i doubt that's the path they would have chosen.

In the meanwhile i took the liberty to correct their picture...


Regards.
 
sublight is back said:
Skip completely past any technological advances this may have, the PR problem is going to be "that looks like a B2".....

They shouldn't have to change it, if this is what it actually looks like, but they need to gear up a PR first strike ASAP.
Click to expand...

Easy peasy. "Well, you wanted cheap with no risk. You get what ya pay for."
 
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised.

Remember a while back a General from the USAF who had seen both designs asked Lockheed team how they got hold of Northrops model?

Lockheed was offering their single sawtooth flying wing. . . .
 
If this gets us 200+ bombers as one general suggested we need I'm all for it. Although at the same time I would double or triple funds for hypersonic platforms and strike weapons.
 
I imagine what's radical about the B-21 is the technology under the hood so to speak. Design wise if it ain't broke...
 
CiTrus90 said:
That makes a lot of sense, so i doubt that's the path they would have chosen.

In the meanwhile i took the liberty to correct their picture...


Regards.
Click to expand...

My first thought exactly, any bugs and issues will be dealt with in future product releases. ;D
 
TomS said:
The line seems to be that we're specifically not looking at major technological advances in capability, but in affordability. That's why it looks like the B-2; they took a proven concept and made it cheaper.
Click to expand...

The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.

Even if all the goodies are under the skin (and baked into it), they can't be advertised. This was a mistake to rollout something that looks like last years model and call it all new. It's going to be an even steeper uphill fight than if they kept the shape secret for longer.
 
Airplane said:
The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.
Click to expand...

Because we can't "build more B-2s cheaper." The assembly line is years gone; restarting it hasn't be a serious option since at least 2005.
 
10 seconds of exitement and then: boring
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now we know why it could hide amongst the B-2s a few years back. ;)
 
TomS said:
Airplane said:
The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.
Click to expand...

Because we can't "build more B-2s cheaper." The assembly line is years gone; restarting it hasn't be a serious option since at least 2005.
Click to expand...

No but it might make the Air Force's rejection of NG's unsolicited Spirit follow-on offer of early last decade look a bit baffling.
 

Attachments

  • B-2C.jpg
    B-2C.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 219
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
Airplane said:
The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.
Click to expand...

Because we can't "build more B-2s cheaper." The assembly line is years gone; restarting it hasn't be a serious option since at least 2005.
Click to expand...

No but it might make the Air Force's rejection of NG's unsolicited Spirit follow-on offer of early last decade look a bit baffling.
Click to expand...

Well back then "the Cold War was over" and everybody was going to sing kumbya.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
Airplane said:
The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.
Click to expand...

Because we can't "build more B-2s cheaper." The assembly line is years gone; restarting it hasn't be a serious option since at least 2005.
Click to expand...

No but it might make the Air Force's rejection of NG's unsolicited Spirit follow-on offer of early last decade look a bit baffling.
Click to expand...

Well back then "the Cold War was over" and everybody was going to sing kumbya.
Click to expand...

I should have emphasized "might." For all we know, B-21 has an active aeroelastic wing and active flow control. The image reminded me of NG's HiLDA wing.
 
NeilChapman said:
Are there any advantages to the "wing" vs "cranked-kite"? Is it possible that NG has "learned" more about how to optimize the wing such that that cranked-kite isn't desirable for performance envelope of this plane?
Click to expand...

The cranked kite is a compromise between a diamond (X-47) and a flying wing. The diamond shape has very good LO characteristics but sacrifices payload and handling. This made it a less than ideal choice for a carrier based strike aircraft. A flying wing also has very good LO characteristics, has good payload and range, but is not idea for carrier operations (for a number of reasons). Thus, the cranked kite. Not so good on the LO, but you can use it on a carrier.
 
CiTrus90 said:
I bet 10 dollars it ain't anything in common with the real Northrop proposal. Not even the planform.
Click to expand...

"#SecAF tells press #B21 pic "__altered__ to align with enhanced security program”
 
quellish said:
NeilChapman said:
Are there any advantages to the "wing" vs "cranked-kite"? Is it possible that NG has "learned" more about how to optimize the wing such that that cranked-kite isn't desirable for performance envelope of this plane?
Click to expand...

The cranked kite is a compromise between a diamond (X-47) and a flying wing. The diamond shape has very good LO characteristics but sacrifices payload and handling. This made it a less than ideal choice for a carrier based strike aircraft. A flying wing also has very good LO characteristics, has good payload and range, but is not idea for carrier operations (for a number of reasons). Thus, the cranked kite. Not so good on the LO, but you can use it on a carrier.
Click to expand...

@Quellish

Tell us more about the wing, please.
 
flateric said:
CiTrus90 said:
I bet 10 dollars it ain't anything in common with the real Northrop proposal. Not even the planform.
Click to expand...

"#SecAF tells press #B21 pic "__altered__ to align with enhanced security program”
Click to expand...

That means the details I would have thought not the overall concept which is probably fairly accurate.
 
Exactly. It's still going to be a single-sawtooth flying wing, not a cranked kite, but details like the exhausts have been obscured or altered.
 
TomS said:
Exactly. It's still going to be a single-sawtooth flying wing, not a cranked kite, but details like the exhausts have been obscured or altered.
Click to expand...

And the aperture for the 300 kW laser has been left out altogether
 
TomS said:
Airplane said:
The argument is now going to be, "Why spend XYZ billions of dollars developing the B-21 when the B-2 could be built cheaper?" This is exactly why the damned thing needed to be secret for a long, long time more.
Click to expand...

Because we can't "build more B-2s cheaper." The assembly line is years gone; restarting it hasn't be a serious option since at least 2005.
Click to expand...

I realize that. But it would be cheaper to re-tool an existing design that develop something new. It's like building a new tool to meet capacity requirements. You and I may realize certain things about airplane production lines, but the general population does not.
 
flateric said:
CiTrus90 said:
I bet 10 dollars it ain't anything in common with the real Northrop proposal. Not even the planform.
Click to expand...

"#SecAF tells press #B21 pic "__altered__ to align with enhanced security program”
Click to expand...

That was fast.

Now, if i may embark myself on a voyage of speculation...


February 24
SecAF: "Air Warfare Symposium is coming up in two days. I'd fancy show off the new LRS-B, since the GAO rejected Boeing's claim...can i do that?"

Chief of Staff AF: "I'm afraid we can't do that ma'am. It's still classified"

SecAF: "But i don't want to go there without showing off something, can't we do anything about that?"

Chief of Staff AF: "Yes ma'am, we'll provide a reasonable stand-in for you to exhibit for the AWS"

February 25
Chief of Staff AF: "We need a picture of the new LRS-B for SecAF"

Underpaid-Overworked Joe Schmoe in the AF: "Can i take a look at the real aircraft in order to make a 3d rendering of it?"

Chief of Staff AF: "No"

Underpaid-Overworked Joe Schmoe in the AF: "Can i have some indications on how the real aircraft looks like?"

Chief of Staff AF: "Flying wing, made by Northrop...like the B-2...paint it black..."

Underpaid-Overworked Joe Schmoe in the AF: "...can i have more indications on how the real aircraft looks like?"

Chief of Staff AF: "No"

February 26
SecAF: "I'm so glad i can introduce the first rendering of the B-21!"


I think this is a reasonably accurate reconstruction of what may have happened.

Regards.
 
marauder2048 said:
@Quellish

Tell us more about the wing, please.
Click to expand...

There are a few things you may notice from the image that differ dramatically from the B-2.
There are many more things that are not in the image, just as many things were left out of the first rendering of the B-2. At this point you have to draw your own conclusions about how much of the content of this image reflects reality. The exhausts are obscured. Is the leading edge angle? Is the cockpit position?

You may recall that the first photo of the F-117 that was released was from a perspective that made it difficult to accurately infer many of the OML features and angles.
 
Wow, some people are impossible to please. They set out to produce a broad-spectrum L-O bomber which can be produced affordably, they chose NG to build it, and we're disappointed it borrows heavily from the B-2? Even Boeing was pursuing this general configuration if their NGB renders are anything to go by.

I vote B-21 Specter. Similar to Spirit but a little more sinister.
 
Perhaps the Internet warriors who I see are already out in force on the design should remember that this is only a rendering not an actually B-21. Also as this quote says you can only solve LO so many ways when it comes to an effective bomber platform.

Many bomber experts have been pushing the B-3 tag as a sequential follow-on to the B-1 and B-2. However, Mitchell Institute dean David Deptula believes the new designation reflects that fact that it is the air force’s premier bomber platform for the 21st century.

“It’s not surprising in terms of the shape based on the physics of low observability, but it’s good that we have an artist’s rendering out and the designation is a good one too,” says the former three-star air force officer.
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

USAF reveals Northrop's B-21 long-range strike bomber

The US Air Force has revealed its bomber for the 21st century, the Northrop Grumman B-21 long-range strike bomber.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Please don't continue name game in this thread. If you want, you can create separate one in The Bar.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Triton said:
The B-21 will probably be named for a politician to ensure funding. Northrop Grumman B-21 George W Bush. ;)
Click to expand...

Not if the Democrats get in. B-21 "Jimmy Carter" gets my vote :) After all its gonna cost peanuts....

Changed name of topic in light of new designation.
Click to expand...

Funny enough, didn't Carter axe the B-1 in favor of the then-secret B-2? That said I must say the B-21 numbering seems rather lame.

Back to the planform, if the cranked kite configuration is a compromise to get reduce spot factor, then perhaps the RQ-180 will also be "just" a flying wing? Allegedly the PAK DA (if that gets off the ground due to the Tu-160M stuff) is also going to be a subsonic flying wing.
 
Flyaway said:
Perhaps the Internet warriors who I see are already out in force on the design should remember that this is only a rendering not an actually B-21.
Click to expand...

This is altered rendering of LRS-B initial design concept. Nobody said that this is placeholder image. Nobody said though that it hasn't evolved since then or will evolve in the future.

- Lee James twit - "Introducing the 1st rendering of the #B21"
- James also explained in the statement why the B-21 shares a resemblance to the B-2, also built by Northrop. “The B-21 has been designed from the beginning based on a set of requirements that allows the use of existing and mature technology,” James said, according to the statement.
- "Artist rendering unveiled Feb. 26 is based on the initial design concept" - Air Force statement.
- "[Rendering] is altered to align with enhanced security program" - Air Force statement.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom