Register here

Author Topic: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber  (Read 183158 times)

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 259
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1185 on: March 20, 2017, 03:16:32 pm »
In fact with the steve Douglass photography and after 3 years we still don't know what are this aircraft  ???

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7930
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1186 on: March 20, 2017, 04:50:30 pm »
It was B-2.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1447
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1187 on: March 20, 2017, 04:52:34 pm »

I believe this refers to the ADVENT demonstrator engine, which is not quite the same as a finished engine. The USAF likely went for a less risky development of the F135 from Pratt & Whitney, and have already announced P&W are the engine contractor.

From what's been disclosed about the F135 low spool + GTF core PW9000, it broadly meets the "Advanced Turbofan" spec i.e. the blue line in the payload-range figure.


 

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1188 on: March 20, 2017, 06:01:05 pm »
But why would the B-21 be anything other than a high-altitude all-aspect stealth bomber? There's no reason for it to have a low-altitude penetration capability.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1447
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1189 on: March 20, 2017, 09:28:26 pm »
But why would the B-21 be anything other than a high-altitude all-aspect stealth bomber? There's no reason for it to have a low-altitude penetration capability.

Laydown delivery

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 259
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1190 on: March 21, 2017, 03:51:25 am »
No Way it dont look liKe a B2  :o
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 03:56:25 am by dark sidius »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2162
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1191 on: March 21, 2017, 05:04:16 am »
But why would the B-21 be anything other than a high-altitude all-aspect stealth bomber? There's no reason for it to have a low-altitude penetration capability.

Laydown delivery

There have to be better ways to get surface or sub-surface bursts these days. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8975
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1192 on: March 21, 2017, 05:21:48 am »
But why would the B-21 be anything other than a high-altitude all-aspect stealth bomber? There's no reason for it to have a low-altitude penetration capability.

Laydown delivery

There have to be better ways to get surface or sub-surface bursts these days.

Not in the US.  In fact we have far fewer options than we have in the past, especially if you need something more than a couple dozen kilotons.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 05:23:20 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2162
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1193 on: March 21, 2017, 06:49:15 am »
Point being, if that delivery profile were needed (debatable) there are easier ways to get there than to design a whole aircraft to accomplish a laydown delivery. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8975
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1194 on: March 21, 2017, 06:55:56 am »
Point being, if that delivery profile were needed (debatable) there are easier ways to get there than to design a whole aircraft to accomplish a laydown delivery.

Not if the past is any indicator.  How many decades has it been since we've since we designed a new cruise missile with a megaton+ warhead?  Our design/acquisition process is so FUBARED I'd be astonished if we could even do a clean-sheet Tomahawk replacement, let alone anything useful.  If you want to be able to laydown a B83 over intercontinental distances a bomber is your only realistic choice.  (Sure, we can think of dozens of alternatives, none of which are anymore likely in the US than finding a crock of leprechaun gold.  Fasthawk, RATTLRS, HyFly etc. would have been perfect and we all saw what happened there - a whole lot of nothing.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1195 on: March 21, 2017, 07:07:39 am »
I thought that the latest B-61 mod didn't require laydown for penetrating effect? I.e. it is hardened to penetrate deep enough to couple nuclear blast with the earth.

Also, if laydown is needed, then a wing kit could be added to the bomb. Better that than make the B-21 be overbuilt like the B-2.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8975
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1196 on: March 21, 2017, 07:29:40 am »
I thought that the latest B-61 mod didn't require laydown for penetrating effect? I.e. it is hardened to penetrate deep enough to couple nuclear blast with the earth.

Also, if laydown is needed, then a wing kit could be added to the bomb. Better that than make the B-21 be overbuilt like the B-2.

Such a bomb wouldn't be stealthy and could easily be shot down by TOR and the like.  A terrain following JASSM-ER with a W83 or W80 might be the ticket though.  Of course you still need the bomber to get it there.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2162
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1197 on: March 21, 2017, 07:30:13 am »
Exactly.  B61-11 and -12 have both shown earth-penetrating capability, which is the main purpose behind laydown.  So you can deliver modern weapons from high level and get the hard-target effect desired without the demanding flight profile of a laydown delivery. 

SFerrin, I wonder if you're equating "laydown" with any nuke delivered by a bomber.  It's not.  Laydown is the very particular delivery profile where the bomb lands and then detonates a short time later.  It's very fiddly, requires a low-level delivery and specialized weapons, and is useful only for a few specific target types.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8975
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1198 on: March 21, 2017, 07:31:24 am »
SFerrin, I wonder if you're equating "laydown" with any nuke delivered by a bomber.  It's not.  Laydown is the very particular delivery profile where the bomb lands and then detonates a short time later.  It's very fiddly, requires a low-level delivery and specialized weapons, and is useful only for a few specific target types.

I know exactly what "laydown" means.  (A shame we cancelled the B77.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2162
Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Reply #1199 on: March 21, 2017, 07:32:34 am »
Then why are you so insistent that we need it when there are other, easier, ways to achieve the same effect?