Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[LowObservable]

View attachment 688238
View attachment 688239

What way hae ye sic muckle muckle center depth?
Muckle boomstuff, muckle boomstuff.
What way hae ye sic sma' sma' inlets?
Aih-h-h!--late--and wee-e-e--moul.

https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/strange-visitor
I recommend the Barrow Poets' version.

 

[Fluff]

Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.

View attachment 688237

What is this? A bomber for ants?

At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.

The undercarriage says different.

 

[DrRansom]

It's not just the pounds of payload, its dimensions that count too.

Also, did they even roll the bomber far enough out for the tail to clear the hanger? Or was it left half-covered so nobody above could see it.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Keep in mind that this is the first "dedicated" bomber designed after precision weapons mature over the past 2 decades. So the size of the bomber is designed around their uses. Unlike in the past, bombers need to be big enough to carry conventional "dumb" bombs in order to achieve the same effects.

Unless the USAF is planning to shift the deep-strike penetrator munitions capability from stealth bombers to TBMs they are developing right now and field them in allied nations in the far east and Guam, stealth bombers should be able to operate MOP and equivalent payloads.

 

[rooster]

Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.

View attachment 688237

What is this? A bomber for ants?

At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.

The f15 doesn't carry alcms.

Neither will this.

I seriously doubt that it's not capable of carrying long range missiles. You guys are assuming a lot from basically a frontal profile... And nothing more.

 

[rooster]

Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.

View attachment 688237

What is this? A bomber for ants?

At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.

The undercarriage says different.

Exactly. So does the apparent volume.

 

[aonestudio]

https://news.northropgrumman.com/ne...er-the-worlds-first-sixth-generation-aircrafthttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/this-is-the-b-21-raider-stealth-bomberhttps://breakingdefense.com/2022/12...er-finally-revealed-in-high-powered-ceremony/

 

[Sferrin]

Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.

View attachment 688237

What is this? A bomber for ants?

At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.

The undercarriage says different.

That also has to support the plane, fuel, etc.

 

[Sferrin]

Indeed it is tiny. Just compare it to the Industry Standard Feline.

View attachment 688237

What is this? A bomber for ants?

At most, payload is equivalent or slightly more than a Strike Eagle.

The f15 doesn't carry alcms.

Neither will this.

I seriously doubt that it's not capable of carrying long range missiles. You guys are assuming a lot from basically a frontal profile... And nothing more.

The B-2 doesn't even carry cruise missiles.

 

[quellish]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

 

[Trident]

...

Good catch - inlets are bifurcated!

 

[Maro.Kyo]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?

 

[rooster]

...

Good catch - inlets are bifurcated!

Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Ramping up the brightness in the dark spots doesn't reveal a whole lot.

 

[fightingirish]

Clearer images at twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598858254615912448

View: https://twitter.com/usairforce/status/1598858254615912448?t=2bdPfVjJSdSgexXcXsZpZg&s=19

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598858254615912448

View: https://twitter.com/usairforce/status/1598858254615912448
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7538112/b-21-raider-unveiling

 

[rooster]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?

Why would they tell anyone?

 

[SOC]

Ramping up the brightness in the dark spots doesn't reveal a whole lot.View attachment 688241

Is it me or does the outer portion of the inlet look solid?

 

[Sferrin]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

With what? Nukes?

 

[Sferrin]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?

Why would they tell anyone?

They told everybody about all the rest.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

and equivalent payloads.

B-21 will be able to hold the same targets at risk without using MOP.

How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?

Why would they tell anyone?

I'm asking how he's able to say it with so much assurance, so better ask quellish how that's possible, if such thing exists and if they're gonna tell anybody, not me.

Also to be clear, I'm not judging if B-21 would be able to carry MOP or not. My point is B-21 would also need to carry "big conventional bombs" that are not stand-off ordnances.

 

[zaphd]

Looks to me like it has four engines based on the inlet splitter, unless it's just a structural support?

Four business jet engines would actually make a lot of sense from a design perspective. Still low maintenance due to the reliability of commercial turbofans, and an engine out would be much less critical.

But my guess at this moment would be that it's just a structural support.

 

[Trident]

Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support

Given the aspect ratio, it could also be an aerodynamic guide vane - very much as on the Victor

 

[zjz]

Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support

Given the aspect ratio, it could also be an aerodynamic guide vane - very much as on the Victor

Vane to re-direct air flow in extreme side slip conditions perhaps.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

By the way, was that hanger the same hanger they used in 1988 for B-2 rollout? This was also in plant 42 after all. If it is, that speaks a lot in terms of its size, comparing it to the hanger door compartments and overall wing width.

 

[SOC]

I stole Paul's image and drew on it. The bits inside the intakes that the arrows are pointing at seem like they could be solid? That'd make the intakes either smaller, or they take a serious inward curve (which wouldn't be out of the question from an RCS perspective anyway).

 

[rooster]

Which isn't symmetrical and probably just structure support

Given the aspect ratio, it could also be an aerodynamic guide vane - very much as on the Victor

Vane to re-direct air flow in extreme side slip conditions perhaps.

Wouldn't you just flameout the opposite side with this kind of shape?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@SOC
Could be.... There's a difference in darkness between the two sides, the inner part is near total black (000 RGB) while the outer part is just nearly black. This could be an artifact of the photo or even indication of censorship on the inner part.

 

[Trident]

I suspect the ducts do curve inward - with the apertures almost flush with the upper surface of the wing, there is a lot less depth to play with to achieve LOS obscuration than on the B-2 after all. So it may have to be done by sideways curvature instead - another good reason to have an aerodynamic vane, incidentally.

 

[rooster]

By the way, was that hanger the same hanger they used in 1988 for B-2 rollout? This was also in plant 42 after all. If it is, that speaks a lot in terms of its size, comparing it to the hanger door compartments and overall wing width.

View attachment 688244
View attachment 688243

The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Some panel detail can be seen around the cockpit.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Just made a very coarse comparison based on the hanger door compartment width, based on the assumption that that hanger was the same hanger used in 1988 B-2 rollout ceremony since both are on Plant 42 and based on what was said on speech.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying

good point

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598862840886067200

View: https://twitter.com/northropgrumman/status/1598862840886067200

 

[Bounce]

 

[NeilChapman]

Well hell, that was anticlimactic.

 

[Tuna]

The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying

But the geometry of the lens isn't. Especially since the wings bend back so much, you probably can't get a reliable estimate on size based on something that is so small in comparison to the aircraft.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Added Twitter pics.

 

[Sferrin]

Some panel detail can be seen around the cockpit.View attachment 688250

Looks like they found a way around all the air-data sensors of the B-2.

 

[rooster]

Some panel detail can be seen around the cockpit.View attachment 688250

From what i read this first article probably doesn't have production coatings or paint so a lot of that will be less prominent later on

Just made a very coarse comparison based on the hanger door compartment width, based on the assumption that that hanger was the same hanger used in 1988 B-2 rollout ceremony since both are on Plant 42 and based on what was said on speech.

View attachment 688249

Would not want to be a passenger with that lack of visibility. Vomit comet.

The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying

But the geometry of the lens isn't. Especially since the wings bend back so much, you probably can't get a reliable estimate on size based on something that is so small in comparison to the aircraft.

I knew the lens would come up from all the sasquatch discussions I've seen.
You have the cart size and the dude next to the gear who I only assume isn't 4ft tall....