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

[quellish]

Nope. The relationship between radar wavelength and size of physical features means a smaller B-2 could be more detectable to long wavelength radars for example.

Bahret put this well:

The result of all this experimentation was a gradually increasing understanding of flare spots-what they were for different vehicles, how they behaved at different radar frequencies, and how they should be modeled. The picture emerged that the influence of a flare spot was related to its’ geometry first of all, but also to its’ dimensions measured in the wavelengths with which it was illuminated.
What this means in simple terms is that at what are called “microwave frequencies”-those above 2000 megahertz (mhz) or so -a normal aircrafts’ echo derives from a set of individual sources, while at much lower frequencies, the increasing tendency is for the entire aircraft to act like one big source-with only the general shape being a factor. At extremely low frequencies, even the shape loses influence and only the volume matters.

A fighter sized aircraft is difficult to shape to reduce RCS at low frequencies. A large aircraft like the B-2 presents opportunities to using shaping to reduce RCS across a much wider range of frequencies. If you took a B-2 and shrank it though the shaping would become less effective as it got smaller - the RCS would change, and not likely for the better.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Added the Twitter images.

I think this is broadly correct except for the trailing edge not aligning.

View attachment 688574
View attachment 688575

Woah, these ones by that artist look good! Might not be the actual thing, given that we've only seen the front, but it's a good estimate.

 

[aonestudio]

Fog machines, short lenses, no iPhones: Managing the B-21′s rollout

Reporters and photographers invited to view the B-21's public debut at the highly secure Air Force Plant 42 had to follow strict security guidelines.

www.defensenews.com

 

[NeilChapman]

Both countries already operate unique US military technology. Weirdly I think the B-21 would be more exportable in limited circumstances than the NGAD technology wise. Unlike the B-2 it’s designed to be a multipurpose lower cost high cycle platform. I could imagine the B-21 slotting into the UK, Japan & Italian multi platform sixth generation combat aircraft. By the way Japan might be worth a sale after all they are in theatre so to speak.

I could see Japan using B-21 as a defensive platform. It would be a tough sell, politically, to Korea and Raider is an unfortunate name for several obvious reasons.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Both countries already operate unique US military technology. Weirdly I think the B-21 would be more exportable in limited circumstances than the NGAD technology wise. Unlike the B-2 it’s designed to be a multipurpose lower cost high cycle platform. I could imagine the B-21 slotting into the UK, Japan & Italian multi platform sixth generation combat aircraft. By the way Japan might be worth a sale after all they are in theatre so to speak.

I could see Japan using B-21 as a defensive platform. It would be a tough sell, politically, to Korea and Raider is an unfortunate name for several obvious reasons.

The Department of Defense's Secretary even omitted out any mention of Japan when he summarized the history of the Doolittle Raiders, perhaps as a way to avoid any PR troubles with Japan

 

[TomcatViP]

Regarding the Inlets geometry, please do remind that the USA are at the forefront of flows effectors

Capturing sufficient airflow isn't as much as having a gulping opening as it was in the 1950's.

What should be the focus on are with the nozzles. Do they have a B-2 setup (unlikely)? Did they succeed in their search for a distributed setup?
This is more an indicator of the level of breakthrough in technology they have reached.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Regarding the Inlets geometry, please do remind that the USA are at the forefront of flows effectors

Capturing sufficient airflow isn't as much as having a gulping opening as it was in the 1950's.

What should be the focus on are with the nozzles. Do they have a B-2 setup (unlikely)? Did they succeed in their search for a distributed setup?
This is more an indicator of the level of breakthrough in technology they have reached.

Amen to that. And if even the air-breathing intake nozzles are specially designed so as to maintain maximum air intake rates, how much more its other advanced features that we aren't fully aware of yet.

Makes me wonder about its future successor, and what appearances and features it will have in 30 to 50 year's time.

 

[citizensnip]

B-21 Artstation

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Very pretty, but I think not too correct. Obviously a lot of guesswork at this stage.

 

[FighterJock]

We do not even know what the exhausts look like so I am taking the above pictures as more fan art and should be ignored.

 

[Willythekid]

A preliminary design of the B-2, it has a strong resemblance (allegedly) to the B-21 design.

 

[VTOLicious]

Source: https://www.airdatanews.com/new-usaf-flying-wing-b-21-has-key-changes-from-b-2-bomber/

 

[rooster]

A preliminary design of the B-2, it has a strong resemblance (allegedly) to the B-21 design.

No. Itv does not

 

[DrRansom]

It was known for ages.

? What do you mean?

 

[TomS]

It was known for ages.

? What do you mean?

I've never seen any indication that the B-21 would carry external ordnance. It seems absurd, in fact.

 

[paralay]

,

 

[FighterJock]

It was known for ages.

? What do you mean?

I've never seen any indication that the B-21 would carry external ordnance. It seems absurd, in fact.

True TomS, to be stealthy a bomber needs the weapons to be inside a weapons bay, to have external ordinance on the B-21 would spoil any advantage it would have.

 

[flateric]

I've never seen any indication that the B-21 would carry external ordnance. It seems absurd, in fact.

Absurd like those?

 

[flateric]

surely a misprint!

 

[Josh_TN]

I've never seen any indication that the B-21 would carry external ordnance. It seems absurd, in fact.

Absurd like those?

Rather a world of difference between tactical fighters and a bomber. The B-2 has never had any external stores of any kind, and even the B-1 has only adopted targeting pods.

 

[steelpillow]

Subscription only:

Northrop Grumman reveals B-21 test aircraft as stealth programme roars toward first flight

Northrop Grumman has unveiled the next-generation stealth bomber under development for the US Air Force.

www.flightglobal.com

Some interesting snippets:

Northrop revealed what it describes as the world’s first sixth-generation military aircraft

Northrop settled on the final B-21 design after exploring thousands of options to meet the USAF’s requirements for cost and low-observability. ... The USAF has set a price target of $500 million per airframe, valued in 2010 dollars. That works out to $631 million in 2022 values. Warden says Northrop is on track to meet that goal. General Charles Brown, USAF chief of staff, says that price ceiling is critical to ensuring his service is able to build-out a sufficiently deep B-21 fleet. ... focus on price does not come at the cost of the aircraft’s low-observability requirements, which [are] central to the design process.

Northrop aims to complete the B-21’s first flight in 2023, using what it calls a “production representative aircraft”. The company has six B-21 airframes in various stages of production and testing. Delivery of the first aircraft is projected for the mid-2020s.

the type’s advanced sensor systems will allow it to play an important role in other realms of warfare, including intelligence and battlefield management.

“Its ability to get in, stay in and kill targets – to hold targets at risk – is how we deter potential adversaries from taking the chance of war with the United States and our allies,”

Engineers designed the aircraft for ease of maintenance, making it a “daily flyer”

 

[TomS]

I've never seen any indication that the B-21 would carry external ordnance. It seems absurd, in fact.

Absurd like those?

None of that is relevant to the B-21.

You say that B-21 carrying external payload is "known." Then provide a source for this knowledge.

 

[quellish]

Absurd like those?

Absurd like this?

 

[Josh_TN]

Absurd like those?

Absurd like this?

View attachment 688635

Those aren't in service and the B-1 isn't a low RCS platform.

 

[Sundog]

Time got a look at the production line.

Exclusive: The Making of the Military's New Stealth Bomber

The U.S. is making a massive, strategic gamble that hasn't paid off in the past

time.com

Notice the blue lines on the floor are for the B-2's gear. So what vehicles are the red set and black set for? I would guess one of those sets are for the RQ-180 or whatever it's actually called.

 

[quellish]

Those aren't in service and the B-1 isn't a low RCS platform.

The B-1B was designed for reduced observables. The ACM pylons were designed to minimize the impact on RCS. Today there is an effort underway to carry JASSM externally.

 

[sferrin]

Those aren't in service and the B-1 isn't a low RCS platform.

The B-1B was designed for reduced observables. The ACM pylons were designed to minimize the impact on RCS. Today there is an effort underway to carry JASSM externally.

I read somewhere the AGM-129 was designed for supersonic external carriage. Presumably on the B-1B back in the day.

 

[flateric]

You say that B-21 carrying external payload is "known." Then provide a source for this knowledge.

It was probably Tirpak bits of info at AFM, not AWST or Flight Int. I thought then that idea as absurd as you do now, so I remember it very well - also because it was probably only bit of RFP that leaked.
If you think that this is just my imagination, I'm OK with that.

 

[flateric]

Just saying - red panel lines are seems to be opposite to the gate sides which is 58+ meters to provide minimum standart clearance for B-2 wingtips.

 

[sublight_]

If maybe everyone could post BEFORE they've had that 10th shot of espresso, that would be great.... People are just getting too agitated. This is a hobby forum, not a debate or a subject matter showdown.

 

[Josh_TN]

Those aren't in service and the B-1 isn't a low RCS platform.

The B-1B was designed for reduced observables. The ACM pylons were designed to minimize the impact on RCS. Today there is an effort underway to carry JASSM externally.

"Reduced" in this case is several orders of magnitude lower reduction than a B-2. An F-18E has a reduced RCS, though not to the point that anyone cares if you hang something off it. The B-1's signature reductions were more to make its ECM and low level penetration mode more effective, not attempt to obscure it from almost all emitters at most frequencies. A rather different approach. Also per a former Bone navigator, none of the RAM surfaces are maintained as such for many years. I don't see any reason anyone would put a mark on the coating or hard spot on the structure of a B-2 or B-21.

 

[Dynoman]

Notice the blue lines on the floor are for the B-2's gear. So what vehicles are the red set and black set for? I would guess one of those sets are for the RQ-180 or whatever it's actually called.

Possibly for Model 401. The chocks used in one of the hangars with B-21 were from the Northrop Model 401 test team. The lines may have been for the 401's main gear.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

surely a misprint!

You are referring to the PW9000 reference I assume?

Its a misprint for PW900 series as the other designations make clear ( PW901C etc) these are APUs.

 

[flateric]

Notice the blue lines on the floor are for the B-2's gear. So what vehicles are the red set and black set for? I would guess one of those sets are for the RQ-180 or whatever it's actually called.

Possibly for Model 401. The chocks used in one of the hangars with B-21 were from the Northrop Model 401 test team. The lines may have been for the 401's main gear.

I doubt Model 401 wheel base is SO big.

 

[quellish]

not attempt to obscure it from almost all emitters at most frequencies

I am not aware of any aircraft designed to do that, can you give an example?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It makes sense to allow for external carriage for potential stand-off employment anyway, providing it doesn't compromise the standard mission. Just like the F-22 and F-35 can carry external loads.

 

[Forest Green]

Neither the B-2 nor F-117 had pylons, so pylons seem unlikely for a stealth bomber.

 

[Whisperstream]

Notice the blue lines on the floor are for the B-2's gear. So what vehicles are the red set and black set for? I would guess one of those sets are for the RQ-180 or whatever it's actually called.

Possibly for Model 401. The chocks used in one of the hangars with B-21 were from the Northrop Model 401 test team. The lines may have been for the 401's main gear.

The chocks were from Building 401.

 

[Sundog]

I meant to add, one other feature I'm interested in seeing is the trailing edge. Does the aircraft use flight controls like the B-2 did, with gap seals or will it use a deforming conformal trailing edge, since there has been great strides made in that tech over the last fifteen to twenty years?

 

[sferrin]

Those aren't in service and the B-1 isn't a low RCS platform.

The B-1B was designed for reduced observables. The ACM pylons were designed to minimize the impact on RCS. Today there is an effort underway to carry JASSM externally.

"Reduced" in this case is several orders of magnitude lower reduction than a B-2. An F-18E has a reduced RCS, though not to the point that anyone cares if you hang something off it. The B-1's signature reductions were more to make its ECM and low level penetration mode more effective, not attempt to obscure it from almost all emitters at most frequencies. A rather different approach. Also per a former Bone navigator, none of the RAM surfaces are maintained as such for many years. I don't see any reason anyone would put a mark on the coating or hard spot on the structure of a B-2 or B-21.

Nobody has EVER claimed the RCS reduction efforts implemented on the B-1B gave it B-2 levels of reduction. Basically it was enough that it made it more survivable than the Mach 2+ speed of the B-1A. That's about it.