ATB: B-2 evolution and competitors

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Very interesting PDF about the B-2 here:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA464771
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA464771.pdf
Here's some extracted pages from Northrop's 1980 APSA study, which is the earliest origins of the B-2.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

last few

 

[elmayerle]

Too bad the alternates studied in the 1983-1984 timeframe, when the low-altitude role was added, likely won't be shown for a while. There were some interesting variations proposed by all involved.

 

[flateric]

Great find, Paul!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Note the interesting RCS chart, plotted against the Tacit Blue RCS, showing far less increase of RCS at longer wavelengths.

 

[Sundog]

What I find interesting for the low alt version is that even the rudders/vert stabs were put on the bottom to keep the top "clean" of RADAR reflection. I think that's also the first time I've seen a version of the B-2 that was built with vertical tails. The info/data itself is interesting as well. Thanks for posting this Overscan.

 

[JoeinTX]

@elmayerle

Does the name John Simpson ring a bell from your Northrop days?

 

[elmayerle]

@elmayerle

Does the name John Simpson ring a bell from your Northrop days?

Not just off hand, but there were quite a host of folk at the pico Rivera facility. What area did he work in?

 

[Apollo Leader]

Here is a scan from the entire page of Yancy Mailes/Tony Landis' book:

[edit - dead link - Admin]

As you can see, it's a vastly different aircraft than what's pictured on the Dreamland Resort website.

Hi. I've been lurking here for awhile and decided to make this my first post.

Regarding the picture that James Goodall has posted over at Dreamland Resort, I suspect that is NOT one of Lockheed's ATB entries. That is probably the "B" entry for Senior Trend. The aircraft looks way too small to be a four engine, intercontinental bomber, but it looks to be about the size of an F-111. Besides the single seat F-117, a larger two seat F-111 size attack aircraft was proposed, but since this technology was still pretty new at this time, the Air Force went the safer route and went with the smaller single pilot aircraft.

As for the pictures that are in the Tony Landis book, have these pictures been released anywhere else (ditto with the James Goodall picture)? I have been scouring the net for awhile trying to find anything that may have been released and declassified on Lockheed's Senior Peg, but the only pictures I've found have been on this site and Dreamland Resort. Also, on the RCS model and line drawing, I'm having a heck of a time trying to figure out what shaded areas are suppose to be the cockpit... it looks like part of it extends over the air intakes which doesn't seem right. Perhaps there were some cockpit visibility issues with Lockheed's design resulting in so many windshield sections.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

and from Flightglobal;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1991/1991 - 1598.html

 

[Just call me Ray]

So why did they go with the med/high-altitude penetrator rather than the low-altitude design?

 

[flateric]

Was wondering for 20 years how that stuff really looks like...till the recent find of almost year old Bill Sweetman's
ARES blog entry at AWST site...
http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/05/baby_b2.html

 

[hesham]

Hi,

a good artist drawing to Lockheed Senior Peg.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Over at my blog (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=2140) I've posted a how-to of sorts on turnign a single photo into a layout drawing, using the Senior Peg as an example. It's a bit of a cheat, since the Senior Peg was a largley planar design, but still, might be of interest.

Turning this:

Into this:

 

[Clioman]

Has the same photo been pub'd here? www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth4.htm. Or is this a different image?

Either way, there appear to be a pair of vertical fins on the stub 'tail boom.' They're also shown -- but in larger form -- on the image that Jim Goodall posted at Dreamland Resort: www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/senior_peg.html And am I correct in thinking that we're seeing the airplane upside down?

 

[Matej]

Same photo and you are right about the vertical fins. Design from the Lockheed had them. What Scott published is only how to begin, not a whole process till the end. I will wait to see the final version with the details. Yes, the airplane is upside-down, you can see the original photo here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6417.0.html

Funny that a few days ago lantinian did the same style geometric voodoo for me and in a short time, you will see our result

 

[flateric]

Hmm...had any strange night dreams last month, all of you?

 

[Orionblamblam]

They're also shown -- but in larger form -- on the image that Jim Goodall posted at Dreamland Resort: www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/senior_peg.html

There's some serious question about jsut what that image is showing. It might not be Senior Peg, instead something smaller. There's just too little info to be sure. But the Senior Peg RCS model photo is pretty substantial.

And am I correct in thinking that we're seeing the airplane upside down?

That's my supposition, yes.

 

[Orionblamblam]

What Scott published is only how to begin, not a whole process till the end. I will wait to see the final version with the details.

Next blog posting:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=2158

I think I made the fuselage too "tubby."

 

[Matej]

Side view of the Senior Peg in the left bottom corner looks like designed by René Leduc At least to me. I was looking on the Jim Goodalls pictures for some time and I am not sure that the fuselage line that forms the air intake goes all around the cockpit. But also I am not absolutely sure it don't. :-\

 

[quellish]

They're also shown -- but in larger form -- on the image that Jim Goodall posted at Dreamland Resort: www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/senior_peg.html

There's some serious question about jsut what that image is showing. It might not be Senior Peg, instead something smaller. There's just too little info to be sure. But the Senior Peg RCS model photo is pretty substantial.

And am I correct in thinking that we're seeing the airplane upside down?

That's my supposition, yes.

It could be one of the Lockheed SENIOR PEG proposals, or it could be ATA-B. In fact, both aircraft you see (the pole model and the other) could easily be ATA-B.

This is a reasonable summary of the ATA-B design evolution:

http://www.f-117a.com/ATA.html
My feeling is that the Goodall photo is the final ATA-B configuration, minus inlets, while the pole model is the "fat" ATA-B that was considered high risk. Perhaps Lockheed's SENIOR PEG proposals included an evolution of the "fat" ATA-B, but the final design was much more like Northrop's winning proposal, though smaller. Some of that history is reflected in Lockheed's Sensorcraft work and it's predecessors.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This will probably be expanded into an APR article or perhaps a stand-alone monograph. But for now, here are some steps along the way to developign the B-2... numerous design iterations from Northrop, two Lockheed designs, and McDonnell-Douglas's concept for the ATB (programmatic details on this one are still a bit vague, though the drawings can be graded as a 5). I've a number of Rockwell designs to add to this, and, hopefully, some Boeing designs at some point.

 

[donnage99]

Maybe I'm ignorant and missing something here, but if the photo of the model for RCS testing is indeed Senior Peg, then why does it feature a curves? I thought that it's been said that Lockheed's ATF entry was the first time they took their stealth design from facet to blending?

 

[flateric]

I'd say, this is one of the top posts since SPF has started...MDC ATB...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Maybe I'm ignorant and missing something here, but if the photo of the model for RCS testing is indeed Senior Peg, then why does it feature a curves? I thought that it's been said that Lockheed's ATF entry was the first time they took their stealth design from facet to blending?

That may have been the first time they did that in *practice.* "Unbuilt projects" are generally ignored by those writing glowing histories. Additionally, the wings, to me at any rate, look to be F-117-planar type structures; which would mean that even if the center section is curved, it still relied greatly on facetted structures.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

As I understand it Lockheed's ATB design had some curvature but still relied somewhat on faceting. From the picture posted the wing looks pretty faceted.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Inverting the colours, you can see the facets pretty clearly. I think Scott's drawing is a little too rounded.

 

[CFE]

I tend to think the planform publicized by Jim Goodall in 2005 is more representative of the Senior Peg/ATB proposal. It seems to mesh with the description given by Ben Rich, as the overall planform seems to resemble Northrop's original proposal (prior to the low-altitude redesign) but smaller and with twin tails. It also agrees with a blurb in Code One magazine (Part 1 of the article on ATF/F-22 development) that Lockheed lost the ATB competition with a "highly-faceted design."

Any chance that the model on the pole could be "Quartz" or the original Tier-III?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm not sure why you would think so. The pole model is very clearly faceted, and it appears to have a windscreen, so it seems manned.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The Goodall picture feels to me like its taken from a deliberately misleading angle, exactly like the original F-117A publicity picture. The tail looks exaggerated in size.

Here's a very rough distortion in Photoshop.

Incidently, I can't see the intakes at all in this model. Not convinced by Scott's drawing.

 

[Matej]

Any chance that the model on the pole could be "Quartz" or the original Tier-III?

No, not any chance. Its too big, too fat and as Paul noticed, it has something that highly resembles windscreen. Attached is something from Lockheed what could be close to Tier III shape.

Incidently, I can't see the intakes at all in this model. Not convinced by Scott's drawing.

The line that forms air intake goes around the cockpit. But I was not sure if it goes all around - means that it is also above cockpit, so the cockpit is like some bulb in the air intake (shape close to the front part of Boeing X-45C) or if the cockpit splits the intake to the two separate canals - something like on Lockheed MACK/BMACK.

 

[Apollo Leader]

The Jim Goodall picture over at Dreamland Resort is probably the alternate Senior Trend "B" design which was suppose to be an F-111 sized aircraft. The size of the cockpit compared to the rest of the aircraft makes the aircraft way to small to be an intercontinental bomber. I wonder if Lockheed Martin has ever released a public statement about what was posted at Dreamland Resort? Then again, from what I've been told, Jim Goodall is persona non grade at Lockheed these days, so this may have been a picture released without their or government permission...

Ben Rich's autobiography clearly states that their ATB design was a flying wing like Northrop's... an Air Force officer who had seen Northrop's design accidentally made a comment to Rich suggesting that they had copied Northrop's design.

 

[LowObservable]

Are we sure that this puppy is Senior Peg?
ATB had a ferocious RCS spec, so I'd be very surprised to see edge alignments all over the place, let alone a leading-edge kink. Remember that the RCS group at Northrop wanted a continuous, straight, razor-sharp leading edge, and the onluy concession to aerodynamics on the B-2 was the "toothpick" LE, sharp at the nose and tips and blunter at midspan.

My understanding of the evolution from Have Blue to ATA-B and then to Senior Peg was that ATA-A (F-117) was minimum change, ATA-B incorporated some curvature and some rounding of the facet boundaries, and that Senior Peg represented a broadened-out at larger version of ATA-B. The infamous Gene Salvay interview in Wings seems to describe an interim design, but with a sweptforward tail like the Goodall picture.

 

[quellish]

Any chance that the model on the pole could be "Quartz" or the original Tier-III?

Quartz/Tier III/AARS was a much larger vehicle with lower sweep. Lockheed and Boeing's SensorCraft (and NGB) designs owe a lot to it.
In fact, a lot like this:
http://content.ll-0.com/signal/signal_e_a000749775.JPG?i=030707113259
Pretty much exactly like this...
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/5/d6ee2a05-4aac-4a37-a541-5e2bb7525a57.Large.jpg


Lockheed's philosophy at the time of SENIOR PEG was that ECHO 1 was their silver bullet. Previous to Hopeless Diamond, Lockheed had very much been of the curved surfaces and coatings school of LO, with the D-21 as their crowning achievement. Once they realized what a huge advantage ECHO 1 gave them, they were stuck on the "faceting" crackpipe for a number of years. There were a number of designs that deviated from this philosophy, but few took to the air. I can't think of a better example than SENIOR PROM. They took HAVE BLUE and scaled it to a missile, with only evolutionary changes. A missile that would never fit in a weapons bay

Lockheed's SENIOR PEG as submitted though was simple enough that it did indeed look like a copy of the Northrop entry. Or so I am told.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Inverting the colours, you can see the facets pretty clearly. I think Scott's drawing is a little too rounded.

As do I. So I re-worked it, doing a bit more analysis of the drawing. The fuselage is greatly flattened, and what I'd formerly thought to be the cockpit, isn't anymore. The pole-model shows a lot of panels that each *could* be the cockpit, but they all can't be. So I had to move the cockpit further aft since the nose got thinner, and as a result I chose some panels in a new, more appropriate position. And *these* seem to scream out "F-117 heritage." Theforward panels would be some sort of instrumentation... looking closely at the phot, the forward panels seem to have serrated edges, which in the F-117 doors have but windows don't. The panels over the intakes clearly can't be windows.


Gentlemen, behold!

 

[donnage99]

After closely looking at it, I think the wings are canted upward a little. The right wings catch a little too much light for it to be parallel to the same horizontal plane of the main body in the original picture, if the source of light is where my prediction is. Can anyone post a zoom out picture of the original (first) pic?

 

[CFE]

I'm not sure why you would think so. The pole model is very clearly faceted, and it appears to have a windscreen, so it seems manned.

But the pole model doesn't look a thing like the B-2 (either the proposal or the final aircraft.) That puts it at odds with the Ben Rich anecdote (which may or may not be accurate.) At least the aircraft in the Goodall pic has more than a passing resemblance to the original B-2 concept.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Work continues...

 

[Orionblamblam]

But the pole model doesn't look a thing like the B-2 (either the proposal or the final aircraft.)

Lockheed, Northrop, McD, Boeing and Rockwell were all studying stealthy bombers at about that time, and all came to the conclusion that flying wings were the best way to do it. To people who aren't used to flying wings, it is perhaps arguable that they all kinda look alike.

Additionally, the other RCS pole-models I've seen photos of were rightside-up, not upside down. So it is possible (though I believe unlikely) that we're seeing the *underside* of the Senior Peg, not the topside. A desk model of Senior Peg might therefore look like a desk model of the Northrop design, since there ain't clue one as to what's on the other side of the RCS model. What look like inlets might be radar panels, and the inlets and cockpit are topside. Just an arm-wavy hypothesis.