• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
350
Ian33 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
$550 million seems cheap, given the cost of a 787 Dreamliner these days (about $300 million). I'm guessing it won't be be B-52 sized.
Flyaway said:
I wonder if it was in light of the expected protest that they didn't even release details they were previously slated to.

Taken from NG's twitter feed it's their new bomber dedicated website.

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/
That websites a pile of steaming shite. They should be ashamed to even put their name on such drivel. What utter Moron sanctioned that?
I imagine it's designed to appeal to the social media generation, hence them plugging it on Twitter, not the average poster on this forum.
 
I

Ian33

Guest
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
I wonder if it was in light of the expected protest that they didn't even release details they were previously slated to.

Taken from NG's twitter feed it's their new bomber dedicated website.

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/
What. The. Hell.
In order to have a movement to "Save the bomber", does there not have to be some sort of movement to kill it? Does Northrop know something we don’t?
Yeah. Exactly, I'm sat staring at a steaming shite pile not really believing if this is a satirical piece.

Save the Bomber?!?

WTF?

Northrop, if that's your best PR, your aircraft must be mentally insane to have won.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
350
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
I wonder if it was in light of the expected protest that they didn't even release details they were previously slated to.

Taken from NG's twitter feed it's their new bomber dedicated website.

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/
What. The. Hell.
In order to have a movement to "Save the bomber", does there not have to be some sort of movement to kill it? Does Northrop know something we don’t?
It looks like the fate of the B-2 is still playing large in their collective memory.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
marauder2048 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
$550 million seems cheap, given the cost of a 787 Dreamliner these days (about $300 million). I'm guessing it won't be be B-52 sized.
I don't follow...

In 1997, $737 million was the flyaway cost of a B-2. A B-1B was about $283 million at the time. Fast forward to now, thats (using base inflation) $1 billion and more than $400 million respectively. Basically, $550 million is half the cost of a B-2, and slightly more than a B-1.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
22
Airplane said:
Why is too bad a decade old avionics suite won't grace the new bomber?

Because it works "now", was designed from the ground-up with middle-ware, and it's use in the LRS-B would not only decrease the development time & money for LRS-B but also decrease procurement, maintenance, and upgrade costs for both the LRS-B and F-35 programs.


It's the same reason why picking the F135 (or derivative) would be a wise choice for LRS-B.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
Flyaway said:
I wonder if it was in light of the expected protest that they didn't even release details they were previously slated to.

Taken from NG's twitter feed it's their new bomber dedicated website.

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/

That looks like something from a joke movie. They even have a picture of Biff Patriot on it. I couldn't stop laughing.
 

Dreamfighter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
162
Reaction score
2
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
I wonder if it was in light of the expected protest that they didn't even release details they were previously slated to.

Taken from NG's twitter feed it's their new bomber dedicated website.

http://www.americasnewbomber.com/
What. The. Hell.
In order to have a movement to "Save the bomber", does there not have to be some sort of movement to kill it? Does Northrop know something we don’t?

It reads "keep the nation safe" & "support the new bomber".... I guess they´re organising a crowdfunding for in case the program should get curtailed again at 21 aircraft. ::)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
I'd use an F135 or F414 core with the largest fan compatible with the stealth requirements, assuming subsonic speed. A greater numbr of F414 derived engines would be easier to fit in a stealth aircraft than fewer F135 derived ones.


Whats the betting on any broad design commonality with RQ-180?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Whats the betting on any broad design commonality with RQ-180?

I think there will be some similarity, in that they're both flying wings. But I don't think the bomber will have the sailplane like aspect ratio of the RQ-180, because I think the RQ-180 is probably more geared towards loitering for long periods of time, as opposed to the bomber which will get in and get out as quickly as possible, while being subsonic.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
marauder2048 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
$550 million seems cheap, given the cost of a 787 Dreamliner these days (about $300 million). I'm guessing it won't be be B-52 sized.
I don't follow...

In 1997, $737 million was the flyaway cost of a B-2. A B-1B was about $283 million at the time. Fast forward to now, thats (using base inflation) $1 billion and more than $400 million respectively. Basically, $550 million is half the cost of a B-2, and slightly more than a B-1.
The Air Force kindly compiled this table (posted upthread) which avoids conflating or interchanging flyaway and APUC figures. I would suggest that reconstructing capabilities from APUC figures given the non-linearity of the contributions of empty weight and composites material percentages to aircraft cost (if we go by RAND and IDA formulae) is pretty tricky.
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
There was, of course, this Northrop 2025 passenger / cargo plane concept. This is kind of what I expect $500 million buys you, and it would certainly replace the B-52 in bomb truck role, except isn't LRS-B meant to be more stealthy than B-2?
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
More. Cargo version. Source: https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Drake-Northrop-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2.pdf
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Superbowl Ad. Looks rather like the intakes are positioned in the same place as the above designs.
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
529
Reaction score
215
Website
galgot.com
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Superbowl Ad. Looks rather like the intakes are positioned in the same place as the above designs.
Looks like it has an angle on the wing sweep , mid-span.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Yes - if the Superbowl image is accurate, it likely has an X-47B type wing shape. (Popsci artist's impression attached)
 

Attachments

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
350
Boeing to decide within two weeks whether to protest contract award

WASHINGTON Oct 27 (Reuters) - Boeing defense chief Chris Chadwick told staff on Tuesday that the company would "rigorously deliberate whether to protest" a U.S. Air Force bomber contract awarded to rival Northrop Grumman Corp, saying a decision was expected within two weeks. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Writing by Sandra Maler; Editing by Peter Cooney)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idusl1n12r3qa20151027
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
252
galgot said:
Looks like it has an angle on the wing sweep , mid-span.
It's leading edge is more complicated than heritage cranked kite designs, having some strakes in front of intake area, but I'm not sure if the whole shape was invented by McGarryBowen based on earlier placeholder renders by NGC
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
252
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Yes - if the image is accurate, it likely has an X-47B type wing shape.
This is un-official image by PopSci artist
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
flateric said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Yes - if the image is accurate, it likely has an X-47B type wing shape.
This is un-official image by PopSci artist
I am aware - I have clarified my post above :)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
flateric said:
galgot said:
Looks like it has an angle on the wing sweep , mid-span.
It's leading edge is more complicated than heritage cranked kite designs, having some strakes in front of intake area, but I'm not sure if the whole shape was invented by McGarryBowen based on earlier placeholder renders by NGC
Not sure about the LERX, or if its an illusion based on complex wing shape.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
I think perhaps *this* was the Northrop-Grumman artwork the Superbowl image was based on?
 

Attachments

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
22
Sundog said:
is probably more geared towards loitering for long periods of time, as opposed to the bomber which will get in and get out as quickly as possible, while being subsonic.
Why not both?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
529
Reaction score
215
Website
galgot.com
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This is what I see in the Superbowl ad image.
Yes, looks like that, even that rounded nose in plan view.
That is, if we can believe a SuperBowl add picture … :)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
But then perhaps something more like this 6th gen Northrop(?) fighter which seems to have ditched pure straight planform.
 

Attachments

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
96
I assume they will want at least one bay capable of taking MOP so that might give us an idea of scaling...?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Regarding engine choice, my money is on GE, simply due to Northrop history. ADVENT was aimed at NGB applications then later scaled up to F-35 class.
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,014
Reaction score
199
Not to mention that P&W have been fouling up by the numbers, and then some, of late.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
34
An Adaptive Cycle Engine? I thought that LRS-B was supposed to be subsonic? :eek: :-\
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Adaptive cycle can give much lower SFC (in the order of 18-35%) especially in cruise without losing high thust option by effectively varying bypass ratio. Its not necessarily about high speed, it would be valuable for a high-subsonic bomber.

GE Aviation won up to $325 million in additional funds in January 2015 to work on an adaptive cycle engine under phase three of the Versatile affordable advanced turbine engines (VAATE) program that preceded ADVENT.
GE have run demonstrator engines in phase 1 and 2, so this isn't Powerpoint engineering. This looks rather suitable for a B-3....

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010SET/Thomson.pdf
 

Attachments

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Superbowl Ad. Looks rather like the intakes are positioned in the same place as the above designs.
The Pentagon isn't going to telegraph that far in advance it's next new bomber in a super bowl ad. However, they did telegraph the existence of a still secret aircraft with the incident in Texas 1.5 years ago. The shrouded plane in the super bowl isn't the new bomber. Also, the commercial wasn't solely heavy bombers. Most likely that aircraft (from Texas) was again being used to telegraph a message to potential adversaries.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,607
Reaction score
1,082
Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT)
represents a truly game-changing concept whereby the efficiency of a high-bypass turbine is
being coupled with the ability to provide the dash capability of a fighter-class engine. This
concept was specifically identified by CSAF Moseley and Secretary Wynne as the propulsion
system of choice for the next generation long range strike capability.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080429-021.pdf

GE currently has a full ADVENT engine in testing that is designed for a “bomber application,” says spokesman Matt Benvie. Northrop and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team are expected to compete for the LRS-B contract that will be awarded in spring 2015.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-presses-ahead-with-next-gen-fighter-bo-403255/
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,231
Reaction score
406
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
There was, of course, this Northrop 2025 passenger / cargo plane concept. This is kind of what I expect $500 million buys you, and it would certainly replace the B-52 in bomb truck role, except isn't LRS-B meant to be more stealthy than B-2?
With giant exposed engine faces like that it makes ya wonder why they'd even try to make the airframe stealthy. Or is that simply a non-stealthy flying wing? ???
 

CiTrus90

Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
361
Reaction score
162
flateric said:
It's leading edge is more complicated than heritage cranked kite designs, having some strakes in front of intake area, but I'm not sure if the whole shape was invented by McGarryBowen based on earlier placeholder renders by NGC
I could be wrong, but i see more than a passing resemblance to that planform here:

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/USD365545

And here too:


Regards.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
26
The picture shows what looks like a supersonic planform - lots of sweep. Would make for a poor loitering platform if that were indeed the shape.
 
Top