View Full Version : Air Force Finally Releases New Images of Stealthy B-21 Future Bomber
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/31/air-force-finally-releases-new-images-stealthy-b-21-future-bomber.html
New photorealistic renderings of the B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber have officially landed.
The Air Force together with the bomber's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, published three new concepts of the next-generation bomber, showing the stealth aircraft in various hangars at bomber bases across the U.S.
Pretty cool. I guess all that alien technology we got at Area 51 is getting put to good use.
Since industry can't even seem to get a non-stealthy, 1980's airframe-based aerial tanker right (the KC-46), this new B-21 has the potential to be a real dumpster fire. And if the USAF was following the numbering sequence this should be the B-3.
That looks a lot like a B-2 to me is it just a bigger version or something?
That looks a lot like a B-2 to me is it just a bigger version or something?
Actually it’ll be slightly smaller, much more streamlined and orders of magnitude stealthily’er (yeah it’s not a word...)
hotrodder636
02-01-20, 15:44
Is it going to be piloted or unmanned? Didn’t see anything referencing either direction. Like said above, odd that they didn’t follow the numbering and make is a B-3.
The rumor is "optionally manned".
Is it going to be piloted or unmanned? Didn’t see anything referencing either direction. Like said above, odd that they didn’t follow the numbering and make is a B-3.
Maybe the rest of the sequential iterations never got declassified.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if it will have a bunk and crapper built in.
Is it going to be piloted or unmanned? Didn’t see anything referencing either direction. Like said above, odd that they didn’t follow the numbering and make is a B-3.
Manned and unmanned capabilities.
I'm assuming these two missions will be conducted by two vastly different airframes. The unmanned variants will have the ability to carry more due to the lack of systems, control, interface, environmental etc...
I wonder if it will have a bunk and crapper built in.
The manned airframes will most likely have them or something similar to what the B-2 has.
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-02-20, 09:56
Since industry can't even seem to get a non-stealthy, 1980's airframe-based aerial tanker right (the KC-46), this new B-21 has the potential to be a real dumpster fire. And if the USAF was following the numbering sequence this should be the B-3.
Maybe in picking that number they are saying it’s a half-assed b-52! Hi-yo!
I like how the picture is of it sitting in a hanger, probably because it'll be grounded for the first several years of its existence due to crashes. That seems to be the norm for almost every new aircraft.
COULD AMERICA’S SECRETIVE B-21 RAIDER ALREADY BE FLYING?
https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/could-americas-secretive-b-21-raider-already-be-flying/
In today’s world full of satellite imagery and cell phone video cameras, that type of secrecy seems all but impossible. With cameras ever-present and a global digital infrastructure capable of relaying leaked information or pictures to news outlets anywhere on the planet in a matter of seconds, keeping a big, triangular bomber a secret sounds downright improbable, but that doesn’t mean impossible.
Because the B-21 has been under development for years, it seems almost miraculous that so little is known about the program. The secrecy is, of course, by design, with Defense officials refusing to even put a price tag on the endeavor, aware that an admission of cost would supply the nation’s opponents with a better understanding of what degree of new technology is being developed for the new bomber.
But it’s the timeline that begs some hard questions about the B-21’s development.
It isn’t impossible that the Air Force has yet to see so much as a full-scale technology demonstrator of the B-21 and still believes it will reach IOC by the mid-2020s, and even if the program was likely going to be delayed, the Air Force probably wouldn’t say so. It also seems somewhat likely, however, that some version of the B-21 Raider may already exist for testing purposes — and they’ve just done an exceptional job of keeping us in the dark.
While the Air Force has identified the bases where it intends to house and test the B-21 Raider (Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma to maintain and sustain the B-21, and Edwards Air Force Base in California to handle testing and evaluation), another interesting addition to an American air base suggests that it’s at least possible that the B-21 could have already seen some flight time. The airstrip on what popular culture calls “Area 51,” but is actually part of Nellis Air Force Base, recently saw a massive addition in the form of a huge new hangar.
Could the B-21 already be making test flights out of this recently-constructed hangar? It’s possible, but possible is really all we can say. The Department of Defense didn’t build that hangar for nothing, but with a number of programs in development, including the Penetrating Counter Air fighter program and even plans for an SR-71 successor (dubbed the SR-72), it could feasibly be used to hide just about anything Uncle Sam would rather keep a lid on for the time being. Nighttime flights of a B-21, purpose-built to avoid detection, would be difficult to track — and under cover of darkness and from a distance, it could be difficult to differentiate between a B-21 and its predecessor, the B-2 Spirit.
If any B-21s do exist, it will likely be years before the federal government acknowledges it. If we see this platform reach IOC as soon as the Air Force claims it will, maybe there’s something to the idea that the Air Force already has one or two of these airframes sitting in a hangar somewhere.
Recall the series of "Flying Triangles" photoed over Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma a few years back?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2607840/Is-THIS-SR-72-spy-plane-Mystery-aircraft-spotted-flying-Kansas-just-weeks-seen-Texas.html
60697
Yep. Similar to the Texas sightings:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/mystery-aircraft-reportedly-spotted-flying-over-texas-raises-speculation
Diamondback
02-02-20, 11:15
Maybe in picking that number they are saying it’s a half-assed b-52! Hi-yo!
Less than that... "half-ass BUFF" would be a B-26, except that that designator is pretty well tied to WWII's "Martin Prostitute." B-21, the original is a little-known NAA one-off prototype that got ROFLstomped in its pre-WWII flyoff by a modified DC-2 airliner.
"B-21" can be expressed as "B-2.1", or a further development of the B-2 (if you're REALLY reaching).
"B-21" can be expressed as "B-2.1", or a further development of the B-2 (if you're REALLY reaching).
That’s what I was thinking. I’m just surprised they’re even talking about it at all, I remember first hearing about it back in the first half of 2010, and thought, what the hell? So much for opsec.
Well it's not exactly a new thing the B-2 has been around for a long time.
Pretty cool. I guess all that alien technology we got at Area 51 is getting put to good use.
In the photos, I think it kind of looks like a Tic Tac. I wonder what would look like through the HUD of a Super Hornet.
SomeOtherGuy
02-02-20, 14:53
I like how the picture is of it sitting in a hanger, probably because it'll be grounded for the first several years of its existence due to crashes. That seems to be the norm for almost every new aircraft.
The bomber fleet seems far worse off. B-2, B-1, FB-111 - all had serious problems with operational readiness. The most recent bomber that worked all around is the B-52, first conceived during WW2 and still our mainstay. Although I don't know of many issues with the B-58 other than the crash rate and fuel consumption.
Will the Raider actually work when called upon? That would be the most useful feature of all.
I remember when the Navy tried to build their own stealthy carrier-based bomber/attack aircraft. It was called the A-12 "Avenger II" (AKA "The Flying Dorito"). It turned out to be a train wreck from the outset and the lawsuits between the US Government and the contractors (IIRC, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed) went on for years.
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-02-20, 15:26
I am confident they will get some of these going (I would be surprised if they even got the 100 given the history of these programs). I would however be surprised if they were operational anytime soon, again, given how these programs have been going over the last 30 years.
The B-2 programs started out with a requirement for 132 aircraft. Then it dropped to 75. Then it dropped to 20. And the price went up exponentially.
Diamondback
02-02-20, 15:45
The B-2 programs started out with a requirement for 132 aircraft. Then it dropped to 75. Then it dropped to 20. And the price went up exponentially.
Because idiot politicians don't understand the concept of "fixed cost" (eg, cost to develop a new weapon whether you build none or a gazillion) vs "variable costs" (eg, parts/materials/labor cost to build each individual unit)... nor much of anything else about accounting or economics or manufacturing or, well, ANYTHING really.
Diamondback
02-02-20, 15:50
The B-2 programs started out with a requirement for 132 aircraft. Then it dropped to 75. Then it dropped to 20. And the price went up exponentially.
Because idiot politicians don't understand the concept of "fixed cost" (eg, cost to develop a new weapon whether you build none or a gazillion) vs "variable costs" (eg, parts/materials/labor cost to build each individual unit)... nor much of anything else about accounting or economics or manufacturing or, well, ANYTHING really.
Because idiot politicians don't understand the concept of "fixed cost" (eg, cost to develop a new weapon whether you build none or a gazillion) vs "variable costs" (eg, parts/materials/labor cost to build each individual unit)... nor much of anything else about accounting or economics or manufacturing or, well, ANYTHING really.
Well it didn’t help much that the air force refused to listen to Northrop’s proposals for the B-2 to incorporate both high and low altitude strike capabilities. It’s wasn’t until the bomber was half way thru design when the AF said, oh yeah we need low level as well...
That added another $40 Billion in cost overruns to an already costly weapons system.
Diamondback
02-02-20, 16:03
Well it didn’t help much that the air force refused to listen to Northrop’s proposals for the B-2 to incorporate both high and low altitude strike capabilities. It’s wasn’t until the bomber was half way thru design when the AF said, oh yeah we need low level as well...
That added another $40 Billion in cost overruns to an already costly weapons system.
Northrop shoulda done what Kelly Johnson did at the Skunk Works and quietly bake it in anyway... for example, the A-12/SR-71 family originated with a CIA single-seat photorecon spec, but Johnson designed it from square one to be interceptor (F-12), bomber (unbuilt B-12) or radar/ELINT (SR-71) capable just by building and bolting different "gooseneck" front halves onto the same wing/tail/engines assembly.
Coal Dragger
02-03-20, 01:01
Curious to see how this bird turns out, probably be a dumpster fire like the F-35 but maybe we’ll get lucky.
I know the Air Force is currently leaning on local communities in the Black Hills, particularly Rapid City, and Sommerset to get busy building more schools and housing.... while not wanting to contribute $$$ for those purposes.
The estimate is that the new wing will add 5,000 AF personnel not including dependents. I’m also sure more than a few Northrop Grumman folks will end up being assigned to support the wing as contractors. So if many have families we may see 15K more people in the Rapid City area. Real estate is gonna get tight. Rentals too.
SomeOtherGuy
02-03-20, 09:15
I know the Air Force is currently leaning on local communities in the Black Hills, particularly Rapid City, and Sommerset to get busy building more schools and housing.... while not wanting to contribute $$$ for those purposes.
The estimate is that the new wing will add 5,000 AF personnel not including dependents. I’m also sure more than a few Northrop Grumman folks will end up being assigned to support the wing as contractors. So if many have families we may see 15K more people in the Rapid City area. Real estate is gonna get tight. Rentals too.
If I lived there I would tell the local government to wait and see. Who's going to pay for those schools if/when the program gets cancelled and none of those people show up to pay taxes and use the facilities? I doubt the B-21 will be in production any time soon whether we get Trump or some commie for the next presidential term... building housing and schools five years before they will be occupied is almost as costly to the local government as building them and never having them occupied.
The USAF (and the other services) were dumping chemicals before any of the current officials were born.
sundance435
02-03-20, 12:14
Well it didn’t help much that the air force refused to listen to Northrop’s proposals for the B-2 to incorporate both high and low altitude strike capabilities. It’s wasn’t until the bomber was half way thru design when the AF said, oh yeah we need low level as well...
That added another $40 Billion in cost overruns to an already costly weapons system.
B-2 was never meant to be a low-level penetrator until the Air Force decided halfway through that it needed to be. That alone drove up the cost by 1/3 and as far as I know it's a capability that's never been used. The B-21 has no such requirement, at least right now. Northrop is a top-notch company and I would expect the B-21 to come off pretty well, so long as the Air Force isn't allowed to eff with the requirements.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.