Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
I wonder how much money was spent redesigning the logo instead of working on the B-21?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the logo change wasn't charged to the B-21 program.
Click to expand...

Let’s hope so, I preferred the old NG logo over the new one, but I suppose that they have to move with the times. And I will probably get to like the new logo with time.
 
I really love this logo. After the OATK acquisition they really needed to do a logo and re-branding that emphasized everything from stealthy aiframes, to advanced rockets and their space and sensor business. Also, there is something about this logo that says Great Power Competition in a way their older design really could't.
 
most of current employees and veterans I know don't like it
 
In_A_Dream said:
FighterJock said:
Let’s hope so, I preferred the old NG logo over the new one, but I suppose that they have to move with the times. And I will probably get to like the new logo with time.
Click to expand...

Definitely wasn't easy to swallow.
Click to expand...

You are right about that In_A_Dream, I was a bit annoyed when I first saw the new logo so it probably showed in my initial post.
 
Let's hope the in house marketing group made the logo. I would hate to think they paid a professional marketing team for that logo. It almost looks like they made it in MS Word and forgot to turn off the formatting marks.

They should have consulted with whomever made Bell's new logo. Now there's an excellent logo that also conveys what they do, in a very cool way.
 
The inlets being further "forward", the shorter aft fuselage. and the cockpit being farther back are just the result of this being an overall smaller vehicle than the B-2, IMHO.
 
A shame it will be so limited. I was hoping for an actual bomber not a modern A-12.
 
sferrin said:
A shame it will be so limited. I was hoping for an actual bomber not a modern A-12.
Click to expand...

The biggest challenge to being fielded in 100-150 strong force is the unit price. They designed something that has a strong chance of being fielded in numbers than the biggest, baddest bomber they could have built. To do the latter would have involved killing some other high profile program which would have also had negative consequences.
 
sferrin said:
A shame it will be so limited. I was hoping for an actual bomber not a modern A-12.
Click to expand...

There's a huge space between the B-2 and the A-12's realistic payload/range figures. I know they claimed 8x2000-lb bombs for the A-12, but that just can't fit in the A-12's actual bays. And even the Avenger's claimed range is way short of the intercontinental range claimed for the B-21.

This aircraft is clearly significantly larger than an A-12 class aircraft. But think B-47, not B-52.
 
bring_it_on said:
The biggest challenge to being fielded in 100-150 strong force is the unit price. They designed something that has a strong chance of being fielded in numbers than the biggest, baddest bomber they could have built. To do the latter would have involved killing some other high profile program which would have also had negative consequences.
Click to expand...

Yes, NG worked this just right :)
 
The fact that it looks so similar to the supposed RQ-180 kind of indicates they may have saved time and money by pulling across lots of experience from that program into development of the B-21.

And you can also see why I think they maybe fielded together.
 
Flyaway said:
The fact that it looks so similar to the supposed RQ-180 kind of indicates they may have saved time and money by pulling across lots of experience from that program into development of the B-21.

And you can also see why I think they maybe fielded together.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Very doubtful there is any relationship to RQ-180; that is a direct descendant of Lockheed Martin's Polecat program which was intended to prove that high capability dirt cheap stealth drones were viable. Didn't really work out and the RQ-180 has arguably been even more of a disappointment.
 
According to AW the RQ-180 is seemingly only just being fielded so perhaps early to declare it a failure?
 
JohnWBjrSiliconValley said:
Research in BWB aircraft indicate ~25% improvement in L/D over tube-and-wing
=> means ~5,000 * 1.25 = ~6,250 miles range is a better estimate (CONUS to near-peer states)
Click to expand...
It's also a high altitude Bomber, where range will be maximized given the optimum choice of engine and inlets.
IMOHO, you can expect U-2 type of cruise altitude.
 
TomcatViP said:
It's also a high altitude Bomber, where range will be maximized given the optimum choice of engine and inlets.
IMOHO, you can expect U-2 type of cruise altitude.
Click to expand...
Not from PW9000 or whatever will she have
 
JohnWBjrSiliconValley said:
Two tires per main landing gear = 4x ~50,000 lbs/tire = ~200,000 lbs takeoff weight
Click to expand...
According to Raymer, two wheels per MLG strut typical for 50-150K lbs MTOW, but can be used for designs up to 250K lbs MTOW
knowing that B-21 should carry at least one MOP, it gives you some idea of payload/mtow combo.
JohnWBjrSiliconValley said:
=> means 737-class airplane (or so) [B-2 with 8x main tires actually uses 767 gear].
Click to expand...
actually, it doesn't
767 MLG components were used for AV-1 to save time and money, production AV use dedicated design
 
Grey Havoc said:
Very doubtful there is any relationship to RQ-180; that is a direct descendant of Lockheed Martin's Polecat program which was intended to prove that high capability dirt cheap stealth drones were viable. Didn't really work out and the RQ-180 has arguably been even more of a disappointment.
Click to expand...

How can something be a failure when it's operational status hasn't been declassified, nor its intended role?
 
In_A_Dream said:
Grey Havoc said:
Very doubtful there is any relationship to RQ-180; that is a direct descendant of Lockheed Martin's Polecat program which was intended to prove that high capability dirt cheap stealth drones were viable. Didn't really work out and the RQ-180 has arguably been even more of a disappointment.
Click to expand...

How can something be a failure when it's operational status hasn't been declassified, nor its intended role?
Click to expand...

Possibly a typo? The RQ-170, being a Lockheed Martin design, could be accurately called a descendent of the Polecat.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Very doubtful there is any relationship to RQ-180; that is a direct descendant of Lockheed Martin's Polecat program which was intended to prove that high capability dirt cheap stealth drones were viable. Didn't really work out and the RQ-180 has arguably been even more of a disappointment.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the RQ-180 is part of the same system of systems that the B-21 is. It's role is to find targets for the B-21s in denied airspace.

I would think that the RQ-180 would at least provide some lessons for the B-21, supposedly it's designed to even higher specifications.
dragonladytoday.com

THE U-2, THE GLOBAL HAWK, AND PENETRATING ISR

The USAF’s draft budget for Fiscal Year 2021 is grinding its way through the Pentagon, and will emerge into the public domain next spring. Once again, the U-2’s future is under scrutiny, despite a …
dragonladytoday.com dragonladytoday.com
 
Just an FYI, if you download the Hi-Res images from the Air Force site, you can see the detail better. Such as the nose gear having two piece NLG doors in tandem. It's the rear NLG door, hiding part of the left main gear in the images.
 
So its basically slightly bigger than an A12 Avenger with bigger engines and more fuel? Wonder if they saved space for a third crew member if ever needed (and room for a sleeping bag).
 
Avenger II was supposed to be in the 80 thousand pound class, mtow wise. B21 is looking like it might be in the 150 to 200 thousand pounds class if we take the artists impressions as accurate.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Possibly a typo? The RQ-170, being a Lockheed Martin design, could be accurately called a descendent of the Polecat.
Click to expand...

Thought we'd started discussing that design for some reason.

D'oh!

Now if you will excuse me, my head has another appointment with a wall...

tenor.gif
 
Will it likely be using two F135 cores with a non-afterburner exhaust?
 
F135 would be practical from a supply chain perspective but I read the PW9000 might use some variable cycling tech specifically for superceding the F100 and the GE F110 series in fighters. Not sure how much benefit there is when the max speed will likely be transonic at best but could provide for very specific IR tailoring (by using more bypass to mask exhaust) along with economy. Powering up the fan for high Mach flight could increase exhaust temp more than what could be practically masked by the bypass though. Just not sure.......

Makes me wonder how GE's Affinity could fit into this but it is a higher diameter engine (harder to stealthify) with much less thrust. Medium bypass though so plenty of colder air for mixing.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom