Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

seruriermarshal said:
The U.S. Air Force released new photos of the B-21 Raider bomber.

View attachment 695090
Click to expand...

Interesting profile to the middle of the wing there. From these photos it looks like we could figure out most of the upper wing surface as well as the front of the lower wing surface... it'll be interesting to see if any renders are created based on more accurate cross-sections as a result?
 
First flight slipped a few months based on their internal targets. Which I suspect means it was supposed to have happened by now but is probably tentatively on for summer.

www.defensenews.com

B-21 first flight running ‘a few months’ behind

The Air Force says the B-21 is still on track for its first flight later this year, and that its internal schedules have been "aggressive."
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Josh_TN said:
Desert Watchdog said:
DLR's Joerg created a page compiling some of "Smythers" theories on the B-21. Curious about what people here think of them.

https://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/b-21_examined.html
Click to expand...

He mentioned ADVENT by GE, but isn’t PW explicitly the company providing engines for B-21? I can’t speak to the rest of it; seems very marginal reasoning to me. However the last image is broken for me…I guess NSA got to it already. :)
Click to expand...

Yes.

My take is that if these patches and coins actually encoded significant classified information about black program aircraft, they would never be allowed to be made or released.
 
TomS said:

Yes.

My take is that if these patches and coins actually encoded significant classified information about black program aircraft, they would never be allowed to be made or released.
Click to expand...

I think the BOP patch, didn't help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomS said:

Yes.

My take is that if these patches and coins actually encoded significant classified information about black program aircraft, they would never be allowed to be made or released.
Click to expand...
There are many patches with such info embedded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hansblix said:
There are many patches witch such info embedded.
Click to expand...

Examples? There are sometimes items that encode Easter eggs, stuff that wasn't really sensitive by the time the patch was made, or only makes sense after the info is released other ways. But putting info in a patch that is not actually public is a security violation.
 
Desert Watchdog said:
DLR's Joerg created a page compiling some of "Smythers" theories on the B-21. Curious about what people here think of them.
Click to expand...
I call it BS, at least on 1/2 of his posts. He tends to upload unintelligible mess like this and expecting everyone to understand what's he talking bout. Since the B-21 rollout on Dec 2 he has nonstop spammed the site (DLR)with the most imaginative beyond absurd ridiculous insane theories i've ever seen that i can't tell if he genuinely believes all of his rambling or is just trolling:

-Every photo released til date of the B-21 is "fake", "photoshopped", "CGI"etc..
-That is just a poorly built plywood mockup, shell, decoy, whatever...
-That the windows on the plane are "fake" or "painted over"
-That the bomber unveiling was all "smoke and mirrors", literally.
-That there is no such thing as a B-21, and it's only an RQ-180 with a windscreen painted over... ...Hoho... ...sure.

 

Attachments

  • smythers.jpg
    smythers.jpg
    527.4 KB · Views: 100

Let’s wait and see for the first flight of the B-21 this year and see what he thinks then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
X-39 said:
Desert Watchdog said:
DLR's Joerg created a page compiling some of "Smythers" theories on the B-21. Curious about what people here think of them.
Click to expand...
I call it BS, at least on 1/2 of his posts. He tends to upload unintelligible mess like this and expecting everyone to understand what's he talking bout. Since the B-21 rollout on Dec 2 he has nonstop spammed the site (DLR)with the most imaginative beyond absurd ridiculous insane theories i've ever seen that i can't tell if he genuinely believes all of his rambling or is just trolling:

-Every photo released til date of the B-21 is "fake", "photoshopped", "CGI"etc..
-That is just a poorly built plywood mockup, shell, decoy, whatever...
-That the windows on the plane are "fake" or "painted over"
-That the bomber unveiling was all "smoke and mirrors", literally.
-That there is no such thing as a B-21, and it's only an RQ-180 with a windscreen painted over... ...Hoho... ...sure.

Click to expand...
I'm in the fence- there's been so many things that he correctly reported/posted about months (like the laser satellite comms etc) before they became common/accepted knowledge.... We'll see. Blown/diffuse blown control surfaces make sense though.
 
The USAF didn’t want a new bomber. They have been quoted as saying they were looking to the near future in regards to Rods from God, hypersonic, orbital tech and DEW. They actively fought the B-21.

That is far more telling than anything speculated here with possibly specs of the B-21. A new bomber is redundant in 2023. A relic.

Not only do we no longer have a need for manned aircraft, the B-21 was an afterthought in regards to what’s to come and what advancements we have made.

While we all sit here and pick apart photos of inlets, the USAF has been hinting for a decade on the fact we are beyond anything that is in the realm of what is considered conventional.

For every step made figuring out truths, we take 10 back with speculation and nothing of substance to back it. The entire time the USAF has been publicly saying they did not want a bomber but more advanced tech without engines and wings.

What is fact is outlined above. It’s public record. But when that is presented or brought up here it’s dismissed as illogical or conspiracy.

On one hand you have the USAF quoted multiple times saying that the B-21 even before production is redundant though current technology.

On the other you have this forum that is clinging to things with wings and engines that is decades behind what they want to admit speaking from what is considered authority.

Indulging in a world with a concept of technology revolving around ATB or ATF that was LITERALLY 40 years ago is insane. 40 years.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Hansblix said:
There are many patches witch such info embedded.
Click to expand...

Stuff that wasn't really sensitive by the time the patch was made, or only makes sense after the info is released other ways. But putting info in a patch that is not actually public is a security violation.
Click to expand...
So sensitive things that only made sense after declassification? But put in prior? Say BoP patch with planeforms but never would have seen the light of day if not for a big internal push to bring public?

Another example:

“We Own the Night," would be mysterious enough. But as Smithsonian points out, a civilian actually used the patch to locate the satellite by deducing that one of the four arrow-shaped vectors (the dark one) was in fact a failed satellite that the NRO was replacing with the sat on NROL-11.“
 
Last edited:
Hagel is Defense Secretary, not USAF. No politician is ever going to admit that they made the wrong decision.

I never believed (and still don't) that the B-21 will be built in large numbers, and I partly agree with Hansblix:
this thing will be outdated by the time it would be operational in large numbers.

A manned subsonic bomber that would have to survive for decades to come?
All it has is stealth. No matter how many gadgets they stuff into it, as soon as it is detected it is a sitting duck. Or flying duck if you prefer.

All this talk about a war with China is also shocking. Apparently the US seems to forget that China is a nuclear power with ICBMs that can hit American cities long before those slow B-21's even reach cruise altitude and speed.
 
Hansblix said:
TomS said:
Hansblix said:
There are many patches witch such info embedded.
Click to expand...

Stuff that wasn't really sensitive by the time the patch was made, or only makes sense after the info is released other ways. But putting info in a patch that is not actually public is a security violation.
Click to expand...
So sensitive things that only made sense after declassification? But put in prior? Say BoP patch with planeforms but never would have seen the light of day if not for a big internal push to bring public?

Another example:

“We Own the Night," would be mysterious enough. But as Smithsonian points out, a civilian actually used the patch to locate the satellite by deducing that one of the four arrow-shaped vectors (the dark one) was in fact a failed satellite that the NRO was replacing with the sat on NROL-11.“
Click to expand...

I think the BoP patch is a terrible example. In hindsight, yes, it shows the shape (sort of). But looking at it contemporaneously, it's actually well obfuscated. You'd get the impression that the BoP has a canard, for starters, and get no indication at all of the dihedral wingtips or that it actually uses edge alignment in any way. b

As for the satellite, that one does seem like a mistake. But possibly the "fact of" that NROL-11 was replacing another satellite was not actually considered classified, only the function of the satellites.

Still, this is OT for the thread so I'll drop it. Possibly you are right, but if so, someone ought to have a word with the security offices for these programs.
 
Dagger said:
Hagel is Defense Secretary, not USAF. No politician is ever going to admit that they made the wrong decision.

I never believed (and still don't) that the B-21 will be built in large numbers, and I partly agree with Hansblix:
this thing will be outdated by the time it would be operational in large numbers.

A manned subsonic bomber that would have to survive for decades to come?
All it has is stealth. No matter how many gadgets they stuff into it, as soon as it is detected it is a sitting duck. Or flying duck if you prefer.

All this talk about a war with China is also shocking. Apparently the US seems to forget that China is a nuclear power with ICBMs that can hit American cities long before those slow B-21's even reach cruise altitude and speed.
Click to expand...
If a nuclear war was launched only for a political purpose that has nothing to do with the survival of the country, our world would have been destroyed many times.Beijing has its ambitions but it's not a lunatic without a strategy.

Nuclear weapons are more in the form of political tactics, such as the North Korean leader making himself look like a nuclear war maniac.

Nukes are most useful when they are on the pad.
 
rainyZzone said:

Nukes are most useful when they are on the pad.
Click to expand...
That also applies to nuclear bombs or cruise missiles carried by the B-21 or B-52 or B-1 or .....
Long range bombers for nuclear weapons are useless against an opponent with ICBMs.

China will not start a war against the US but if the US were stupid enough to attack the Chinese mainland (in response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, or whatever reason) with B-21s or cruise missiles then China could strike back with a couple of ICBMs.

I think the beginning of the end has already started for the B-21:

"In January, Northrop Grumman executives said in an earnings call the company expected the Air Force to award the first production contract for the B-21 later this year.
But at the AFA conference, Kendall and Air Force acquisition chief Andrew Hunter declined to say whether they were planning to award such a contract in 2023, and said the service is focused on the bomber’s first flight." https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/16/b-21-first-flight-running-a-few-months-behind/

I expect that soon the DoD/USAF will decide that the B-21 is to be redesigned as an unmanned bomber to enter service in, say, 2030.
But by then the whole thing will be cancelled.
 
The B-21 is arguably designed with primarily a conventional role in mind. I’m quite certain the USAF desperate wants it and that Congress will fund it, so the only questions are how many and by when. I think the projected production rate is eight aircraft per year at full rate, though NG is making noises about being able to increase that.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
The B-21 is arguably designed with primarily a conventional role in mind. I’m quite certain the USAF desperate wants it and that Congress will find it, so the only questions are how many and by when. I think the projected production rate is eight aircraft per year at full rate, though NG is making noises about being able to increase that.
Click to expand...
USAF didn't want it. Congress and Politicians forced their hand. It comes back to the USAF adopting a new ideology in regards long range strike and wanting to utilize breakthrough technologies vs bombers.
 
Hansblix said:
Josh_TN said:
The B-21 is arguably designed with primarily a conventional role in mind. I’m quite certain the USAF desperate wants it and that Congress will find it, so the only questions are how many and by when. I think the projected production rate is eight aircraft per year at full rate, though NG is making noises about being able to increase that.
Click to expand...
USAF didn't want it. Congress and Politicians forced their hand. It comes back to the USAF adopting a new ideology in regards long range strike and wanting to utilize breakthrough technologies vs bombers.
Click to expand...
With respect saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.
Please provide your sources and evidence for your statements.
 
kaiserd said:
Hansblix said:
Josh_TN said:
The B-21 is arguably designed with primarily a conventional role in mind. I’m quite certain the USAF desperate wants it and that Congress will find it, so the only questions are how many and by when. I think the projected production rate is eight aircraft per year at full rate, though NG is making noises about being able to increase that.
Click to expand...
USAF didn't want it. Congress and Politicians forced their hand. It comes back to the USAF adopting a new ideology in regards long range strike and wanting to utilize breakthrough technologies vs bombers.
Click to expand...
With respect saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.
Please provide your sources and evidence for your statements.
Click to expand...
By far the most comprehensive document on this:

 
Dagger said:
China will not start a war against the US but if the US were stupid enough to attack the Chinese mainland (in response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, or whatever reason) with B-21s or cruise missiles then China could strike back with a couple of ICBMs.
Click to expand...
Same problem when Beijing launches MRBMs (like DF21/26) to America bases in Japan.Obviously China will not give up the opportunity to strike first.
Dagger said:
That also applies to nuclear bombs or cruise missiles carried by the B-21 or B-52 or B-1 or .....
Long range bombers for nuclear weapons are useless against an opponent with ICBMs.
Click to expand...
That’s why it needs to be developed together with hypersonic weapons (without nuclear warheads).

How to avoid war escalation is indeed a complicated issue, and sometimes this requires the tacit understanding of both sides.
 
Hansblix said:
By far the most comprehensive document on this:

Click to expand...
To echo other contributors comments above; my understanding from a quick read is that your views expressed here do not appear to reflect the content or conclusions of this dissertation.
Indeed they are VERY different.
I would also query referencing a dissertation in this context; is it your dissertation?
If not one would suspect you referenced a document long enough that you thought no one would bother to read it to check if it matched up with your comments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kaiserd said:
To echo other contributors comments above; my understanding from a quick read is that your views expressed here do not appear to reflect the content or conclusions of this dissertation.
Indeed they are VERY different.
I would also query referencing a dissertation in this context; is it your dissertation?
If not one would suspect you referenced a document long enough that you thought no one would bother to read it to check if it matched up with your comments.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you read 160 pages in the last hour I posted this.

Im done with this forum. Best of luck.
Mods. Please delete my account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually I had never read the final discussion about the NGB and LRS-B programs before. It is interesting that LRS-B explicitly was to separate some of the deep penetration needs/missions out of the bomber platform but we are unaware of any complementary platform with the B-21, unless one counts the "RQ-180" as an intelligence enabling platform. The implication of the conclusions discussed in the dissertation is that there were to be some off board capabilities to assist the B-21 - were these perhaps ultimately dropped?
 
Hansblix said:
I’m sure you read 160 pages in the last hour I posted this.

Im done with this forum. Best of luck.
Mods. Please delete my account.
Click to expand...
Well, as I'm sure you are not the Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden*, I'm not sure I need to try to convince you to stay. ;)



* Also Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981-1997 and the chief weapons inspector in Iraq as Executive Chairman, UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Committee (UNMOVIC).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom