Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Is that a part of the engine exaust that I see on the side veiw of the B-21? Or am I seeing things.
 
I think the dark patch behind and above the intake is a discoloration or shadow. One thing that did stand out to me is that it looks like there are three flaps on the wing*, but a forth one to the right of those looks to be at a different angle such that it must be tail mounted. That would point to a unified diamond shape tail as in the renderings, though so far we've not confirmed the actual item has that geometry. Also a control surface in that position must be in, above, or most likely directly below the exhaust stream, which is interesting.

*EDIT: we can rule out any active airflow control mechanism or flex wing arrangement; control surfaces seem conventional. Or at least major movements still use conventional control surfaces, even if there is some kind of alternative stealthy mechanism for minor control inputs.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
This side view is really mesmerizing o_O
I really wonder even more today if the tiny cockpit does not retract backward in flight (hence the angled side windows).

I can identify some kind of outlets on the upper side of the aft central body. What are those? Nozzles?
Click to expand...
I'd guess APU exhaust.
 
TomcatViP said:
This side view is really mesmerizing o_O
I really wonder even more today if the tiny cockpit does not retract backward in flight (hence the angled side windows).

I can identify some kind of outlets on the upper side of the aft central body. What are those? Nozzles?
Click to expand...
Rear gunner of course :)

Part of Link 16 or some Satcom? It is side/rear looking above the wing - in the radar shadow of the wings. EW suite in this place doesn’t make sense.
 
Darn the more you see of the B-21 the weirder and smaller it looks. Those cockpit windows are just bizarre.
 
Flyaway said:
Darn the more you see of the B-21 the weirder and smaller it looks. Those cockpit windows are just bizarre.
Click to expand...
The jutting out leading edge reminds me of the Tacit Blue.
USAF-Photo-Front-View-e1666632704684.jpeg
 
The original ATB design had the cockpit placed a bit further back with a 'duckbill' too.

I vaguely remember reading back when Tacit Blue was still fully classified, an insider had compared it to a cartoon character - but that character was secret of course. Now we know it's Donald Duck.
 

Attachments

  • 0226161224b.jpg
    0226161224b.jpg
    547.9 KB · Views: 218
  • Northrop ATB Concept.jpg
    Northrop ATB Concept.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 269
My guess about the windows is that they're the largest the engineers would allow and the smallest the pilots would tolerate, probably because the material is not as stealthy as the coating on the rest of the plane.

Their odd shape is the result of strictly-determined sight lines for very specific purposes passing through angled and curved planes - slice pyramids at an angle and you get trapezoids or rhomboids. The side windows give a view of the inlets and leading edges and the forward ones are for takeoff/landing and refuelling. A high altitude bomber doesn't need any more than that, though probably there's a synthetic vision system also.

I wonder if the AF has thought of recruiting submariners to fly it?
 
Last edited:
Wow, that’s a lot of sensory/camera apertures. Interesting that they are visible in this set but not the original rollout shots.
 
Would speculate that the three sets of four small "squares" are for the quad-redundant air data system ports. That all of these sets are below the leading edge means that a $1 billion lesson was learned from the B-2 "Spirit of Kansas" mishap on Guam.

Note the angle of the air data test boom and probe. In normal flight, that will be flat (horizontal), meaning that the aircraft will cruise in a somewhat nose-high attitude.
 
Rhinocrates said:
My guess about the windows is that they're the largest the engineers would allow and the smallest the pilots would tolerate, probably because the material is not as stealthy as the coating on the rest of the plane.

Their odd shape is the result of strictly-determined sight lines for very specific purposes passing through angled an curved planes - slice pyramids at an angle and you get trapezoids or rhomboids. The side windows give a view of the inlets and leading edges and the forward ones are for takeoff/landing and refuelling. A high altitude bomber doesn't need any more than that, though probably there's a synthetic vision system also.

I wonder if the AF has thought of recruiting submariners to fly it?
Click to expand...

The side windows are designed for the views the crew requires for A2A refueling. The forward view is most likely optimized for take-off and landing. Most of their mission they're probably flying on instruments anyway.
 
aim9xray said:
Would speculate that the three sets of four small "squares" are for the quad-redundant air data system ports. That all of these sets are below the leading edge means that a $1 billion lesson was learned from the B-2 "Spirit of Kansas" mishap on Guam.
Click to expand...
In fact top sets are present too - visible in front of windshields on heated metallic plates just like on B-2.
 
I find it very interesting that so far each photo is taken at such an angle that it's impossible to see just how that knick in the upper inlet lip works.
 
Good to see that engine test runs have started on the prototype B-21. The B-21 loooks as if it is going to be ready for it's first flight at the end of the year.
 
Rhinocrates said:
My guess about the windows is that they're the largest the engineers would allow and the smallest the pilots would tolerate.
Click to expand...
There are mil specs I guess that determine minimums for pilot FoVs that still may have been adapted for advanced designs (I wonder how process did look for XF-103 or X-59A). Also minimizing tranparencies area saves _a lot_ of weight.
 
Last edited:
Cancerman said:
Those of us around the B2 remember the trailing cone system used for calibration during the early flight test program on AV-1. Once the flush port system is calibrated, the boom pitot will go away.
Click to expand...
The air data ports are spread farther apart also as compared to B-2. The flight test boom is in an interesting location. Behind the outlined escape hatches you can see the painted pattern for the aerial refueling receptacle. You know Cancerman, I'm still not thrilled with the dual NLG doors, hopefully they do not get into any out sequence conditions. When I was at the CTF for B-2, I am one of only a few engineers who never dropped the NLG on the wheel door during special ground gear configurations for testing. Looks to have the same number of flight surfaces as the B-2 but they would not need the GLAS surface. The aircraft may not have split rudders like the B-2, they may just split the outboard elevons for yaw control since there is no low altitude requirement.

Really glad they are moving forward, maybe we'll see some taxi test videos and then first flight. Also, can't beat the shaping: original B-2 planform, our ATA and now B-21, don't mess with success.
 
Hydroman said:
The air data ports are spread farther apart also as compared to B-2. The flight test boom is in an interesting location. Behind the outlined escape hatches you can see the painted pattern for the aerial refueling receptacle. You know Cancerman, I'm still not thrilled with the dual NLG doors, hopefully they do not get into any out sequence conditions. When I was at the CTF for B-2, I am one of only a few engineers who never dropped the NLG on the wheel door during special ground gear configurations for testing. Looks to have the same number of flight surfaces as the B-2 but they would not need the GLAS surface. The aircraft may not have split rudders like the B-2, they may just split the outboard elevons for yaw control since there is no low altitude requirement.

Really glad they are moving forward, maybe we'll see some taxi test videos and then first flight. Also, can't beat the shaping: original B-2 planform, our ATA and now B-21, don't mess with success.
Click to expand...
The port position was determined by the data collected during wind tunnel testing. The outer skin shape effects pressure at different angles of attack and beta positions. I sure that the dual NGD is the compromise of the forward position and the shape and contour of the lower nose area and it's structure underneath. Looks overly complex but maybe that was the trade off. Yeah the GLAS panel was just that, a Gust Load Alleviation Panel. I'm sure that when the ship (B21) is at low level / pattern / approach altitude, it won't be over 250 Knots. The split rudder does several things, provides Yaw control, used as speed brake, glide path control, and at pattern speeds below 250 Knots, increases the response and effectivness of the rudder itself, thats why you always see them extended until it's around .6 mach or higher. When you hit the "Go to war"configuration, so to speak, they fully retract to reduce RCS as well as the pop up antennas, Aux doors, etc. All surfaces can be commanded to provide whatever it takes to get the airplane to do what it's commanded to. Most people have no idea just what the B2 can do flight wise. The planform is basically the result of RCS vs aerodynamics. The math and it's compromises are why the NG stealth planes looks the way they do, good or bad! Why mess with success, right? Still would have loved to see our ATA in the air. The RQ-180 also is a result of this, as well as the X-47. The cranked arrow was mission driven as well.
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

B-21 Still on Track for First Flight This Year. But Are There Enough in the Pipeline?

The B-21 program may only build 10 aircraft per year, and that's not enough for a high-end air campaign, a leading bomber expert said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
“Carrier air wings will have to stay too far away from China because of long-range ballistic missiles, Gunzinger said. “So we need our bomber force now more than ever.”

At 141 aircraft, today’s bomber fleet is smaller than at almost any time in USAF history. “We’re sized for the wars of the past and not the operating environment we’re in today,” Gunzinger said.

Various analysts peg a mixed fleet of 300 B-21s and B-52s as the minimum needed to carry out such an air campaign, but the Air Force doesn’t have the resources to do that because, for 31 years, it has received less funding than the Army or Navy.

A suggestion from former Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein that the Air Force move toward 225 bombers is a “step in the right direction,” Gunzinger said.

“We need to grow the size of our bomber force as quickly as possible, he argued. “And that means the acquisition rate of the B-21 should be maximized.”
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the dark patch behind and above the intake is a discoloration or shadow. One thing that did stand out to me is that it looks like there are three flaps on the wing*, but a forth one to the right of those looks to be at a different angle such that it must be tail mounted. That would point to a unified diamond shape tail as in the renderings, though so far we've not confirmed the actual item has that geometry. Also a control surface in that position must be in, above, or most likely directly below the exhaust stream, which is interesting.

*EDIT: we can rule out any active airflow control mechanism or flex wing arrangement; control surfaces seem conventional. Or at least major movements still use conventional control surfaces, even if there is some kind of alternative stealthy mechanism for minor control inputs.
Click to expand...
There are 3 outboard surfaces, two of which are elevons, most outboard is a combination split rudder/elevon, and the inboard is a elevon, just outside of the exhaust trough. Nothing too sneaky.
 
Cancerman said:
There are 3 outboard surfaces, two of which are elevons, most outboard is a combination split rudder/elevon, and the inboard is a elevon, just outside of the exhaust trough. Nothing too sneaky.
Click to expand...
CM, you are probably right, like the B-2, inboard, mid, outboard elevons and upper/lower rudders but no GLAS surface. For keeping costs down (related to my area of subsystems, primarily hydro and actuation, I assume like the B-2, distributed hydraulic systems (maintaining the 4000 psi system, could be 5000 psi for some weight savings) and Moog flight control actuators, I don't think its using EHAs, they are extreme electrical power hogs. Weapons bay door drive system is probably Moog as well. The F-22 uses Curtiss-Wright drive systems (main and side bays). ECS could be vapor cycle (more efficient) instead of bleed air and all avionics/radar are liquid cooled, more than likely PAO.
 
New pic:

news.northropgrumman.com

AFA Recap on B-21 Raider Program and Progress

At last week’s Air and Space Forces Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference, Air Force and DoD leadership discussed the B-21 program in terms of effective program management, production readiness and early integration of sustainment elements as...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com

IMG_8574.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom