Where did the "B-21" Designation come from?

[tigercat2]

The new USAF bomber to be built by Northrop, formerly known as the LRSB, I believe, has now been designated the B-21. ????

What happened to B-3 through B-20?


Wes W.

 

[flateric]

The designation B-21 recognizes the LRS-B as the first bomber of the 21st century.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/673784/air-force-reveals-b-21-long-range-strike-bomber.aspx

 

[Jos Heyman]

To me this is further proof that in this day and age of electronic storage a designation is not important, except for public relations matters.

 

[elmayerle]

I contend it's a typo for B-2.1 or B-2B!

 

[Steve Pace]

B-21 means first new bomber of the 21st century - just public relations BS. -SP

 

[sferrin]

B-21 means first new bomber of the 21st century - just public relations BS. -SP

Now you have to change your book.

 

[Nico]

Hi boys:
when USAF announced that the JSF was named the F-35, I thought: "The Pentagon designation system is dead!". In fact, today new types entering service are very scarce and a chronological sequence of numbers is less important. Moreover, the present designation system dates since 1962 and today more than half a century is something like a geological era...
But, other than those philosophic consideration, I guess: there is a possibility that the winner of the LRS-B contest is the Northrop Project N-21? As you now the B-2 was N-14...
In any case I thing that KC-46 will be the last important program with a "normal" designation: in future the Air Force will follow the same criteria of Brasilian and Italian Air Force, with the usual USAF mission symbol but numbers drawn from the manufacturer designations or sheer fantasy.
Nico

 

[fightingirish]

The next trainer for US Forces might be the 'T-100 Master'.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As somebody who cares too much about spreadsheets and organization I for one mourn the death of the 1962 aircraft designation system, I'm fairly certain we can consider conventional ship and submarine naming conventions to be dead in this day and age too.

 

[fightingirish]

Yes, especially now with the LCS-10. :-\

 

[sferrin]

As somebody who cares too much about spreadsheets and organization I for one mourn the death of the 1962 aircraft designation system, I'm fairly certain we can consider conventional ship and submarine naming conventions to be dead in this day and age too.

Almost as bad is the doing away with naming weapons. No more "Sidewinder", "Sparrow", "Falcon", and "Phoenix". Just boring old "AIM-120". L.A.M.E.

 

[Steve Pace]

As somebody who cares too much about spreadsheets and organization I for one mourn the death of the 1962 aircraft designation system, I'm fairly certain we can consider conventional ship and submarine naming conventions to be dead in this day and age too.

Almost as bad is the doing away with naming weapons. No more "Sidewinder", "Sparrow", "Falcon", and "Phoenix". Just boring old "AIM-120". L.A.M.E.

AIM-120 is nicknamed "Slammer." -SP

 

[sferrin]

As somebody who cares too much about spreadsheets and organization I for one mourn the death of the 1962 aircraft designation system, I'm fairly certain we can consider conventional ship and submarine naming conventions to be dead in this day and age too.

Almost as bad is the doing away with naming weapons. No more "Sidewinder", "Sparrow", "Falcon", and "Phoenix". Just boring old "AIM-120". L.A.M.E.

AIM-120 is nicknamed "Slammer." -SP

True but that's just a nickname, like Warthog, BUFF, BONE, Viper, etc. Strange that Coyote managed to get one after so many missiles being skipped. (And some haven't even received a number. THAAD is just "THAAD". Same with GBI, PAC-3, SM-3 Block IIA, etc.)

 

[Clioman]

There was a time -- when so many DoD aircraft programs were in development at the same time -- that a designation "system" had a purpose. Now, when moving a single program from the drawing board to the ramp will consume most of the years in one's career, not so much.

 

[Stargazer]

There was a time -- when so many DoD aircraft programs were in development at the same time -- that a designation "system" had a purpose. Now, when moving a single program from the drawing board to the ramp will consume most of the years in one's career, not so much.

I believe you've got a point here.

As somebody who cares too much about spreadsheets and organization I for one mourn the death of the 1962 aircraft designation system, I'm fairly certain we can consider conventional ship and submarine naming conventions to be dead in this day and age too.

Same here. Being able to organize and rationalize information is a way to make more sense of the world, the sequence of events, and so forth. Not having any logical system anymore sadly reflects the apparent lack of logic, rationality and purpose that is more and more apparent in this world with each passing day... It's also a way of confusing and embezzling. If there is no sequence, no logic, it's much easier to conceal black programs or secret operations.

No more "Sidewinder", "Sparrow", "Falcon", and "Phoenix". Just boring old "AIM-120". L.A.M.E.

Actually that would be quite an acronym for a weapon: Low-Altitude Manned Expendable... or maybe just Ludicrous Acronym Meant to Embezzle...

 

[Grey Havoc]

No more "Sidewinder", "Sparrow", "Falcon", and "Phoenix". Just boring old "AIM-120". L.A.M.E.

Actually that would be quite an acronym for a weapon: Low-Altitude Manned Expendable... or maybe just Ludicrous Acronym Meant to Embezzle...

;D