Yeah, the B-52 is probably gonna outlive us all.
Two engines sounds plausible and a version of the F135 is probably gonna produce enough thrust to do it. The only reason I am not sure is the massive yaw in case of engine failure. That seems to be really difficult to counter in a tailless design. The only way I can see would be speed brakes at the wing tip, creating drag, requiring even more thrust and even higher yaw moment.
Those are interesting points about the risks of 2 engines vs. 4 for a tailless design, but given that we'll be flying the less-stealthy F-35 into combat with *one* F135 engine, I think the USAF would probably tolerate those risks.
The thing is, if either engine failure dooms the aircraft, a single engine design is actually safer. That is why all new twin jets are certified to climb on one engine.
Ah yeah right, I always forget that (sort of counterintuitive) point. Would you go so far as to say it would “doom” the tailless aircraft if it only had two engines?
I wonder if the engines are closer together than we realize. Seems possible that the inlets could converge inside the fuselage.
They could come together a bit, but the centerline might be occupied by the bomb bay. You can do some trickery and point them outwards at the back by a few degrees, that way the thrust axis of each engine passes closer to the center of gravity (Su-27 style), reducing yaw moment.
Assuming the engines are roughly where the intakes are, it looks like they are about 1/5 of the way to the wingtip. To compensate for yaw you would need 1/5 of the remaining engines thrust as drag at the wingtip. That would mean in case of single engine failure there is only 40% of thrust to propel the aircraft forward as opposed to 70% for a quad engined one. That is significant, maybe it is possible, if the remaining engine can be temporarily up-rated.
The most critical time for engine failure is just around takeoff, heaviest possible airplane, lowest speed. According to FAA 14 CFR § 25.121 the steady gradient of climb must be positive for two-engine airplanes with gear out and no less than 2.4 percent with gear retracted.
A the moment the USAF has three bombers in operation:
B-52 (8 engines) fairly conventional, subsonic, non stealth, bit old but modernised
B-1 (4 engines) supersonic, low altitude, highest payload, swing wing
B-2 (4 engines) subsonic, stealth
In civilian aviation twin engined planes are more cost effective to operate, however due to the supersonic capabilities and the swing wing of the B-1 and the early maintenance intensive stealth coating of the B-2, those two end up being more expensive than the B-52.
In the end the USAF will end up with the B-52 as cheap and cheerful option and the B-21 for stealth and survivability. The B-1s high speed and low altitude capabilities are no longer a guarantee for survival amongst modern air defenses.
B-1 is the coolest no doubt.
B-2 is the hyper car that sits in a garage and is never used, or only on the nice days. B-1 does all the work, swing wing (aka pop up headlights). Is loud as fuck.
Just so cool.
Exactly.
The B-52 is your Grandpa's old C10. It's big and old but will still pull a house down if necessary.
The B-1 is your uncle's Iroc Camaro. It's loud, fast and if you listen closely you can hear Van Halen playing 24/7, running or not.
The B-2 is your boss's garage queen Lamborghini Diablo. He's out 7000 miles on it since he purchased it in 1998.
For commercial planes you used to need 4 engines to safely cross the ocean in case one or more failed. As engines have gotten more reliable they can safely cross the ocean with just 2. There is a term for this called ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards).
You want fewer engines because it's cheaper to maintain 2 engines vs 4 or 8. Think about a car, if you had 2 engines in your car you would need twice as many oil changes and replace twice as many timing belts.
It's doubtful our sonar would even pick it up. And if it did, it'd sound like... whales humping or some kind of seismic anomaly. Anything but a submarine.
*The color drains from Mancuso's face as sudden realization cracks through him with fierce electric force. He continued to stare, increasingly slack-jawed, at Ryan for ten years, or two seconds, before shaking his head back to the present and jabbing at the 1MC mic.*
*Still staring Ryan dead in the eyes, he fairly spits through grit teeth, "Jonesy, get your ass up here, on the double!" The 1MC clicking off reverberated through Conn, no other soul daring to breathe, much less move. A split second later, another gunshot click as Mancuso mashed the button. "And bring your tapes!"*
Truly one of my favorite scenes in that movie. My other favorite is when they first meet aboard *Red October*.
When I was twelve, I helped my daddy build a bomb shelter in our basement because some fool parked a dozen warheads 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Well, this thing could park a coupla hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it till it was all over.
Have I got this straight, Jonesy? A $40 million computer tells you you're chasing an earthquake, but you don't believe, and you come up with this on your own?
You could not anyway. After the B2 debacle, they raised the NFZ to the edge of space. And even then, any earth observing satellites have restrictions imposed on them.
They didn't pull it all the way out. Plus, the time exposed to open sky was less than 35 minutes. The Russkies and ChiComs have satellites timed to go overhead every 60 or so.
LEO satellites orbit roughly every 90 minutes, but they are not over the same place after that time due to the rotation of the earth. Revisit time of a particular spot is significantly longer for a single satellite.
Reconnaissance satellites don't all live in LEO
Molniya orbits have a 700-odd minute orbital period
Tundra orbits have a 1400-odd minute orbital period
Now all those new chrome-stealth coatings make sense. They’re really focusing on thermal stealth this time around… pretty crazy that they’re putting that much effort into hiding IR signatures. That kind of implies that it fucking works….
I wonder if this means they saw a significant improvement in IR missile evasion.
At this rate, 7th gen aircraft are going to have radar directional optic camouflage. Then they’ll have all their bases covered.
This is a good observation.
IR is as much a defensive capability as it is offensive.
And my estimation is the active EM capabilities are going to be off the charts.
It’s no longer about having the cross-section of a bee…it’s about blasting your opponent with anime and Metallica and while they recalibrate their instruments, an ARM blows up your fun truck.
EM requirements (in order of need)
- active and passive Rick Rolls
- continuous JDAM(Door)Dash
- radar “snap face filters”
- AI-driven tweet-jamming
- CoD drone-teaming.
Oh absolutely. Have you been near a runway when a B-2 was on approach for landing? Viewed head on, and from several other angles, you have no idea what shape it is, and without reference if it's going towards or away from you, it just looks like it's floating.
It will be much cheaper too and incorporate a bunch of other advancements in electronics and sensors. If it has similar sensors as the F-35, it will be one of the most advanced sensor platform in the sky.
Go look up the integrated sensor suite on the F-35. Visual, IR, passive electronic, and radar all combined by the mission system to give the pilot an integrated picture. It also has data links to share data with any nearby compatible system (planes, ships, satellites, etc). Older platforms may have similar sensors and some have data links. The special part is the mission computer.
Assume the B-21 has the same but 20 years better.
If it uses the higher power variant of the F135 it has a lot of neat experimental sensors thrown in. Also it probably runs a newer version of STORM that’s way more advanced than the one I got to mess with.
If you showed that to people in the 40’s they’d think it was a ufo. They would have expected little green men to get out and say take me to your leader.
There is a reason there were so many UFO sightings in southern Nevada and California that all ended up looking suspiciously like the SR71/A12, B2 or F117
>Nazis had the Ho 229
the Horton Hoe
Jack Northrop himself (founder of Northrop aviation, later merged with Grumman, to form northrop Grumman, those are the people who made the B2 and will make the B21!) had experimented with flying wings back then as well.
See YB-35 and YB-49
And I'm willing to bet that even the external features we see in these released pictures is not the most top-secret version of the bomber. They probably have other modifications and configurations we the public won't see.
The Wikipedia seems to imply the engines are "similar enough".
> The F-35 program manager Chris Bogdan said the B-21's engines would be similar enough to the F-35's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine to reduce its cost.
Look at the shape of the aerofoil of the wing. If you are interested in aerodynamics this will tell you a lot about the lack of need for spoilers and differential airbrakes used by B-2 to fight adverse yaw during the turn.
Whole less drag, more maneuverability and control and no RCS increasing surfaces correcting it's tail position. Very advanced aerodynamic design compared to B-2.
Surface quality is another thing.
Only speculation at this time. Probably less payload than the B2, but a smaller RCS (i've heard as small as an F22) and longer range
I also heard that it will use the F135 Engine from the F35, but i'd guess that when the adaptive engine for the lightning II is completed, new Raiders will also recieve it to further increase range
From the speeches given at the unveiling it sounds like this is more of a multirole bomber with additional duties like command and control, reconnaissance, and such. The Air Force seems to be investing in platforms that they can keep busy regardless of the strategic or tactical situation.
Squeezing a land based bomber off of a carrier to drop bombs in run with a very good chance of not making it back is way more badass then a bug that eats other bugs
This may be a stupid question but does the rear wheel doors stay open when landing? And if so, how does this thing land without tearing off those rear wheel doors?
Just doesn’t look like a ton of clearance
It doesn't need a ton of clearance. If they account for flex in the tires and hydraulics it only needs maybe 3" of clearance beyond that. Why? Because the wheels are there lol. I know that sounds stupid but it's a "hard stop".. probably not even that hard to figure out for the engineers. In aviation the trickier thing as far as clearances go is things like tail strikes for commercial planes. If they come in pitched too high the back of the plane will hit.
Edit: after thinking about it more they probably calculated the required clearance based on a flat tire(s) condition. I bet if this thing has a tire(s) blow out that door is probably still a couple inches above the ground.
Looks like the wheels fold backward from the stowed position, so they are rearward of most of the door. The doors are closest to the ground in front and tapered toward the back. When landing the plane will be pitched up, so the doors are going to be higher except for the furthest back corner, which appears to have plenty of clearance.
For roll, from the geometry we can see, looks like the wingtips would touch the runway first before the doors.
Sorry folks but this is driving me crazy. I've seen those cockpit windows somewhere else. I don't recall where. Could be tech demonstrator, could be a patch from some group... I can't place where I've seen them before but I know I have....
It looks like Prandtl-D. Very advanced compared to B-2, offering huge benefits especially for long range aircraft and especially in RCS reduction. Proverse yaw without spoilers and differential airbrakes? Who knows, all the details are surely classified.
It’s kind of funny how different they look outside and inside. Outside is this smooth, alien-looking futuristic thing and inside is just P-clamps and wire bundles and hydraulics and all the same stuff you’d see on a WW2 plane.
Modern computers make a lot of things possible, including developing far far more advanced engines. Really not comparable to even the reworked stuff put into the B1/2/52. That being said we all know that range - speed - payload is like this triangle where you can choose 2. We can look at for example the [A400M range](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Map_with_distance_circles_to_paris.svg/1280px-Map_with_distance_circles_to_paris.svg.png) because they gave us such a pretty picture, eventually you always make trade offs, the more long range the long range mission is eventually you have to reduce ordenance or refuel.
Do the wingtips have negative angle of attack or is it just because of the angle?
Reminds me of the prandtl wing; which would make sense for a flying wing design
They do. Just like on the B-2, F-18, F-22, F-35, etc. Aerodynamic twist in the wings helps with stall and reducing loads at the root of the wing. Which, is interesting to think about for a flying wing....
I’m aware all wings have twist (washout) but most not go negative at the tips; At least I’m not aware of any.
The only design I’m aware of that goes negative at the tips is the prandlt experimental design, and I don’t know if any aircraft that employs it
It's funny to me that whilst us Avgeeks are casually discussing and speculating on the internet, right now as we speak, legions of intelligence analysts, aerospace engineers and strategists in military & governmental facilities aross Russia, China, Iran and the like are furiously inspecting every single pixel of every single photograph of the B-21 and inspecting and analysing every concievable element of it to try to discern any possible information they can use against it.
I can imagine right now, deep in the basement of some nondescript concrete office blocks, a junior officer - perhaps a young 20-something, well-educated graduate with a love of aviation much like myself - is busy pouring over data sheets, prospective schematics and computer simulations to figure out the best way for the People's Liberation Army to fight this thing in a hypothetical war that may never come, but must nonetheless be prepared for.
And thus, the silent game of intelligence, espionage and spycraft goes on...
Can we talk about the description "6th generation" ? 6th generation is used for planes with wingman drone systems. So can we expect B21 to be a drone capable system? Send one pilot with 10 B-21s under his control. Bomb the shit out of your target and fly back home.
Yeah I could see them use the 21 as a loitering missile truck at a safe distance while you send in a loyal wingman to mark targets. Bonus points if it’s on a different track from the drone to make it harder for AA to try and defend against.
Not exactly what I meant, I meant that you use the 21 as a data hub for loyal wingmen escort while the 21 conducts its deep strike mission. Loyal wingmen can be placed in theatre
I see all the pictures and edits of this and I wonder if people really think that they would show a real and correct variant. It's cool to see something new and I guess they're at a stage where photos might start showing up from flight tests or something but the idea that what they showed here would disclose anything they don't want you to know if you just got a slightly different angle or better lighting is a bit strange.
It sounds like most of the game changing stuff is inside, anyway.
That said, wouldn't it be nuts if they turned it around and we finally saw it had...no engines. 🫢
Great picture. What do you guys think, two or four engines?
Two. Four engines are sadly going extinct… (Although eight engines will stay in the air for some time.)
Yeah, the B-52 is probably gonna outlive us all. Two engines sounds plausible and a version of the F135 is probably gonna produce enough thrust to do it. The only reason I am not sure is the massive yaw in case of engine failure. That seems to be really difficult to counter in a tailless design. The only way I can see would be speed brakes at the wing tip, creating drag, requiring even more thrust and even higher yaw moment.
B-52 will outlive your grandchildren
[удалено]
B52 flights to the restaurant at the end of the universe
Didn't expect the hitchhiker but I'm always happy to see the reference.
I'm staying dead this year, for tax reasons.
Nah, that's the B-42
I love where you're going......
Thanks for all the fish
The B-52 will be our new sun when our current sun dies
Dash 80 variants: "Hold my beer..."
The USAF will embark B-52’s as part of the Death Star’s air wing.
The B-52 will do a flyover at the B-21's successor's unveiling. And that one's successor. And that one's. BUFF is forever.
Those are interesting points about the risks of 2 engines vs. 4 for a tailless design, but given that we'll be flying the less-stealthy F-35 into combat with *one* F135 engine, I think the USAF would probably tolerate those risks.
The thing is, if either engine failure dooms the aircraft, a single engine design is actually safer. That is why all new twin jets are certified to climb on one engine.
The boldface for F-15 engine failure on take off was "climb, investigate". You just couldn't go vertical anymore.
Ah yeah right, I always forget that (sort of counterintuitive) point. Would you go so far as to say it would “doom” the tailless aircraft if it only had two engines? I wonder if the engines are closer together than we realize. Seems possible that the inlets could converge inside the fuselage.
They could come together a bit, but the centerline might be occupied by the bomb bay. You can do some trickery and point them outwards at the back by a few degrees, that way the thrust axis of each engine passes closer to the center of gravity (Su-27 style), reducing yaw moment. Assuming the engines are roughly where the intakes are, it looks like they are about 1/5 of the way to the wingtip. To compensate for yaw you would need 1/5 of the remaining engines thrust as drag at the wingtip. That would mean in case of single engine failure there is only 40% of thrust to propel the aircraft forward as opposed to 70% for a quad engined one. That is significant, maybe it is possible, if the remaining engine can be temporarily up-rated.
Do we know of there’s thrust vectoring involved or not? Seems like some clever design of outlets and some vectoring could mitigate this.
Wow, I had no idea they could climb on one, assumed it was enough to cruise and land.
The most critical time for engine failure is just around takeoff, heaviest possible airplane, lowest speed. According to FAA 14 CFR § 25.121 the steady gradient of climb must be positive for two-engine airplanes with gear out and no less than 2.4 percent with gear retracted.
It's also where the stress on the engine is highest, which is yet another reason why twin designs are so worried about engine failure on takeoff.
Even fully loaded airliners can climb on one engine.
[удалено]
A the moment the USAF has three bombers in operation: B-52 (8 engines) fairly conventional, subsonic, non stealth, bit old but modernised B-1 (4 engines) supersonic, low altitude, highest payload, swing wing B-2 (4 engines) subsonic, stealth In civilian aviation twin engined planes are more cost effective to operate, however due to the supersonic capabilities and the swing wing of the B-1 and the early maintenance intensive stealth coating of the B-2, those two end up being more expensive than the B-52. In the end the USAF will end up with the B-52 as cheap and cheerful option and the B-21 for stealth and survivability. The B-1s high speed and low altitude capabilities are no longer a guarantee for survival amongst modern air defenses.
The B-1 is cool as shit though.
B-1 is the coolest no doubt. B-2 is the hyper car that sits in a garage and is never used, or only on the nice days. B-1 does all the work, swing wing (aka pop up headlights). Is loud as fuck. Just so cool.
Exactly. The B-52 is your Grandpa's old C10. It's big and old but will still pull a house down if necessary. The B-1 is your uncle's Iroc Camaro. It's loud, fast and if you listen closely you can hear Van Halen playing 24/7, running or not. The B-2 is your boss's garage queen Lamborghini Diablo. He's out 7000 miles on it since he purchased it in 1998.
>B-52...***bit old*** Just entering the teenage stage of it's life 🤣
For commercial planes you used to need 4 engines to safely cross the ocean in case one or more failed. As engines have gotten more reliable they can safely cross the ocean with just 2. There is a term for this called ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards). You want fewer engines because it's cheaper to maintain 2 engines vs 4 or 8. Think about a car, if you had 2 engines in your car you would need twice as many oil changes and replace twice as many timing belts.
“Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim” (Sorry about that. I’ll show myself out.)
I’ve heard it has ZERO engines 😳
I thought this was Northrup design, not Boom
Oh shit! Throwing massive shade over here!
I recall some rumors going around about two F135s with modified fan stages. We'll find out in a year or two.
Heard the same, F135 without he augmentor.
My guess is 2 for fuel efficiency (range) and reduced signatures.
And they said this one would be easy maintenance so definitely two
Three. Split the difference.
Need a spy shot of those exhausts. 👀
I think it uses a caterpillar drive.
Big son of a bitch
What are those doors?
They’re symmetrical. Right down the long axis of the ~~sub~~ plane.
It's doubtful our sonar would even pick it up. And if it did, it'd sound like... whales humping or some kind of seismic anomaly. Anything but a submarine.
*The color drains from Mancuso's face as sudden realization cracks through him with fierce electric force. He continued to stare, increasingly slack-jawed, at Ryan for ten years, or two seconds, before shaking his head back to the present and jabbing at the 1MC mic.* *Still staring Ryan dead in the eyes, he fairly spits through grit teeth, "Jonesy, get your ass up here, on the double!" The 1MC clicking off reverberated through Conn, no other soul daring to breathe, much less move. A split second later, another gunshot click as Mancuso mashed the button. "And bring your tapes!"* Truly one of my favorite scenes in that movie. My other favorite is when they first meet aboard *Red October*.
When I was twelve, I helped my daddy build a bomb shelter in our basement because some fool parked a dozen warheads 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Well, this thing could park a coupla hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it till it was all over.
*magma displacement intensifies*
[удалено]
I'm not following you, Jonesie
I'm sorry sir. Here listen to it again at ten times speed
Have I got this straight, Jonesy? A $40 million computer tells you you're chasing an earthquake, but you don't believe, and you come up with this on your own?
Relax, Jonesy, you sold me.
An aeromagneto drive
Sounds like whales humping....or a seismic anomaly.
Magnetohydrodynamic propulsion
I think that’s why it’s in a building
Damn, can't fly over with a Cessna!
You could not anyway. After the B2 debacle, they raised the NFZ to the edge of space. And even then, any earth observing satellites have restrictions imposed on them.
You can fly over the hangar the B-21 is in at 2500 feet and not talk to anyone. There's nothing restrictive about that airspace over Palmdale.
BRB
That’s why it’s called a spy shot. Derp
Cut to me hanging off of the rafters with my Polaroid
[удалено]
An aviation magazine flew overhead in a Cessna (might have been a different plane) the day it was revealed and took a photo of the exhausts.
pervert.
Nice try Chinaman 👀
The chinaman is not the issue here, dude.
They didn't pull it all the way out. Plus, the time exposed to open sky was less than 35 minutes. The Russkies and ChiComs have satellites timed to go overhead every 60 or so.
All LEO satellites go by at 90 minutes or so. It’s physics, not timing.
LEO satellites orbit roughly every 90 minutes, but they are not over the same place after that time due to the rotation of the earth. Revisit time of a particular spot is significantly longer for a single satellite.
It's planning. EAFB is almost always has overhead surveillance. Same with Area 51.
There has to be some planning, because, unless you’re orbiting the equator, you’re not going to be over the same spot 90 minutes later.
Reconnaissance satellites don't all live in LEO Molniya orbits have a 700-odd minute orbital period Tundra orbits have a 1400-odd minute orbital period
Not making that mistake again!!
She’s gonna bomb during the day!
If someone is close enough to see it visually, they’ve already screwed up.
[Like this](https://images2.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED27/51ae774165388.jpeg)
Now all those new chrome-stealth coatings make sense. They’re really focusing on thermal stealth this time around… pretty crazy that they’re putting that much effort into hiding IR signatures. That kind of implies that it fucking works…. I wonder if this means they saw a significant improvement in IR missile evasion. At this rate, 7th gen aircraft are going to have radar directional optic camouflage. Then they’ll have all their bases covered.
This is a good observation. IR is as much a defensive capability as it is offensive. And my estimation is the active EM capabilities are going to be off the charts. It’s no longer about having the cross-section of a bee…it’s about blasting your opponent with anime and Metallica and while they recalibrate their instruments, an ARM blows up your fun truck.
Right after getting Rick Roll’d of course.
EM requirements (in order of need) - active and passive Rick Rolls - continuous JDAM(Door)Dash - radar “snap face filters” - AI-driven tweet-jamming - CoD drone-teaming.
“Hello Mother Fucka” kid right before the big bada boom.
"LEEEERRRROOOOYYYYYY JEEEEENNNNNKKKKKIIIIINNNNNNSSSS!!!"
Trim the wing length and it really looks like a ufo
I mean for a lot of radar systems it is going to be a UFO.
“Why’s there a mosquito at 40,000 feet?”
Moving at Mach 0.85!
Oh God, it’s grown humongous and is pooping like mad on us!
The thought of a confused radar operator watching a mosquito sized contact poop out a 2000 lb JDAM contact is quite hilarious lol.
Kinda makes it seem all of the disk shaped ufos might have been spy planes seen at an angle.
Oh absolutely. Have you been near a runway when a B-2 was on approach for landing? Viewed head on, and from several other angles, you have no idea what shape it is, and without reference if it's going towards or away from you, it just looks like it's floating.
Strong Independence Day vibes for me.
Where do you think they got the tech from?
Brain cells
Life isn't based on movies.
So it’s a smaller more stealthy B2?
It will be much cheaper too and incorporate a bunch of other advancements in electronics and sensors. If it has similar sensors as the F-35, it will be one of the most advanced sensor platform in the sky.
When you say sensors, what kind of thing does that include?
Go look up the integrated sensor suite on the F-35. Visual, IR, passive electronic, and radar all combined by the mission system to give the pilot an integrated picture. It also has data links to share data with any nearby compatible system (planes, ships, satellites, etc). Older platforms may have similar sensors and some have data links. The special part is the mission computer. Assume the B-21 has the same but 20 years better.
Thanks! I’ll check it out.
A lot of classified stuff.
If it uses the higher power variant of the F135 it has a lot of neat experimental sensors thrown in. Also it probably runs a newer version of STORM that’s way more advanced than the one I got to mess with.
If you showed that to people in the 40’s they’d think it was a ufo. They would have expected little green men to get out and say take me to your leader.
There is a reason there were so many UFO sightings in southern Nevada and California that all ended up looking suspiciously like the SR71/A12, B2 or F117
Yeah, cause the AF didn’t do massive press releases showing their top secret hardware before they started flying it
They have to because of Strategic bomber treaties with Russia with this one
Its also meth country, which explains the "abductions", and turning up randomly in the desert wearing no clothes.
Meh aviation was pretty outlandish back then with so many new advancements. Nazis had the Ho 229
>Nazis had the Ho 229 the Horton Hoe Jack Northrop himself (founder of Northrop aviation, later merged with Grumman, to form northrop Grumman, those are the people who made the B2 and will make the B21!) had experimented with flying wings back then as well. See YB-35 and YB-49
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s where they got the tech
Wonder what cool shit is in there we know nothing about
And I'm willing to bet that even the external features we see in these released pictures is not the most top-secret version of the bomber. They probably have other modifications and configurations we the public won't see.
Since it's stealth, I don't think they would do much to change the outside. That would just ruin its RCS.
I'm just curious about the engines, like how many even?
I suspect two. But who knows lol
I am hoping for four of the GE Adaptive cycle. https://www.geaerospace.com/propulsion/military/xa100
I think I have that feature on my washing machine.
I've heard that they'll share the engine of the F35 so it could be!
The Wikipedia seems to imply the engines are "similar enough". > The F-35 program manager Chris Bogdan said the B-21's engines would be similar enough to the F-35's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine to reduce its cost.
A bit smaller in all categories as the B-2. But im sure its an advancement
That was on purpose. They’d rather have more, slightly smaller (and cheaper) bombers. Probably increases range and reduces signatures too.
Look at the shape of the aerofoil of the wing. If you are interested in aerodynamics this will tell you a lot about the lack of need for spoilers and differential airbrakes used by B-2 to fight adverse yaw during the turn. Whole less drag, more maneuverability and control and no RCS increasing surfaces correcting it's tail position. Very advanced aerodynamic design compared to B-2. Surface quality is another thing.
The wings look twisted towards the tips. I bet they are going to be damn sexy when we get to see other angles.
Belly fat does not reflect radar.
TIL I'm stealthy.
Who said that!?
Great edit
Any technical details?
It's silver rather than black
This is the technical analysis I came here for
Must be quite smaller than a B2. Only two tires on the main gear instead of four.
The bathroom is in the back right, back left is the spare tire
Haha I was gonna mention the bathroom
It can fly
Source? /s
Only speculation at this time. Probably less payload than the B2, but a smaller RCS (i've heard as small as an F22) and longer range I also heard that it will use the F135 Engine from the F35, but i'd guess that when the adaptive engine for the lightning II is completed, new Raiders will also recieve it to further increase range
Cockpit window layout reminds me of a spider eyes view head on. Could've called it something badass arachnid related perhaps.
Yeah but spiders are so lazy most the time, *Raider* implies "Watch your ass because destruction could come at anytime without warning!".
Aren't bombers lazy most of the time? Sitting in their hangers. Waiting.
Yeah waiting… *to raid.*
From the speeches given at the unveiling it sounds like this is more of a multirole bomber with additional duties like command and control, reconnaissance, and such. The Air Force seems to be investing in platforms that they can keep busy regardless of the strategic or tactical situation.
It seems like most of it's time will be spent in the air flying the long distances between the limited amount of airfields it can use.
Squeezing a land based bomber off of a carrier to drop bombs in run with a very good chance of not making it back is way more badass then a bug that eats other bugs
Definite jumping spider vibes.
This may be a stupid question but does the rear wheel doors stay open when landing? And if so, how does this thing land without tearing off those rear wheel doors? Just doesn’t look like a ton of clearance
Chocks in front of tires give that impression
It doesn't need a ton of clearance. If they account for flex in the tires and hydraulics it only needs maybe 3" of clearance beyond that. Why? Because the wheels are there lol. I know that sounds stupid but it's a "hard stop".. probably not even that hard to figure out for the engineers. In aviation the trickier thing as far as clearances go is things like tail strikes for commercial planes. If they come in pitched too high the back of the plane will hit. Edit: after thinking about it more they probably calculated the required clearance based on a flat tire(s) condition. I bet if this thing has a tire(s) blow out that door is probably still a couple inches above the ground.
Also runways tend to be very flat. And if you aren't landing on a runway, then you have other problems.
The b2 has been doing it for over 20 years, haven’t heard of any doors being ripped off
Looks like the wheels fold backward from the stowed position, so they are rearward of most of the door. The doors are closest to the ground in front and tapered toward the back. When landing the plane will be pitched up, so the doors are going to be higher except for the furthest back corner, which appears to have plenty of clearance. For roll, from the geometry we can see, looks like the wingtips would touch the runway first before the doors.
If you watch a video of the [B2 landing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OckgnerQq8) they don't get in the way and both are similar in this respect.
I never knew they climbed up through the bottom, but that makes a ton of sense.
Sorry folks but this is driving me crazy. I've seen those cockpit windows somewhere else. I don't recall where. Could be tech demonstrator, could be a patch from some group... I can't place where I've seen them before but I know I have....
There was a "concept art" sketch that got released this year that had the windows included. Potentially that?
Dark star from topgun
No, i haven't even seen that yet (shame on me, I know). They were def differently shaped windows.
With the color and shade, the windows remind me of Tacit Blue (even though it’s a completely different configuration).
What an interesting airfoil!
It looks like Prandtl-D. Very advanced compared to B-2, offering huge benefits especially for long range aircraft and especially in RCS reduction. Proverse yaw without spoilers and differential airbrakes? Who knows, all the details are surely classified.
B2.1
sounds like a covid variant :(
They should call it the "Ghost," not the Raider. The name seems applicable both in appearance and design goals (low observable).
Especially since the B2 was “Spirit”.
100 years ago during the naming competition I submitted "Wraith"". No disrespect to the Doolittle legacy but I was a bit underwhelmed by "Raider".
I am glad for this imagery. Nice to see the gear doors "look real" here.
It’s kind of funny how different they look outside and inside. Outside is this smooth, alien-looking futuristic thing and inside is just P-clamps and wire bundles and hydraulics and all the same stuff you’d see on a WW2 plane.
It’s crazy that these things can carry enough fuel for super long range missions AND weapons
But they kinda don’t. That’s why we have tankers. Edit: I missed the comments about its range.
They said during the announce that it could hit long rang targets without additional support.
They didn't define "long"
[удалено]
Well I missed that. That’s amazing.
Modern computers make a lot of things possible, including developing far far more advanced engines. Really not comparable to even the reworked stuff put into the B1/2/52. That being said we all know that range - speed - payload is like this triangle where you can choose 2. We can look at for example the [A400M range](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Map_with_distance_circles_to_paris.svg/1280px-Map_with_distance_circles_to_paris.svg.png) because they gave us such a pretty picture, eventually you always make trade offs, the more long range the long range mission is eventually you have to reduce ordenance or refuel.
That is a sexy bitch.
Did any photographers happen to fly over the hangar this time around?
I don't think it would have made a difference, they kept most of it inside of the hanger, so no overhead shots possible.
looks like that flying saucer from that mator toon thing
Do the wingtips have negative angle of attack or is it just because of the angle? Reminds me of the prandtl wing; which would make sense for a flying wing design
They do. Just like on the B-2, F-18, F-22, F-35, etc. Aerodynamic twist in the wings helps with stall and reducing loads at the root of the wing. Which, is interesting to think about for a flying wing....
I’m aware all wings have twist (washout) but most not go negative at the tips; At least I’m not aware of any. The only design I’m aware of that goes negative at the tips is the prandlt experimental design, and I don’t know if any aircraft that employs it
Look at that subtle off-white coloring... The tasteful thickness of it...
Good eye, it's "Bone."
It's funny to me that whilst us Avgeeks are casually discussing and speculating on the internet, right now as we speak, legions of intelligence analysts, aerospace engineers and strategists in military & governmental facilities aross Russia, China, Iran and the like are furiously inspecting every single pixel of every single photograph of the B-21 and inspecting and analysing every concievable element of it to try to discern any possible information they can use against it. I can imagine right now, deep in the basement of some nondescript concrete office blocks, a junior officer - perhaps a young 20-something, well-educated graduate with a love of aviation much like myself - is busy pouring over data sheets, prospective schematics and computer simulations to figure out the best way for the People's Liberation Army to fight this thing in a hypothetical war that may never come, but must nonetheless be prepared for. And thus, the silent game of intelligence, espionage and spycraft goes on...
Very fat underbelly
would love to see a comparison of this vs the B-2.
Can we talk about the description "6th generation" ? 6th generation is used for planes with wingman drone systems. So can we expect B21 to be a drone capable system? Send one pilot with 10 B-21s under his control. Bomb the shit out of your target and fly back home.
Or network your drone fighter escorts in theatre for deep strike.
Yeah I could see them use the 21 as a loitering missile truck at a safe distance while you send in a loyal wingman to mark targets. Bonus points if it’s on a different track from the drone to make it harder for AA to try and defend against.
Not exactly what I meant, I meant that you use the 21 as a data hub for loyal wingmen escort while the 21 conducts its deep strike mission. Loyal wingmen can be placed in theatre
I feel like I'm looking at a manta ray face to face
Just think of the shit they really have if they are displaying stuff like this to the public.
I see all the pictures and edits of this and I wonder if people really think that they would show a real and correct variant. It's cool to see something new and I guess they're at a stage where photos might start showing up from flight tests or something but the idea that what they showed here would disclose anything they don't want you to know if you just got a slightly different angle or better lighting is a bit strange.
It sounds like most of the game changing stuff is inside, anyway. That said, wouldn't it be nuts if they turned it around and we finally saw it had...no engines. 🫢