https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwxYiVX ... =grafou194

They really missed a golden opportunity by not playing this music while it was slowly rolled out and unveiled.

morrisond wrote:

That was a big nothing. At least they learned the lessons from the B2 unveiling which was in broad daylight and they let journalists stand behind it. I wonder if they will even release basics like wingspan or what engines it has.

Any person with Imagej can get a fairly accurate estimate of wingspan and overall size. The proposed engines are reportedly F135 derivative.

The front view shows an interesting platform though. Center “diamond” is pretty deep. Maingear with 2 wheels shows a much lighter weight than B-2, same with what looks like a single nose wheel. The outer “Hershey bar” segments have a pretty good twist to them though. The math to make those compound contours stealthy must be impressive.

Spacepope wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That was a big nothing. At least they learned the lessons from the B2 unveiling which was in broad daylight and they let journalists stand behind it. I wonder if they will even release basics like wingspan or what engines it has.

Any person with Imagej can get a fairly accurate estimate of wingspan and overall size. The proposed engines are reportedly F135 derivative.

The front view shows an interesting platform though. Center “diamond” is pretty deep. Maingear with 2 wheels shows a much lighter weight than B-2, same with what looks like a single nose wheel. The outer “Hershey bar” segments have a pretty good twist to them though. The math to make those compound contours stealthy must be impressive.

I know about the F135 engines, I was hoping they might be the new Adaptive Cycle engines.

morrisond wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That was a big nothing. At least they learned the lessons from the B2 unveiling which was in broad daylight and they let journalists stand behind it. I wonder if they will even release basics like wingspan or what engines it has.

Any person with Imagej can get a fairly accurate estimate of wingspan and overall size. The proposed engines are reportedly F135 derivative.

The front view shows an interesting platform though. Center “diamond” is pretty deep. Maingear with 2 wheels shows a much lighter weight than B-2, same with what looks like a single nose wheel. The outer “Hershey bar” segments have a pretty good twist to them though. The math to make those compound contours stealthy must be impressive.

I know about the F135 engines, I was hoping they might be the new Adaptive Cycle engines.

A bomber (or airliner) has no need for adaptive cycle, they need high bypass fuel efficient engines for their long range role. Adaptive cycle is for fighter types, where bursts of high speed need the high bypass engine to be converted into more of a turbojet configuration.

Vintage wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Any person with Imagej can get a fairly accurate estimate of wingspan and overall size. The proposed engines are reportedly F135 derivative.

The front view shows an interesting platform though. Center “diamond” is pretty deep. Maingear with 2 wheels shows a much lighter weight than B-2, same with what looks like a single nose wheel. The outer “Hershey bar” segments have a pretty good twist to them though. The math to make those compound contours stealthy must be impressive.

I know about the F135 engines, I was hoping they might be the new Adaptive Cycle engines.

A bomber (or airliner) has no need for adaptive cycle, they need high bypass fuel efficient engines for their long range role. Adaptive cycle is for fighter types, where bursts of high speed need the high bypass engine to be converted into more of a turbojet configuration.

I was wondering about that. Whatever engine they have used it sure looks like it's buried in there deep. I suspect they have gone to great lengths to hide the heat from the exhaust as well.

So smaller than the B2 but rumored to carried as much payload yet farther?

They didn't say more range or payload than the B-2.

More efficient was the word. It is clearly smaller than the B-2 with half the number of tyres.

I thought we all agreed it has two non afterburning F135. An adaptive engine would provide no improvement.

With the

While they didn't speak about its specs, Austin went on about sensors and communication, which suggests it'll also be an ISR platform.

Reading articles from the War Zone, the payload will be more than 1/2 of the B-2, sufficient to carry one MOAB, the largest bomb in current inventory. Speculation is a lot more range than the B2.

Can we talk about the main body and those inlets? From the frontal view, it looks to be a pretty deep body as Spacepope noted, and those inlets look significantly smaller and less visible/pronounced than on the B-2 .

Yes, the body and the scoops are of the most interest to me, as well. It would seem tough to get enough air through one of those to an F135 but I am guessing they also are using some clever shrouding/boundary layer gimmicks to provide consistent flow, particularly at cruise speeds.

We really don’t have much of an idea about the volume afforded by the body, or layout of the fuel tanks in the…wing/body etc. More to follow!

A little off topic..but how far away is the technology for spy satellites to just watch a stealth plane in real time all the way to its target? Is it possible? Would it render them useless other than stand off weapons?

The B-21 should be able to carry 12 JASSM or 12 LRASM.

texl1649 wrote:

Yes, the body and the scoops are of the most interest to me, as well. It would seem tough to get enough air through one of those to an F135 but I am guessing they also are using some clever shrouding/boundary layer gimmicks to provide consistent flow, particularly at cruise speeds.

We really don’t have much of an idea about the volume afforded by the body, or layout of the fuel tanks in the…wing/body etc. More to follow!

How it handles take off and landing and high AoA is my question. Undoubtedly it can but curious. I was looking to see if there was any "panel" outline below in front roll-out view that might indicate additional intakes for such but could see nothing. I did see that the intake appears to be divided.

The whole unveiling was well designed to provide very limited information on the plane configuration. From lighting to the single head-on viewing angle.

Tugg

Buckeyetech wrote:

A little off topic..but how far away is the technology for spy satellites to just watch a stealth plane in real time all the way to its target? Is it possible? Would it render them useless other than stand off weapons?

Not strictly a technology issue, but a money issue. You would need many satellites to do something like that, we could be talking Starlink orders of magnitude depending on what exactly you want to do.

Buckeyetech wrote:

A little off topic..but how far away is the technology for spy satellites to just watch a stealth plane in real time all the way to its target? Is it possible? Would it render them useless other than stand off weapons?

I don't think we are that close to visual or radar tracking of aircraft from orbit, in real time.

If the position is known, probably can zoom in to that position and pick up the aircraft, but probably can't slew to follow it. In terms of finding a specific aircraft without any information, probably very difficult.

I use "probably" here because I have no knowledge of black programs.

Tugger wrote:

The whole unveiling was well designed to provide very limited information on the plane configuration. From lighting to the single head-on viewing angle.

There is likely enough paralax to make stereo images or deduce some of the dimensions towards the rear. AWST or Jane's will be right on it, I'm sure.

Ward Carroll in discussion with a former F-15E WSO on the B-21;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9IT-Omx5cI

ssteve wrote:

Tugger wrote:

The whole unveiling was well designed to provide very limited information on the plane configuration. From lighting to the single head-on viewing angle.

There is likely enough paralax to make stereo images or deduce some of the dimensions towards the rear. AWST or Jane's will be right on it, I'm sure.

Yes, I am sure they are. As Chinese military intelligence and Russian as well as all "US Friendly" nations military intelligence services

I had a laugh as I was scrutinizing the video and pictures, thinking about the thousands of people doing exactly as I was but with more detail and powerful tools to analyze the shading and shadows and background and people walking next to it, and any reflections etc. To try to get whatever they could on it. While I am sure there were possible leaks of its actual design, I know NG has strong 'honey pot" elements nowadays, so anything stolen has to be verified.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

How it handles take off and landing and high AoA is my question. Undoubtedly it can but curious. I was looking to see if there was any "panel" outline below in front roll-out view that might indicate additional intakes for such but could see nothing. I did see that the intake appears to be divided. Tugg

Probably handles it like a champ. Think about it: the #2 engine on the L1011 handled takeoff and high AoA during testing without issue and had much more body and angular interference than the B-21 does. Not being a fighter, the B-21 won't have to deal with extremely high AoA that could blank an intake, anyway. An additional intake a la the Mig-29 would also create more problems with RCS reduction.

I'm curious if the "divided intake" is from the lighting angle.

Ok...just speculating here, I know NG has stated they have not started test flights, but what if those strange shapes seen flying were actually the prototype B-21? Could NG have gone all the way back to the original flying wing planform for the B-21? Maybe all those artist renditions with the 'W' shape are speculative.

aumaverick wrote:

Ok...just speculating here, I know NG has stated they have not started test flights, but what if those strange shapes seen flying were actually the prototype B-21? Could NG have gone all the way back to the original flying wing planform for the B-21? Maybe all those artist renditions with the 'W' shape are speculative.

For them to have had it flying already they would have had to have it doing engine runs, taxi tests etc beforehand.
They would have had to get one in parts to Area 51 and test it there, as I'd assume it would have been noticed at Palmdale even if done during night time?

ReverseFlow wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

Ok...just speculating here, I know NG has stated they have not started test flights, but what if those strange shapes seen flying were actually the prototype B-21? Could NG have gone all the way back to the original flying wing planform for the B-21? Maybe all those artist renditions with the 'W' shape are speculative.

For them to have had it flying already they would have had to have it doing engine runs, taxi tests etc beforehand.
They would have had to get one in parts to Area 51 and test it there, as I'd assume it would have been noticed at Palmdale even if done during night time?

I'm not saying it was an actual flying copy, but maybe a late-stage demonstrator?

aumaverick wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

Ok...just speculating here, I know NG has stated they have not started test flights, but what if those strange shapes seen flying were actually the prototype B-21? Could NG have gone all the way back to the original flying wing planform for the B-21? Maybe all those artist renditions with the 'W' shape are speculative.

For them to have had it flying already they would have had to have it doing engine runs, taxi tests etc beforehand.
They would have had to get one in parts to Area 51 and test it there, as I'd assume it would have been noticed at Palmdale even if done during night time?

I'm not saying it was an actual flying copy, but maybe a late-stage demonstrator?

You mean like Have Blue was for the F-117?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

GDB wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

For them to have had it flying already they would have had to have it doing engine runs, taxi tests etc beforehand.
They would have had to get one in parts to Area 51 and test it there, as I'd assume it would have been noticed at Palmdale even if done during night time?

I'm not saying it was an actual flying copy, but maybe a late-stage demonstrator?

You mean like Have Blue was for the F-117?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

Bingo! Those flying Doritos could have also been spotted as RQ-170s or RQ-180s. But if this is truly a generational leap above the B-2 and 5thGen fighters (like the F-117 and its prototype, HAVE Blue) wouldn't there be a demonstrator to verify all the digital modeling and AI computer models in more of a comprehensive real-world flying example? The T-7, and F-35 all had their start with a flying test bed, and even the V-280 was not a true production model.

Did NG really only create one B-2 prototype? I know that model eventually was converted into an operational aircraft.

aumaverick wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

Ok...just speculating here, I know NG has stated they have not started test flights, but what if those strange shapes seen flying were actually the prototype B-21? Could NG have gone all the way back to the original flying wing planform for the B-21? Maybe all those artist renditions with the 'W' shape are speculative.

For them to have had it flying already they would have had to have it doing engine runs, taxi tests etc beforehand.
They would have had to get one in parts to Area 51 and test it there, as I'd assume it would have been noticed at Palmdale even if done during night time?

I'm not saying it was an actual flying copy, but maybe a late-stage demonstrator?

I do like that theory.
Question is, what would be a reason to fly a demonstrator around the country?
Surely the ranges around Nevada have all you would need to check the aircraft out on?
Or would they have been endurance testing or seeing how it works far away from base?

So what happened to the other B-3 through B-20 models????

bhill wrote:

So what happened to the other B-3 through B-20 models????

I know of at least one B-3 that was lost over Utah after a CRM dispute exposed the flaws in both the US’ Personnel Reliability Program and the USAF’s ‘Up or Out’ officer promotion system.

Question for the group: without seeing the rear view, and based on only the renderings, do we expect the rear of the B-21 to have the W planform, or will it be more straightforward with a flat triangular shape overall?

aumaverick wrote:

Question for the group: without seeing the rear view, and based on only the renderings, do we expect the rear of the B-21 to have the W planform, or will it be more straightforward with a flat triangular shape overall?

That is the question everyone is asking, but the shadows on the floor of the hanger indicate it at least has some length of trailing bar wing (a'la the B-2).

Tugg

LyleLanley wrote:

bhill wrote:

So what happened to the other B-3 through B-20 models????

I know of at least one B-3 that was lost over Utah after a CRM dispute exposed the flaws in both the US’ Personnel Reliability Program and the USAF’s ‘Up or Out’ officer promotion system.

Took me a second but then I remembered that incident and the ensuing documentary that was made about it.

Some articles from Sandboxx about stealth, the S-400, and Russia's approach to air power. These all seem relevant to the B-21.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-s-400- ... aggerated/

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-russia ... n-ukraine/

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/americas-e ... a-problem/

A couple of new views of the bird have been released. TheDrive goes into some analysis of what they show (images are from the article :

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... -new-image






Tugg

The DoD has requested new funding to upgrade and modernize the B-21, on top of the development & purchase contract. Also announced there will be a delay of a few months before the first flight.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... even-flown

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoD has requested new funding to upgrade and modernize the B-21, on top of the development & purchase contract. Also announced there will be a delay of a few months before the first flight.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... even-flown

What a great business model:
Oversell and underdeliver. More money will fix it. Until it doesn't and even more money is required. USA! USA!

SteelChair wrote:

What a great business model:
Oversell and underdeliver. More money will fix it. Until it doesn't and even more money is required. USA! USA!

The rational is that the technology level for the B-21 was frozen a number of years ago, to avoid cost and schedule overruns. While that strategy was successful, the B-21 is now in need of a technology refresh, especially involving support of the newest weapons packages.

That says something interesting about "concurrency" (simultaneous develop and build), which is often blamed for program overruns. But without it, the developed systems need further investment anyway, to remain current and up to date.

I guess the difference is, the original project stays within budget and the "currency" costs are placed under a new budget. So that creates the appearance of program performance and is less subject to criticism.

Interesting how the procurement game works. This is the first time I have seen a refresh program be funded before the first flight. But if Congress accepts it, then I guess it solves the overall problem. The GAO auditors will be happy.

SteelChair wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoD has requested new funding to upgrade and modernize the B-21, on top of the development & purchase contract. Also announced there will be a delay of a few months before the first flight.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... even-flown

What a great business model:
Oversell and underdeliver. More money will fix it. Until it doesn't and even more money is required. USA! USA!

Taking ignorant commenting to a new low.

Do you even follow the B-21 program? The plane is both on budget and schedule at worst; recent reporting is that it is ahead in both. Plus, we're not talking some civil tube-and-wing turd, this is the single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation. So what was oversold and underdelivered?

Did you even read the article? This isn't a fix; this is the government PLANNING AHEAD like they should be doing, because technology advances and this massive investment needs to be kept dominant, by which I mean about half a century ahead of anyone else. So yeah, USA! USA!

zululima wrote:

Taking ignorant commenting to a new low.

Best response I've seen in awhile. We laugh at the F-22 still using 486 chips, yet the idea of the USAF actually thinking ahead and programming this sort of tech refresh before things get really expensive is also... something to laugh at?

zululima wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The DoD has requested new funding to upgrade and modernize the B-21, on top of the development & purchase contract. Also announced there will be a delay of a few months before the first flight.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a ... even-flown

What a great business model:
Oversell and underdeliver. More money will fix it. Until it doesn't and even more money is required. USA! USA!

Taking ignorant commenting to a new low.

Do you even follow the B-21 program? The plane is both on budget and schedule at worst; recent reporting is that it is ahead in both. Plus, we're not talking some civil tube-and-wing turd, this is the single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation. So what was oversold and underdelivered?

Did you even read the article? This isn't a fix; this is the government PLANNING AHEAD like they should be doing, because technology advances and this massive investment needs to be kept dominant, by which I mean about half a century ahead of anyone else. So yeah, USA! USA!

"this is the single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation" And calling other comments by others ignorant?

SteelChair wrote:

"this is the single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation" And calling other comments by others ignorant?

The B-2, F-22, F-35, B-21 all would have held the title of "The single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation" at the time of their first flights.

So the statement is correct.

Newark727 wrote:

I'm curious what the reason is for the shape of the cockpit windows. Very spacey.

“Spacey” is just an opinion.

I think the interesting bit is that from some aspects, they mimic the shape of the air intakes perfectly.

That isn’t coincidence

Newark727 wrote:

I'm curious what the reason is for the shape of the cockpit windows. Very spacey.

This is just a guess, but I suspect it's an optimized trade between visibility and RCS signature reduction.

I remember reading somewhere that crews had asked for better ground handling visibility from the B-2. And the structure of the windows avoids lateral lines, using instead curved or angled lines that end in deep V's at the corners. All those window edges should reflect radar energy away from the source.

As Spacepope noted, the same pattern is visible in the intake edges as well. That may reflect the greater need for the B-21 to operate stealthily against airborne radars, as well as ground radars which were the main threat for the B-2, at the time of its development.

RJMAZ wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

"this is the single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation" And calling other comments by others ignorant?

The B-2, F-22, F-35, B-21 all would have held the title of "The single most advanced aircraft in the history of aviation" at the time of their first flights.

So the statement is correct.

Given the levels of secrecy around the B21, no one in the general public can really say how advanced it is, nor in which areas it is most advanced. I know, "Trust us. Keep the billions flowing and just trust us."

Then there is the issue of time. Is the B21 a bigger leap in technology("advanced") airplane for this time than the A12 was for 1962? That's just one example. The claim is subjective by its very nature.

A subjective claim made on the basis of limited information would seem to be the definition of ignorance.

What isn't subjective is that the billions will flow.

SteelChair wrote:

Given the levels of secrecy around the B21, no one in the general public can really say how advanced it is, nor in which areas it is most advanced. I know, "Trust us. Keep the billions flowing and just trust us."

The F-35 first flew 15 years ago. It would be VERY safe to say the B-21 is more advanced.

Are you trying to say the B-21 would be less advanced than the F-35?

Or there is another aircraft that is more advanced than the F-35 that took over the title of the most advanced?

Most of the time prototypes aren't very advanced and are usually missing key systems. So the NGAD prototype that flew I doubt is more advanced than the production ready B-21. No doubt the production NGAD will take over the title of the world's most advanced aircraft.

SteelChair wrote:

Then there is the issue of time. Is the B21 a bigger leap in technology("advanced") airplane for this time than the A12 was for 1962? That's just one example. The claim is subjective by its very nature.

No one stated the size of the advancement compared to the previous most advanced aircraft in history.

"Most advanced" is meaningless unless you are specifying in what area.
Kinematic performance? It's not even remotely advanced compared to say, 50-60 year old aircraft like the XB-70 or B-1A.
Electronic systems? You could put the same electronics on literally any aircraft from any era, as long as said aircraft meets the space and power requirements.

Stealth-wise, yes, it's likely the most advanced aircraft in the world.

744SPX wrote:

"Most advanced" is meaningless unless you are specifying in what area.
Kinematic performance? It's not even remotely advanced compared to say, 50-60 year old aircraft like the XB-70 or B-1A.
Electronic systems? You could put the same electronics on literally any aircraft from any era, as long as said aircraft meets the space and power requirements.

Stealth-wise, yes, it's likely the most advanced aircraft in the world.

I did specify the area, aviation.

I guess it never occurred to you that those categories could be made cumulative, huh? "Stealth" particularly is a composite of many interdependent facets (puns intended), all of which are likely to be most advanced on the Raider. Also, things like fuel fraction, composites/3D printing, cooling, tolerances, communications, coatings, sensors, flight control, thermal emissions control, EW, enhanced vision, metallurgy, degraded-environment navigation, the list goes on and on. Even the microwaves for in-flight Hot Pockets have to be made really small.

I didn't mention kinematic for a reason, it no longer matters for the mission. There's a reason KP peaked in the 60s and it isn't inability to advance; if the B-21 was capable of such speeds it would only have negative performance implications (e.g. too much thermal to dissipate, sonic booms to hide, etc). Your inability to grasp what are actually the leading technological factors of the current top-level air combat paradigm have clouded your view. That and false logic. Let's see you put B-21 electronics on "literally any aircraft from any era" and even leave the runway. I choose TBF Avenger. Computer it up and let's see how well it penetrates PLAAF air defense. System-of-systems isn't just Pentagon jargon, everything has to be built in from the drawing board because it all has to work together to enable the meta-product. That massively complex synergy between hundreds of bleeding edge sub-systems is why the B-21 is easily the most advanced (known) aircraft overall, although I would not disqualify the NGAD demonstrator just yet.

zululima/RJMAZ wrote:

prattling

All hail the B-21 as the most advanced aircraft ever! Assuming “most advanced” is a euphemism for “newest” and you ignore the many areas of it that really aren’t that advanced because they don’t support your argument, as well as that many of the “bleeding edge” systems are merely newer versions of systems already in service. Hence why it’s on budget and schedule.

Can you also explain how a higher fuel fraction equates to “most advanced fuel fraction” as if it’s a technological benchmark to compare? More gas doesn’t really make it “more advanced.”

In this day and age of industrial espionage, not sure how effective the initial views are other than to keep the legitimate folks guessing, others have been looking to buy / bribe or locate disaffected Americans who believe a strong USA is not good for the world. Once production starts the number of those eligible increases exponentially.
On the practical side, how many of these a/c are they going to build in a reasonable period of time, meaning the ability to have multiple a/c at multiple bases so those who want to know about deployments don't have to sit outside one base.

I'll break it into areas: aeronautics - BWB's theoretically are the most efficient form, the B-21 performance envelope was clipped from the B-2 (dropped the low level requirements) giving it excellent range <conjecture from limited info> and the ability to have lower thrust per ton. Not many other BWB's flying these days.
Airflow - detection of air turbulence and vapor trails is getting better and better. The most efficient wing should have very little turbulence and minimum contrails - better stealth.
BWB Stability - BWB's without any vertical control surfaces are not stable, requires a great flight control computer. Using current tech computing with the software a merging of the B-2 and F-35 logic. Gen 6 level.
Radar, COMS, mission, in particular the in the flat surface antenna to current state level, probably similar to the latest F-35 Block 5 - Gen 5 to 5+
Engines - articles in The Drive / War Zone & other places assume it is using two of the F-35 engines. Gen 5
Coatings / Skins: Per the War Zone, the radar return is better than the F-35, F-22, and the B-2, I recall it is smaller than a sparrow. Significant reduction in the coating maintenance, possibly much of the absorption is in the composite vs coating. Gen 5 to 6
Heat Signature / blade reflection - Engine Inlet and outlet on the top of the wing with curves & baffles - Possibly the best of any plane.

Media has indicated that it is the first Gen 6 aircraft, I just hope it costs far less than the B-2 was. It is on budget and schedule for now, it appears to have been little scope creep to often dooms programs.