THIRTY YEARS
OF INNOVATION
>>29293219
Talk shit, get hit. Pussy ass faggot.
Anything that has th US AIRFORCE logo on it has my backing.
Calibrations faggot
t. Garrus
its just a computer model for now
won't actually look exactly like that
The air force realized the B-2 is fucking rad and wanted another, except bigger.
>>29293356
truth
>>29293219
30 years of materials science and avionics advancements
>>29293356
>>29293384
Its going to be smaller than the B-2.
>people are actually defending this
>>29293219
I'm fairly sure that the original B-2 prototype looked almost exactly like the B-21 concept. But they were forced to alter it so it could do low-alltitude bombing as well, which is why they added the zig-zig shape. For better performance/stability on lower alltitudes. The B-21 just looks more perfected for high-alltitude operations.
>>29293402
Principles of VLO design haven't changed; flying wings are still the most efficient, and a proven planform.
The B-21 is designed around affordability. It makes perfect sense.
>>29293356
>The air force realized the B-2 is fucking rad and wanted another, except smaller and cheaper and not 2 billion dollars per plane.
>>29293402
What is there to defend?
>>29293307
Looooooooool i detect an air force tattoo
>>29293442
>What is there to defend?
exactly
>>29293433
And with EW and A2A baked in for shits and giggles.
If there's going to be an "arsenal plane", this will be the frame used for it.
>>29293543
>If there's going to be an "arsenal plane", this will be the frame used for it.
lol, what?
you couldn't be more incorrect.
>>29293504
Nah, retired cct.
>>29293543
The A2A stuff could be pretty wild if the B-21 can use missiles like the PAC-3. The plane could be mobile ballistic missile shield. They could have it take-off from the phillppines and protect Japan from missiles.
>>29293543
>B-21 used for A2A
no
>>29293569
Yes.
>>29293577
[citation needed]
>>29293433
Wouldn't have been $2bil each if they had built the number they had planned. It's only because they slashed their order that the unit cost rose so much.
>>29293594
The B-52 is being modified for A2A. Why wouldn't the B-52's eventually replacement have the same capabilities?
>>29293219
>it looks the same so it must be the same
>>29293611
Your ass isn't a citation or source, anon.
>>29293595
That's why the Air Force wants to get at least 80-100 this time.
History shows that bomber programs are easily cut down down, however. The B-1 was intended to replace the B-52 but numbers were cut and the buff lived another day. The B-2 was intended to replace the B-52 and the buff lived another day. The B-21 is attempt number 3.
>>29293625
Why wouldn't the plane have A2A capabilities?
>>29293649
Because its a strategic bomber, its mission set has never been described to include A2A.
>b-but muh B-52
lovely.
>>29293551
>VLO
>high payload
>high range and endurance
>extensive sensors, radar, EW and datalinking capabilities
Tell me what plane would be better. If they ever do make the concept real, this is the best craft for it.
>>29293665
"muh B-52" is correct. There is no reason why they would go through the trouble to develop A2A for the buff and then not put it in the next bomber.
>>29293690
Cool.
Glad we're in agreement it doesn't have A2A capability, its just your stupid assumption that an aircraft of similar role 2 generations older being considered for a proof-of-concept role means the B-21 will definately have it.
moron.
>>29293665
It's not the 50s champ, putting a2a into a craft with all the equipment already is pretty much just making sure it has the software.
>>29293709
>The B-52 is being modified for A2A.
>The B-21 will eventually replace the B-52
>But the B-21 won't have that same ability
I don't see any reason why they'd develop the technology for the B-52 to support A2A missions and not give the B-21 that same ability.
>>29293714
The person who wrote this is correct.
>>29293594
Northrop's pitch to the Air Force for the design. Air-to-air, air-to-ground, and electronic warfare capabilities.
>>29294585
I'm not sure if you understand what a source or citation is anon, but it certainly isn't
"They said this", t. Anon
>>29293733
>I don't see any reason why they'd develop the technology for the B-52 to support A2A missions and not give the B-21 that same ability.
because the whole point of an arsenal plane is to carry a lot of missiles very cheaply
>all of these smug know-nothing faggots who don't have ANY CLUE about what the air force is actually doing
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19262/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/
>Lumbering, non-stealthy and slow, the Arsenal Plane would carry long-range standoff missiles such as the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) during missions against enemies with modern air defenses, or precision-guided bombs in theaters such as Afghanistan or Iraq where the enemy's air defenses are limited or non-existent.
>Above all, the Arsenal Plane must be affordable, and this suggests taking an existing platform such as the B-52 and performing simple upgrades. The Pentagon has a lot of planes to buy and not a lot of money.
>>29293433
You're right, they're gonna be 1.999 billion dollarydoos each
>>29294671
>B-52
>Cheap
>>29293649
Because ever since pic related, pitting big, slow aircraft against fast maneuverable aircraft operating in their home airspace has proven to be a losing proposition.
Bombers can use stealth, speed and BVR defensive weapons to get in and drop their load. But once fighters have seen them, they are toast.
>>29296059
But this is 2016 and maneuverability barely matters for A2A anymore except for basic orientation. Nobody is saying that the B-21 is going to replace the F-22 or F-35 or anything like that. Fighter jets are very dependent on aerial refueling and so having a long-range A2A platform doesn't seem like a bad idea. In practice, the B-21 would hang back and leech off targeting data from the F-22/F-35 to provide fire support in case somebody is running low on missiles.
http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/03/air-force-trillion-dollar-clusterfuck/
>>29298061
Oh and even if none of that works, then the B-21 should still have A2A abilities simply because why not? There is no reason to NOT put that capabilities in the aircraft. Even if they never get used, it is surely better to have the option and not need it than need it and not have it. There is nothing wrong with improving the plane's overall survivability by giving it the ability to defend itself against interceptors to some extent.
>>29298061
>But this is 2016 and maneuverability barely matters for A2A anymore
except it does.
a great deal.
More so in BVR than WVR, now.
>>29298127
>why not?
Oh boy. I'm no mechanical engineer, military expert, aviation specialist or anything of the sort, but you really can't see all the reasons why?
1. Increased weight -> decreased acceleration, speed, manoeuvrability and range
2. Increased complexity -> More difficult to construct, maintain and handle correctly, more likely to suffer from various problems (inb4 less likely to suffer from being shot down) that could keep it grounded, also more expensive and generally less available
3. Less focussed design -> less efficient at its primary role, both because of 1. and 2. and additionally because the pilots now have another thing to pay attention to.
>15 Produced ever
>Unit cost 1.9billion ea
>Won't see action for 15 years after introduction
Screenshot this
>>29293219
>implying the b21 looks like that
>implying it doesn't already exist
>>29299154
Serious question here. Why not drone-ify old B-52s and use them as bombers? That way it doesn't matter if some get shot down. They can carry a huge fucking payload and have a massive range.
My limited knowledge of American bomber doctrine says that B-2s are only good for bombing missions where the enemy absolutely must not know it's coming until i t's too late, i.e., when targeting missile sites and such.
But most bombing missions these days are against durkas and low-tech nations.
>>29299168
B-52s are detectable and able to be engaged at extreme range.
Payload and combat radius doesn't matter dick if you never make it somewhere.
>But most bombing missions these days are against durkas and low-tech nations.
Using strategic bombers in COIN is ful blown retarded
>>29299168
>Huge payload
They carry less than B-1s and are curbstomped by T-160s.
And are slow, big and loud as fuck.
>>29299168
>Why not drone-ify old B-52s and use them as bombers?
Because the B-52s are fucking ancient, they aren't building more of them, and it kind of sucks.
>>29293219
>98 YEARS OF INNOVATION
>>29299174
>>29299177
>>29299180
Thanks for the reply.
>Using strategic bombers in COIN is ful blown retarded
I realise that. I meant more that you could load 'em with fuel and have them in a 24-48 hour holding pattern, dropping guided missiles whenever a ground force requests it.
>>29299196
>I realise that. I meant more that you could load 'em with fuel and have them in a 24-48 hour holding pattern, dropping guided missiles whenever a ground force requests it.
Not gonna happen without wings like this.
>>29299213
>that sexy drone
Muh dick.
Well at least it can carry cruise mi- No? Well than good thing it's at least superso- No again? Well if it's any conolation, given their recent inability to develop new aircraft, it's at least good the USAF stayed with a proven design.
>>29299240
Why wouldn't it be able to carry cruise missiles
>>29299246
Because it was designed by the Germans during WW2
>>29299252
(you)
>>29299255
Thanks, I really needed that one.
>>29299272
(You)
Reminder that commercial airplanes have had the same configuration for 50 years now, and changes are only in engines efficiency, small aerodynamic adjusts and using composites instead of metal.
Same with this, once you find the optimal shape you stick with it and perfect the small details.
>>29299168
It would honestly be easier to do the exact same thing with 747s that were bought off the lot in Pinal Air Park.
>>29299318
The B-21's planform isn't optimal, its proven. Its driven by the need to keep costs down, which is why they're using an existing engine and letting it dictate the aircraft's size.
'optimal' may have been a cranked kite planform, which Northrop themselves said was the best of both worlds and may have been more appropriate, but its not proven for such a large aircraft.
>>29293391
Correct me if I'm wrong but materials means a lot more than people realize. I believe the newer commercial jets with inconel engine parts have some turbine stages rated to last the aircraft's lifespan.
>>29299345
Eh, its possible cranked kite may be mildly better, but the risk is not worth the reward.
The B-21 will be an all aspect stealth killer. Its meant to penetrate chinese air defense zones with ease, and all things point to it being able to do this.
>>29299372
While you can ignore carrier suitability, everything else is relevant.
The point is that the B-21's planform is a product of what you said; low risk.
Not a matter of optimal-as-can-be design.
>>29293557
Did you enlist with a contract for CCT or did you reclassify down the line? What AFSC would you say is best for reclassifying into CCT? Did you enjoy being a combat controller?
>>29299376
Well no, the B-21, as apart of its design, will be able to carry two MOPs. Yes, for smaller platforms like drones(like that carrier drone thats about to get a destination), cranked kite is indeed needed.
I think the B-21 will be large enough to where pretty much anything you would want will be able to be carried internally.
My thing, with the pic, is it looks like they are planning on doing something with leading edges, my guess with will the first real attempt at thermal management.
If you can cool your bird to near backround radiation for two or so hours, whatever the exotic means, it will be worth it.
>>29299150
?
none of that shit is true
The only thing a bomber needs to carry A2A missiles is some programming, and making sure it can physically carry/launch the missiles.
>>29296059
But anon missiles are smaller, faster and more maneuverable than fighters. Putting them against fighters makes perfect sense
https://issuu.com/csbaonline/docs/csba6110_air_to_air_report
>inb4 muh guns
>>29299150
>Increased weight
How does giving the B-21 the software required to shoot A2A missiles increase weight? The damn thing is doing to have a radar so why not let it have the ability to shoot radar-guided missiles?
>Increased complexity
Not really. The B-21 is supposed to use the same avionics as the F-35 to save money and those include A2A so you really don't need to do much there.
>Less focussed design
Not really. They can build the B-21 as a pure long-range strike aircraft and still give it the ability to shoot A2A missiles pretty easily.
Lets talk about the real elephant in the room here, /k/
>B-1
>B-2
>B-21
What did people expect? We haven't developed UFO saucer tech so of course new aircrafts aren't going to look far off from past ones.
>>29300368
well, where are the planes between F/A-18 and F-22, or between F-22 and F-35?
We had a really nice thing going with the teens series, but they blew it up for no reason
Don't talk to me or my dubs ever again
>>29300438
>well, where are the planes between F/A-18 and F-22
Northrop wanted an even number for the F-20 (skipping F-19), while the F-21 is an Israeli derivative of the Dassalt Mirage. Lockheed wanted the F-35 to be the F-24, but as it was with the SR-71, a Congressman screwed up and changed the X in X-35 to an F, so they ran with it.
![DSCF0020[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IzxC3Ts.jpg "DSCF0020[1].jpg")
Misinformation.
This is what the B2 was originally though to look like.
>>29300470
>Lockheed wanted the F-35 to be the F-24, but as it was with the SR-71
What's this about the SR-71?
>>29300470
This.
Northrop's bid for the F-20 was bolstered by some very preliminary plans for the F-117 to be the F-19 and to help obfuscate what the F-117 was.
>>29293323
Underrated post
>>29299174
>B-52s are detectable and able to be engaged at extreme range.
Detectable, yes, able to be engaged...not so much. There are some serious advantages to having a dedicated person for electric warfare.
>>29294657
Considering Northrop-Gruman hasn't gotten past the design stage yet, that's the best you'll be getting for a long time.
>>29300560
The SR-71 came from (I think) the RS-70 (Reconnaissance/Strike) and then it turned into the RS-71. And then LBJ decided to reveal it to the public to counter Goldwater's criticism about us not doing enough to keep up with the Soviets. And then in the speech some cabinet member or staff guy (can't remember who) lobbied for it to be changed to SR-71 (Strategic Reconnaissance) and that is how it stuck.
Wikipedia says press versions of the speech still had it as RS-71, so people assumed Johnson said it wrong by accident. It was a little more complicated than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
>>29301014
>having a dedicated person for electric warfare.
lel
>>29301025
Its mission set has been described multiple times, never including A2A. Bombing with a great EW and ISTAR capability.
>>29293219
it was perfect 30 years ago you fucking faggot
>>29299366
Aerospace engineer here, they're not quite the airframe's lifespan but they're pretty long and the time between overhauls and the cut down on maintenance is one of the most important selling features for those engines, up there with fuel efficiency. Less repair costs for one but the real value is that they don't have to keep the plane grounded for said repairs and can have it earning money for that instead in a cutthroat industry.
The advances in how strong those airframes are and how reliable, efficient, and durable the engines are over the last fifteen years alone have been incredible. And you know what? I'm really excited for the next ten as the F-35 project development winds down and the non-essentially classified trade secrets in design and metallurgy and individually held patents start spreading through the industry from the engineers who worked on various components.
>>29293391
Then why dont they just remake the Tomcat. Dual Turbofans and swing wings with modern technology that isn't shit.
But NOOOOOO, we get the faggotry that is Omni-role fighters.
>China will make a next gen pure fighter with our tech bought from Israel and utterly rape the F-35 and aging fleet of F/A-18s
Mark my words
>>29293323
>tfw garrus is to busy with calibrations to talk to you
>>29294585
>>29294657
It's like you guys never heard of Google:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/09/air-force-bomber-missions-bombs/120881/
B-21 is being planned to do a whole lot more than just drop bombs. It probably will be the first plane with a smart skin covered in embedded phased-array antennae. It will function as a forward command post inside contested airspace, it will drop the whole range of US munitions, fly optionally crewed, carry nukes,railguns and lasers eventually, etc. It's basically a flying Ticonderoga/Zumwalt/Ahmed'sGreatestNightmare.
And yes, the USAF wants it to be able to act as an interceptor against fighters.
>>29300368
>>B-21
First bomber of the 21st Century, hence B-21.
>>29301647
Can't wait until 300 years from now when we get the B-52!
>>29301817
That's B-400 to you.
>>29301216
Um...yeah, B-52s have an EWO.
>>29301590
>smart skin covered in embedded phased-array antenna
>>29300368
Fucking this.
>B-1
>B-2
>B-21
FUCKING WHY
>>29301954
Does he perform "electric warfare", anon?
>>29301817
Maybe it will be a giant flying behemoth that drops B-52s.
>>29293219
tbqh, the B-2 program wouldn't have been such a shitshow if the Air Force didn't change their order size constantly
The flyaway cost of producing the aircraft is dependent on the size of the order.
![First_Boeing_777F_Lands_after_B-1_Flight[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RMUWNln.jpg "First_Boeing_777F_Lands_after_B-1_Flight[1].jpg")
Why not make a new bomber off the 777?
Maximum take off weight of some version is 200,000 pounds more than a B-52. Has nearly the same maximum range in passenger configuration as B-52.
A bomber variant could probably carry more than a 52 or a 1. While going further on less fuel.
>>29302299
Considering his title is Electronic Warfare Officer I'd say so.
>LRSB is to have unmanned capabilities
yes pls
>>29302033
Read the article I posted. They don't use those terms but it's what they describe. My biggest question on it is how do they use this with stealth? It's going to radiate like a mofo sometimes.
>>29293642
In retrospect, unless the B1 has some serious drawback that I'm not aware of, it really should have replaced the entire B-52 fleet.
It's fast. It has a huge payload. It has great combat radius.
>>29303459
Like all swing wings it's a maintenance hog, the B-52 was kept, and is kept as a bomb truck that needs an overhaul once per blue moon
>>29303490
The B-52s are hangar queens as well, they're just cheaper to maintain because of the metric fuckton of spare parts they have from chopping up all the older ones.
>>29303203
Then he performs electronic warfare.
>illitarercy is a crimbe
>>29300486
This would have been amazing. I love the way it looks.
>>29303531
they wouldn't be so bad if Congress gave the air force funds to replace the 1950's turbojets with the turbofans from the C5.
4 C5 engines would make the B-52 faster, longer range, and less of a hangar queen.
It would simplify logistics too. Since that is one less engine type in the air force.
>>29303203
Jesus, are you actually this stupid?
>>29303459
>unless the B1 has some serious drawback that I'm not aware of,
Its a hangar queen. Swing wing with supersonic capability means a fuckton of regular maintenance, and leaks.
Seriously, everyone who's worked both Buffs and bones always prefer buffs.
>>29300486
>No serrated edges
>Too many surface features to compensate for
>Air intake not on top of air frame, probably on bottom with turbines exposed
What a piece of shit.
>>29303621
Are you?
>>29293307
Found the chair force
>>29299782
>But anon missiles are smaller, faster and more maneuverable than fighters.
And therefore MUCH faster and more maneuverable than bombers. So whatever technology can threaten a fighter can threaten a bomber to a greater extent.
>>29302285
Its almost like we asked /b/ to count to ten.
>>29304471
Please don't use your eletric warfare on me.
>>29299376
>everything else is relevant.
No, it isn't. We've been over this.
LRSB is not a small strike aircraft, it's a heavy bomber. It's large already. So the length constraint is no longer an issue. It's subsonic and will normally operate over a fairly narrow flight envelope and AoA range, so the planform optimization is not important. Any desired tweaking of lift distribution can be achieved with wing twist/washout instead. And although it is not mentioned in your picture, the pitching moment demands imposed by mach tuck on an aircraft passing the sound barrier is similarly avoided.
>>29293219
Wow. It's almost as though certain physical realities impose certain airframe configurations.
>>29293219
>CGI
>tfw no plane will ever be this sexy again :'^(
