-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 19979)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 684 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 145685621482.jpg - (290.85KB , 2200x1650 , us-air-force-northrop-grumman-corp-long-range-bomb.jpg )
19979 No. 19979 ID: 7c90e8

It's about two times smaller, but it's about a third cheaper and hundreds of it will be built.
5 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 19999 ID: 06a0fb
where are you getting two times smaller? Everything I'm hearing says Northrop is aiming at 70-80% scale to the B-2. Not 33%.

Also your pic is an Air Force artist image, not from Northrop. Most of the rumors around the LRS-B proposal from the NG guys was seeming like they were proposing cranked kite designs, like larger-scale X-47Bs. Even their Super Bowl commercial showed a design with seemingly cranked wings.

Vid embed related. 16 seconds, teased design of the LRS-B proposal.
>> No. 20001 ID: 7c90e8
Most of the media releases on it are saying it has two engines, and like I said from the same articles I keep seeing it described as larger than an F-111 but smaller than B-1. Unless Northrop is doing some wacky voodoo, I'm assuming smaller than B-1 plus only two engines is going to mean a payload twice as small compared to the B-2, which is larger than B-1 and has two engines of the same type.
I suppose they could increase empty weight at the cost of speed or payload fraction.

>where are you getting two times smaller? Everything I'm hearing says Northrop is aiming at 70-80% scale to the B-2. Not 33%.
Twice as small = half as big, Size*(1/2) = Size/2, meaning from what I'm reading it should be about 50% the size.

By the way how the fuck is twice as small 33%? Even if you halved it once, then halved it again, it should be 25%, what kind of crazy math are you doing?
>> No. 20002 ID: 06a0fb
rertarded math, apparently. i suck.
>> No. 20004 ID: 7c90e8
And I'm sorry for being retarded with the language. If I said half as big there wouldn't be confusion.
Twice as small sounds retarded in retrospect.
>> No. 20005 ID: 7c90e8
Who got the get?

>> No. 20009 ID: 79e10c
>Build smaller missiles

Smaller missiles carry less fuel and/or less payload.

It's one thing for AA missile, it's not something you want for your cruise missile you put into your bombers...

A bomber is by definition a range/payload ratio plane.
>> No. 20012 ID: fafd68
File 145695363780.jpg - (137.23KB , 2200x1600 , US B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress fly in forma.jpg )
The B-2 was the Spirit. Call the B-21 the Ghost?
And time to give the 1989 US Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bombers a service life extension and turn them into drones.
>> No. 20013 ID: fafd68
File 145695460315.jpg - (43.12KB , 640x800 , US B-2 Spirit dropping 47 of 80 500 lb Mark 82 bom.jpg )
The B-2 can carry eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class (Mk 82) JDAM Global Positioning System-guided bombs or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. She has two internal bomb bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb (23,000 kg). Not designed as a level bomber, but an intruder that could get by SAM defenses and precision bomb important targets like HQs, nuclear missile silos, mobile ballistic missile launchers, etc.

- In a 1994 live fire exercise near Point Mugu, California, a B-2 drops 47 individual 500 lb (230 kg)-class Mark 82 bombs, which is more than half of a B-2's total ordnance payload.
>> No. 20014 ID: fafd68
File 145695515374.jpg - (1.53MB , 2450x960 , US B-2 Spirit stealth bomber 9.jpg )
A 2-screen wallpaper for you.
>> No. 20015 ID: 254d85
>The main problem with the B-2 is that it's bombing bays are already too small to carry cruise missiles, which is why the B-52 keep getting forever extended.

The B-2 was "fitted for but not with" the ACM-129 cruise missile. Which ended up only being deployed to the B-52 because of cost and arms limitation treaties.
>> No. 20016 ID: 9723b1
What is this and why isn't it a drone.

I thought we agreed manned bombers were dumb.
>> No. 20017 ID: 06a0fb
Northrop's contract proposal includes provisions for allowing the airframe to be flown unmanned as a drone, and used as a recon, EW platform, and drone C2 platform as well as used as a manned bomber.

Northrop is really trying to kick this thing out of the damn ballpark. And in all honesty, with as much capitol sources as Northrop has available under its canopy, they have plenty of money of their own to throw in to the program as make this shit come in as close to budget as possible.
>> No. 20018 ID: a19011
The B-21 Patriot Night Eagle
The B-21 Constitution Bringer
The B-21 Star Master
The B-21 Eagle Patriot
The B-21 Night Patriot
The B-21 Patriot
The B-21 Sky Patriot
>> No. 20020 ID: 06a0fb
Not that we name planes after people any more, but following on the B-25 Mitchell, it could be the B-21 Spaatz, for the first Chief of Staff for the Air Force, or perhaps the B-21 LeMay, for Cutis LeMay who created the SAC and the modern nuclear bomber doctrine used by the USAF.

I'm partial to the B-21 Malice, but that's not a good name for anyone wanting to keep their job in the AF right now to put forward seriously.
>> No. 20021 ID: 254d85
Call it the Avenger II to fuck with Boeing.
>> No. 20022 ID: fafd68
File 145698875153.jpg - (42.16KB , 500x239 , b2weapons.jpg )
B-2 Stealth Bomber To Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile
Posted on Apr.22, 2013 https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/b-2bomber/
The U.S. Air Force plans to arm the B-2A stealth bomber with a new nuclear cruise missile that is in the early stages of development, according to Air Force officials and budget documents.

The B-2A bomber, which is designed to slip through air defenses undetected, does not currently have a capability to deliver nuclear cruise missiles, a role reserved exclusively for B-52H bombers.

Under the Air Force’s plans, however, the new nuclear cruise missile – known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon – will arm three nuclear bombers: the B-2A, the B-52H, and the next-generation Long-Range Strike Bomber.
>> No. 20023 ID: fafd68
File 145698884593.jpg - (2.49MB , 1999x1492 , US B-2 Spirit Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missil.jpg )
The U.S. Air Force has approved full rate production for Lockheed Martin’s Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER).

JASSM-ER successfully completed U.S. Air Force Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) flight-testing in 2013. During IOT&E, the program had a 95 percent success rate, scoring 20 successes in 21 flights. Lots 11 and 12 of the JASSM contract awarded in December 2013 included 100 ER missiles.

«The full rate production decision demonstrates that our customer, at all levels of the U.S. Air Force, has confidence in JASSM-ER», said Jason Denney, long-range strike systems program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. «JASSM-ER provides warfighters with a first day, first strike capability in an anti-access, area-denial environment».

Armed with a dual-mode penetrator and blast-fragmentation warhead, JASSM and JASSM-ER cruise autonomously day or night in all weather conditions. Both missiles share the same powerful capabilities and stealthy characteristics, though JASSM-ER has more than two-and-a-half times the range of the baseline JASSM for greater standoff margin. These 2,000-pound cruise missiles employ an infrared seeker and Global Positioning System receiver to dial into specific target aimpoints. The infrared seeker allows the weapon to find its target even in areas where GPS signals are jammed.

- JASSM is integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s B-2
>> No. 20024 ID: fafd68
File 145698932151.jpg - (764.07KB , 1477x1159 , US B-1B Lancer Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missi.jpg )
«The baseline JASSM has a range in excess of 200 n miles (370 km), is powered by a Teledyne turbojet engine, and carries a WDU-42B (J-1000) 1,000-lb-class blast fragmentation/penetrating warhead. The JASSM-ER is powered by the Williams International F107-WR-105 turbofan engine, but is otherwise identical. It has a range of about 500 n miles (926 km)», Lockheed Martin’s representative Melissa Hilliard told IHS Jane’s.

JASSM and JASSM-ER are critical weapons for the U.S. Air Force. Extremely effective against high-value, well-fortified, fixed and relocatable targets, the stealthy JASSM-ER is integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B, but there are efforts under way for F-15E, F-16, and B-52 integration. JASSM is integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s B-2, B-52, F-16, F-15E, and internationally, on the Royal Australian Air Force’s F/A-18A/B.

Produced at the company’s award-winning manufacturing facility in Troy, Alabama, more than 1,500 JASSM cruise missiles have been assembled for testing and operational use toward a total U.S. Air Force objective of 4,900.

- First B-1B live JASSM drop. China Lake Range
>> No. 20025 ID: fafd68
File 145698938277.jpg - (1.28MB , 2782x1848 , US B-1A Prototype 4 first flight in 1981.jpg )
B-1A Prototype 4 showing its underside in 1981.
>> No. 20026 ID: 7c90e8
Apparently they just had some woman say "B-21 for the 21st century" to placate the feminists, which would make horrendous FOD if they were ever to protest on an airfield.

In all likelyhood the aircraft will be called B-3, with the name forthcoming.
>> No. 20027 ID: 0d9020
File 145705670578.jpg - (1.28MB , 4600x2682 , US B-2 Spirit Northrop Grumman 25th anniversary 20.jpg )
Officials have been tight-lipped as to the specific capability expectations for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), but indications are that it will be stealth, able to carry conventional and nuclear weapons and could possibly operate both with and without a pilot.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the new long-range bomber will have the ability to launch from the U.S. and strike any target around the globe to counter advancements in air defense systems by rival nations and emerging threats posed by potential adversaries.

...Engineering and development costs are estimated at $21.4 billion (in 2010 dollars) over the entire life of the program.

The second part of the contract covers the costs that go into building each of 100 aircraft projected as part of the program.

According to the estimates outlined in the contract, each long-range bomber will cost $511 million (in 2010 dollars), meeting the $550 million threshold set by the Pentagon.

Based on current independent estimates, the Air Force projects the cost of the program to be approximately a third of the previous B-2 stealth aircraft. http://ktla.com/2015/10/27/stealth-bomber-contract-likely-to-bring-thousands-of-jobs-to-palmdale-air-force-plant/

- A B-2 Stealth Bomber is shown at the Palmdale Aircraft Integration Center of Excellence on July 17, 2014, when the U.S. Air Force and manufacturer of the B-2, Northrop Grumman, celebrated the 25th anniversary of the B-2 Stealth Bomber's first flight.
>> No. 20028 ID: edd03a
In keeping with ghostly names, Wraith.
>> No. 20029 ID: 0d9020
File 14570575615.jpg - (555.90KB , 1024x768 , US B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) concept d.jpg )
LRS-B concept drawing courtesy of Aviation Week
But the OP image is pretty much an officially released concept drawing >>19979
>> No. 20030 ID: 0d9020
  USAF Announces New B-21 Stealth Bomber | Generation Tech
Published on Feb 27, 2016 https://youtu.be/moKdazi3Dtg
The US Air Force just announced the designation of their newest stealth bomber, the B-21. The plane will replace the B-52 and will incorporate stealth technology previously seen in the B-2 spirit.
>> No. 20031 ID: 06a0fb
See, this thing is what all the rumors I've heard/read Northrop is designing looks like.

That is the cranked kite. Like the X-47B. And this thing is supposed to be 70-90% the size of the B-2, and have better all-aspect RCS than the B2 did. Northrop's been saying that the cranked kite is so much better than true flying wing's during their development of the RQ-180.
>> No. 20032 ID: 254d85
File 145714422890.jpg - (837.11KB , 1315x1974 , UFO-pic.jpg )
You know I guess this explains the mystery flying wings that have been photographed over the Kansas-Texas region over the past couple years that didn't quite look like B-2s and were too big to be the various unmanned projects.
>> No. 20033 ID: 06a0fb
File 145728070822.jpg - (179.27KB , 600x800 , Lockheed_Long_Range_Strike.jpg )
This pic has two concepts Lockheed forwarded for development as the LRS-B too.

In all honesty, I think Senior Peg would have been a better idea than these.
>> No. 20034 ID: 06a0fb
File 145728114036.jpg - (328.74KB , 1124x541 , NG-6th-Gen-fighter.jpg )
Then of course was the video Northrop release like a month or so ago with some kind of rendered 6th-gen fighter craft. Pic related.

Northrop is really into rudderless designs here now.

And don't forget, Lockheed is supposedly developing what they are calling the SR-72. A "Mach 5+ capable reconnaissance aircraft."
>> No. 20035 ID: 9723b1
File 145728433090.jpg - (100.57KB , 750x500 , 1311476146985496751.jpg )
Sweep doesn't look supersonic, it looks less swept wing than Avenger II or F-117 which are both subsonic. Also it's not a cranked kite which is what B-21 supposedly is (pic related). The triangles are some autonomous drone flight demonstrator, the fuselage is just a cheap one-off simulacrum of what the software is really going to fly in, which is why no one can match the fuselage to any known jet.

>inlet on top
An inlet on top of the body degrades performance while increasing altitude or banking, which is crucial for fighters. Only strategic bombers or transport aircraft can afford to have inlets that high.
The vid is clearly designed specifically to misinform Japan, India, China, Russia and whoever else, hopefully get them to spend a billion on dead end research.
>> No. 20036 ID: 06a0fb
>An inlet on top of the body degrades performance while increasing altitude or banking, which is crucial for fighters. Only strategic bombers or transport aircraft can afford to have inlets that high.

Huh. I always wondered why no one ever mounted engines higher in the fuselage and top-mounted the inlets. Good to know. Probably from too much turbulence off the leading edges and forward slats reducing air intake and starving the engines or something.

Makes a lot of sense when someone actually lays it out for you.

I probably should have gone to school for aerospace engineering or some other STEM field instead of psychology. Oh well. Maybe once I get my fucking loads paid off.
>> No. 20037 ID: 360765
File 145728840729.jpg - (35.86KB , 839x356 , fd3dcebd993ae183287633dc2cca11c7_jpeg.jpg )
Exactly, the leading edge of the aircraft separates the airflow so there's less efficiency.
>> No. 20038 ID: 06a0fb
Hm. This makes me wonder what the viability of wingroot or leading edge engine air inlets on the cranked kite layout.

Something like on the F-101 Voodoo or the F-105 Thunderchief.

It could hypothetically be devised in a diverterless configuration, and be shaped to maintain the radar reflectivity characteristics of top-mounted inlets like on the F-117 and B-2. Channeling the thrust and exhausting it upward through the rear as on the B-2 should be possible at supersonic speed, and with advancements like Lockheed's Quiet Spike tech, and the NASA/Lockheed quiet supersonic technology contract would reduce the normally associated sound signature of high supersonic flyovers.
>> No. 20039 ID: 9723b1
I'm sure you can... shift majors...

Avenger II has inlets very close to the leading edge, just under it actually.
>> No. 20040 ID: 06a0fb
I finished my major 4 years ago. I've used my degree so much working as a meat cutter for the last 7.
>> No. 20041 ID: 82a3e8
I like my psych degree tyvm. Then again like 98% of psych majors want to get in as a clinical psych shrink type. Fuck that. Masters degree (if I wanna) and into fortune 500 companies as a social psychologist or Industrial/Organizational Psych. Make bank making companies make bigger bank.
>> No. 20042 ID: 06a0fb
I don't dislike my degree. But I wanted to go for research into applied robotics and robotic prostheses research.

And after graduating I didn't have the $160K for the doctorate and the mechanical or electrical engineering degrees I'd need for that stuff. $120K for the doctorate alone, if I just went straight clinical instead.

At least with a useful STEM degree I could have a job making use of that bachelor's of science.

But fuck it, that's what self-hatred and alcohol abuse are for right?
>> No. 20257 ID: dd244d
Aaaaand the results are in!
>Brown Baby Blaster
>Deathkill Eaglehawk
>Barrack Obomber
>Weeb Killer
>Life Shredder
>Where's Your Family Now
>Oops Wrong Wedding Party
>Che-Che-Cherry Bomber
>Silent But Deadly
>College Ain't Free
>Liberty Hammer
>Collateral Carnage
>Small Hands
>Doom Eagle
>Doom Eagle II
>Fist Me Daddy
>Hell Pigeon
>Darth America
>Flat Bastard
>Why They Hate Us
>Waste of Money
>Blow Deez Nuts
>Biggus Dickus
>Blade of Empire
>Blown Billions
>Moral Failure
>Moral High Ground
>Bomby McBombface
^ Favorite, and about a thousand variations thereof.
>Testosterone 1
>Thunderbird 2
>Boomlackalackalacka Boomlackalackalacka Boom
>Butch Deadlift
>Flint Ironstag
>Smoke Manmuscle
>What Bomber?
>The Donald
>Civilian Casualties
>Widow Maker
>Kid Sky Killer
>Romulus Augustus
>Sundried Tomato
>Saul Goodman
>Jane Fonda
>> No. 20258 ID: dd244d
>> No. 20259 ID: 82edf9
File 145874762779.jpg - (0.97MB , 2048x1536 , CC club boomerang Australian 2.jpg )
God damn it! "Bomberang" didn't even make the list??
>> No. 20260 ID: 82edf9
File 145874775995.jpg - (1.09MB , 1962x1472 , CC club boomerang Australian Aboriginal 1.jpg )
Well, boomerang at least made the list.
Here's some Australian Aboriginal boomerangs.
>> No. 20261 ID: 82edf9
File 145874781566.jpg - (198.76KB , 1280x776 , CC club boomerang Egyptian hunting sticks in Tutan.jpg )
Egyptian hunting boomerangs of Tutankhamun's grave goods. Replicas from the special exhibition "Tutanchamun: Sein Grab und die Schätze" 2009 in Munich / Germany.
>> No. 20262 ID: 82edf9
File 145874804037.jpg - (681.83KB , 1103x1485 , CC club boomerang Australian Aboriginal method of .jpg )
Luritja man demonstrating method of attack with boomerang under cover of shield. An indigenous man with headdress and body paint is posing with a boomerang in his hand raised behind his head, and a shield and a second boomerang held in front of him (Central Australia).
Date: 1920
>> No. 20263 ID: 82edf9
File 145874842728.jpg - (47.10KB , 1316x866 , CC club boomerang Batman Batarang 1.jpg )
Bat-plane or Batarang would have been appropriate as well.
>> No. 20264 ID: 82edf9
  2 FOOT Batarang Returning Boomerang https://youtu.be/A03sFj7Ifm4
>> No. 20265 ID: 82edf9
  How to throw a traditional boomerang https://youtu.be/jPj53n33F7Q
>> No. 20266 ID: 82edf9
  How It's Made Boomerangs https://youtu.be/zl10s5xe2-4
>> No. 20267 ID: 82edf9
File 145875031093.jpg - (1.55MB , 3498x2453 , CC club boomerang Australian 3.jpg )
>> No. 20268 ID: 82edf9
File 145875033349.jpg - (218.63KB , 5184x2556 , CC club boomerang Australian 4.jpg )
>> No. 21475 ID: bb86e7
Another reason the B-2, F-117 and such have dorsal intakes is that the intakes form a cavity that makes a good radar reflector. This can be combated with baffles, RAM, or a sinuous shaped intake as in the B-1B, but clearly, from looking at what has been actually put into practice, it is better to put intakes on top in addition to this. It is likely that the B2 and F117 do have some stealth oriented shape to their intakes as they have auxiliary intake doors that open for takeoff. Paging Bat Guano for pics.
>> No. 21476 ID: bb86e7
B-21 Raider is what was decided:
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post