B-21 (LRS-B) Thread

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post13 Feb 2017, 23:18

durahawk wrote:Probably one of the most laughable articles I've seen on Avweek in awhile:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one


What on earth...
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) strikes again!!
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3056
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 02:08

southernphantom wrote:
durahawk wrote:Probably one of the most laughable articles I've seen on Avweek in awhile:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one


What on earth...
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) strikes again!!

Well, the B-21 would already have the most expensive items built in, so an AFO version would only need to be remodeled for accommodations, which probably wouldn't add that much to the price. You very well might be able to get two for under $1B. That said, even assuming that you are using the space allotted to the bomb bay, I don't see how you squeeze in anything like the accommodations that any AFO should have.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1546
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 04:01

BWB or bust...

Image
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 07:03

Bust.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

ftworthjohn

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2016, 16:17

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 23:19

southernphantom wrote:
durahawk wrote:Probably one of the most laughable articles I've seen on Avweek in awhile:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one


What on earth...
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) strikes again!!


"A panel of aerospace and defense analysts" said this, not Trump !!!! Get your facts straight dude
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post15 Feb 2017, 18:19

count_to_10 wrote:Well, the B-21 would already have the most expensive items built in, so an AFO version would only need to be remodeled for accommodations, which probably wouldn't add that much to the price. You very well might be able to get two for under $1B. That said, even assuming that you are using the space allotted to the bomb bay, I don't see how you squeeze in anything like the accommodations that any AFO should have.


Most indications are that the B-21 will be smaller than the B-2 so cramming the POTUS in there with support staff is ludicrous. The engines would also be much lower bypass ratio to accommodate the flying wing profile so you would likely be burning a lot more fuel and having to refuel much more frequently. Not to mention the optics of having your president arrive in a tealth bomber on diplomatic visits...

If you really want to save money, I would think if anything a modified KC-46 would fit the bill where the avionics would already be up to military specification (eventually) along with the capability to in-flight refuel. It would also greatly simplify logistics for the Air Force sharing parts and maintenance commonality with the bulk of the tanker fleet.

You would have to live with the reduced redundancy of two engines instead of four, and less range, but it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 03:28

ftworthjohn wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
durahawk wrote:Probably one of the most laughable articles I've seen on Avweek in awhile:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/preside ... -force-one


What on earth...
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) strikes again!!


"A panel of aerospace and defense analysts" said this, not Trump !!!! Get your facts straight dude


It was a play off the old Bush Derangement Syndrome, basically the complete failure of logic that occurred on the left when referring to Bush 43. They're doing the same thing with Trump. Just look at the FoxtrotAlpha loons- that entire site turned into a giant Trump-bashing overnight for no apparent reason.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 20:22

southernphantom wrote:...for no apparent reason.


No apparent reason, other than them always being loons.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 20:32

I dunno, the B-21 doesn't inspire for me.

Most assign a subsonic flying wing design to it. Been there, done that. Other than more range/better stealth that's a yawner to me. You can talk about new weapons, but as a platform it isn't shaping up to be anything revolutionary. I would have thought a very high speed vehicle would Trump the flying wing (pun intended). Perhaps I'm mistaken, but most artist renditions I've seen resemble a smaller B-2.

I get it needs to be affordable and the Air Force is sick of 20 year development programs, but maybe the technology isn't there yet for hypersonic deep penetration aircraft with weapons capable of piercing deep, reinforced targets somewhere in North Korea, LOL
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 21:12

My main issue with the B-21 is that it breaks the numbering scheme that the military set out all those years ago.

It should've been the B-3.

That's really my only issue.

And it should've been called the "Ghost" instead of "Raider"
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 21:25

KamenRiderBlade wrote:My main issue with the B-21 is that it breaks the numbering scheme that the military set out all those years ago.

It should've been the B-3.

That's really my only issue.

And it should've been called the "Ghost" instead of "Raider"

2 + 1 = 3

So that is the ghost in the shell. ;)
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3056
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post17 Feb 2017, 00:34

mixelflick wrote:I dunno, the B-21 doesn't inspire for me.

It is supposed to be boring. The whole point is "more of what we already have, but cheaper".
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4071
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 00:20

KamenRiderBlade wrote:My main issue with the B-21 is that it breaks the numbering scheme that the military set out all those years ago.

It should've been the B-3.

That's really my only issue.

And it should've been called the "Ghost" instead of "Raider"


And the F-35 should have been the F-25. (The Super Hornet should have been the F/A-24.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

twistedneck

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2009, 18:06
  • Location: Dearborn, MI

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 09:38

count_to_10 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I dunno, the B-21 doesn't inspire for me.

It is supposed to be boring. The whole point is "more of what we already have, but cheaper".


Looking forward to the first prototypes flying I have a feeling it will be a leap in stealth shaping.. all that deep learning exo scale supercomputer work will make this one freaky.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4710
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 16:08

KamenRiderBlade wrote:My main issue with the B-21 is that it breaks the numbering scheme that the military set out all those years ago.

It should've been the B-3.

That's really my only issue.

And it should've been called the "Ghost" instead of "Raider"



The names have always been arbitrary. What are the 107 aircraft between the F-4 and F-111 again?

People get so hung up on this stuff lol
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests