All Things Stealth

[Josh]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its got just the same gear configuration from the B2 as far as I can tell.

Its certainly smaller, maybe even as much as 25 percent smaller. Its clearly got a smoother configuration. Possibly this points to a flying testbed that was reported flying around about 10 years ago. Judging by the full width of the apparent bomb bay, and the smaller and more recessed engines, Im wondering if its possible that this has just 2 engines instead of 4, to free up extra room? Would make it fun to make a single engine landing, but then I guess in a B2, a single engine failure could become two anyway.

The Roswell saucer sure polished up nice.

 

 

 

It is thought to employ two unaugmented F135 engines for ~3/4 of B-2s thrust and be in a similar or even lower weight class. Not sure how it handles an engine failure but they are closer together so maybe the thrust isn’t asymmetrical enough to be unstable. There is supposedly only one bomb bay, presumably at least as large as either on B-2 because it is to carry MOP and LRSO which are long weapons. The single bay allows for closer engine spacing. 30,000+ lbs of ordnance allows for a single GBU-57 and easily accommodates eight AGM-86 class weapons. The landing gear appear to be single axle in the roll out and are definitely so in the renderings. B-2 is double axle, so this indicates a rather dramatic weight reduction from B-2. It is a smaller aircraft and IMO also likely is significantly less dense with modern composites. The tail is to revert to a single triangle instead of the saw tooth but the roll pics I’ve seen don’t cover that angle. The revised tail should be more aerodynamically efficient at altitude.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Josh

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

My own theory about the moderate costs and relatively speedy development of the B-21 program is that it's probably less advanced than they would make us believe.

The real technical innovations now used in the B-21 have likely already been developed for the RQ-180 (which is "coincidentally", also a product by Northrop Grumman😏). I guess those black projects out in the desert are useful after all....

 

It was designed using mature technologies; that was a requirement. I’m sure it borrowed heavily from Northrops work on “RQ-180” and I suspect engines and avionics borrowed from F-35. BAE was one of the major contractors and there’s really no reason for it not to use the same, but potentially larger, conformal arrays as its sensors with the same operating software and processors. So I would bet it doesn’t do anything an F-135 or “RQ-180” can’t do electronically, albeit will wider apertures and possibly bandwidths owing to more real estate for antennas and space for processing. I’d also assume it borrows a lot of high bandwidth LPI coms gear from “RQ-180” and probably some additional com equipment for the nuclear delivery role. I’d guess some form of modern astronavigation as well like the B-2. But probably little about it is absolutely new and unique, just refined and expanded with more capability deployed on a single platform. I wish we had a range figure for it; I’d expect it to manage a higher speed, ceiling, and endurance than B-2.

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, Josh said:

It is thought to employ two unaugmented F135 engines for ~3/4 of B-2s thrust and be in a similar or even lower weight class. Not sure how it handles an engine failure but they are closer together so maybe the thrust isn’t asymmetrical enough to be unstable. There is supposedly only one bomb bay, presumably at least as large as either on B-2 because it is to carry MOP and LRSO which are long weapons. The single bay allows for closer engine spacing. 30,000+ lbs of ordnance allows for a single GBU-57 and easily accommodates eight AGM-86 class weapons. The landing gear appear to be single axle in the roll out and are definitely so in the renderings. B-2 is double axle, so this indicates a rather dramatic weight reduction from B-2. It is a smaller aircraft and IMO also likely is significantly less dense with modern composites. The tail is to revert to a single triangle instead of the saw tooth but the roll pics I’ve seen don’t cover that angle. The revised tail should be more efficient aerodynamics at altitude.

Ah, with you now. My bad, I misunderstood.

Yeah, I did read they were removing the triple triangle as on the B2, which was an artifact of the USAF supposedly wanting low level penetration capablity, and compromised some stealth capablity. Which illustrates neatly why they want to have politicians interfering as little as possible....

[Josh]

The low penetration requirement change came from the USAF, not politicians. It was felt stealth may not be effective or otherwise be compromised during the aircraft's lifetime and the single tail structure apparently wasn't strong enough for low penetration flight. Keep in mind that when it was designed, flying NOE was considered *the* way to penetrate defended airspace. It not only reduced effective distance and exposure to ground based radar; it *also* allowed for much more accurate bombing with unguided ordnance (something that became a non issue). In 1991 less then 10% of the ordnance used was guided; now even the nuclear bombs are guided.

[Josh]

Given the very high degree of lift a flying wing should have, especially with the revised tail, along with what on the surface looks like an increased thurst : weight ratio (if nothing else, only half the bomb load and bomb bay structure) I think this will be a very high altitude platform. I suspect it will operate above 50,000 feet/15,000 meters and will carry most of the RQ-180s sensor suite with it and have a similar line of sight. That would also mean that it will have a lot more reach with cheap glide weapons like SDB-I / II, and I'd expect those to be a priority of the weapons integration. The B-52 and even C-17 can fling AGM-158s far and wide; I see the B-21 as having two main advantages: large specialized penetrating weapons that cannot be used in a stand off mode (GBU-57/72) and cheap unpowered munitions that high altitude can greatly enable. I'd expect it to have dedicated racks to maximize the volume of the bomb bay similar to the way B-2s have a unique 40 round dispenser system for Mk-82.

[bfng3569]

no serrated or saw tooth edges visible either.....  and barely any visible seams or sensor panels.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, bfng3569 said:

no serrated or saw tooth edges visible either.....  and barely any visible seams or sensor panels.

I can't see anything except the landing gear seams and what looks like the settings for the windows. But I've only seen a few head on pics available online; its hard to get any sense of it. The color is interesting...it seems to have adopted a more fighter gray scheme. Which IMO makes more sense, because presumably they won't only be operating at night anyway...

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Mike1158]

It'll buff out.

[futon]

On that note, another hiccup a couple of weeks ago. It made an emergency landing at Kadena due to electrical issues. While being towed, the front landing gear came off.

 

[Skywalkre]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

The first few days when I had COVID I was so tired (from being unable to sleep) that all I could muster was watching TV.  Stumbled across some fighter pilot channels on YT and universally they all lamented what the B model did to this program.  Listening to these guys you wonder when we have our next major conflict, the 35 is involved, and if it under performs we'll come back to the mess of the procurement it was and go "why did we need the B?"

One of these channels was the first place I heard the 35 referred to as 'Fat Amy'.  Talk about a nickname.  🤣

Edited December 15, 2022 by Skywalkre

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont think its so bad. Yeah, its a little overweight, but arguably that can just as easily be asserted to be the constraints imposed by the A model. The ideal aircraft would have been a similar airframe but lighter, so the VSTOL performance would have been better.

As it is, its a 5th Generation fighter that can land on a Baby Carrier. And even the USN, whom have escewed Baby Carriers as unmanly are practically doing the same thing with LPH to get as many F35 as forward as possible.

10 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

It'll buff out.

Im impressed how well it crashes. If a Harrier had done that it would have broke its back. It probably did, but doubtless there will be a lot salvable. Wonder if the lift fan broke?

[Josh]

19 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

The first few days when I had COVID I was so tired (from being unable to sleep) that all I could muster was watching TV.  Stumbled across some fighter pilot channels on YT and universally they all lamented what the B model did to this program.  Listening to these guys you wonder when we have our next major conflict, the 35 is involved, and if it under performs we'll come back to the mess of the procurement it was and go "why did we need the B?"

One of these channels was the first place I heard the 35 referred to as 'Fat Amy'.  Talk about a nickname.  🤣

The F35s kinetics were completely compromised by the USMC so they can have twenty planes on an LHA once a year.

[Josh]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont think its so bad. Yeah, its a little overweight, but arguably that can just as easily be asserted to be the constraints imposed by the A model. The ideal aircraft would have been a similar airframe but lighter, so the VSTOL performance would have been better.

As it is, its a 5th Generation fighter that can land on a Baby Carrier. And even the USN, whom have escewed Baby Carriers as unmanly are practically doing the same thing with LPH to get as many F35 as forward as possible.

Im impressed how well it crashes. If a Harrier had done that it would have broke its back. It probably did, but doubtless there will be a lot salvable. Wonder if the lift fan broke?

The problem isn’t weight, it’s shaping; the F-35 doesn’t follow the area rule. Probably the most damaging requirement wasn’t STOVL per se (lots of people blame the lift fan) but the length limit imposed by amphib aircraft elevators.

F-35s superior avionics will probably save it in most scenarios but it’s performance is a step backwards at Mach 1 or above.

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

The problem isn’t weight, it’s shaping; the F-35 doesn’t follow the area rule. Probably the most damaging requirement wasn’t STOVL per se (lots of people blame the lift fan) but the length limit imposed by amphib aircraft elevators.

F-35s superior avionics will probably save it in most scenarios but it’s performance is a step backwards at Mach 1 or above.

If my memory serves me, the F35 has a top speed of M 1.5 for the B version.

It has a very powerful engine in it, but even it can't go faster. They should of done what every other nations have done, and go for multiple engines.

I know for the export market they had to keep the prices low, but still.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by TrustMe

[Josh]

5 hours ago, TrustMe said:

If my memory serves me, the F35 has a top speed of M 1.5 for the B version.

It has a very powerful engine in it, but even it can't go faster. They should of done what every other nations have done, and go for multiple engines.

I know for the export market they had to keep the prices low, but still.

 

Power isn’t the issue, drag is. Look at an F35 from a completely head on angle and you’ll understand where “fat Amy” comes from. The F-104 could sustain supersonic without reheat. Top speed is more about shape than power. Acceleration to that top speed is more about power. The F-35 actually has great subsonic handling; it fails above that due to drag. The A version isn’t significantly faster than the B, though the lighter weight give it better acceleration. The C has the worst performance of all due to weight and the wider wing.

[bfng3569]

On 12/15/2022 at 5:22 PM, futon said:

On that note, another hiccup a couple of weeks ago. It made an emergency landing at Kadena due to electrical issues. While being towed, the front landing gear came off.

 

whats with the nose bouncing so much while being towed?

[Ivanhoe]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:48 PM, Josh said:

Power isn’t the issue, drag is. Look at an F35 from a completely head on angle and you’ll understand where “fat Amy” comes from. The F-104 could sustain supersonic without reheat. Top speed is more about shape than power. Acceleration to that top speed is more about power. The F-35 actually has great subsonic handling; it fails above that due to drag. The A version isn’t significantly faster than the B, though the lighter weight give it better acceleration. The C has the worst performance of all due to weight and the wider wing.

The 104 had very high T/W for its time, though. As evidenced by its climb rate records. Tongue in cheek, one might say the 104 was the "energy" in Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability Theory.

As for the video from Kadena, unintentional debut of the F-35 bicycle landing gear.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

whats with the nose bouncing so much while being towed?

Two possibilities as I see it. It's either airride suspension and it's trying to get down like a funky thing. Or possibly, the nosewheel brake was left on.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Two possibilities as I see it. It's either airride suspension and it's trying to get down like a funky thing. Or possibly, the nosewheel brake was left on.

The lift fan is still working throughtout the bounch of the aircraft. Maybe it's an engine / lift fault?

Edited December 19, 2022 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, I was talking about the F35 being towed that Futon posted.

[bfng3569]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-22-test-pilot-details-the-raptors-incredible-speed

 

• There are especially fascinating details shared about the Raptor’s speed, including the advantages of supercruise (cruising at over the speed of sound without afterburner). As well as being more fuel efficient and stealthier in terms of infrared signature, the Raptor can happily cruise at Mach 1.6 or 1.7, without afterburner, depending on the temperature at altitude. Getting faster, the F-22 is just as impressive. While level acceleration from Mach 0.9 to 1.2 at 40,000 feet takes around 45 seconds, the time from Mach 1.6 to 1.9 is less than half that. Noteworthy, too, is that in full afterburner the F-22 pumps out 150 percent power (100 percent being full dry or ‘military’ power without afterburning). At Mach 2 and 40,000 feet, an F-22 will be at about 118 percent — “So you still got plenty left at the other end to push it up.” The Raptor tops out at Mach 2.0 — according to the Air Force manual — however, JB pushed one of the jets to Mach 2.1, just to prove that this was feasible.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was a rumour project of the US Airforce called ASTRA, which was also rumoured to be a medium bomber replacement for the F111. The reason why I mention this, the aircraft was in 1993 believed to have crash landed at RAF Boscombe down. Witnesses say it bore a close resemblance to the F22's unsuccessful competitor, the YF23, which itself was believed to be no slouch.

[bfng3569]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There was a rumour project of the US Airforce called ASTRA, which was also rumoured to be a medium bomber replacement for the F111. The reason why I mention this, the aircraft was in 1993 believed to have crash landed at RAF Boscombe down. Witnesses say it bore a close resemblance to the F22's unsuccessful competitor, the YF23, which itself was believed to be no slouch.

By all accounts the YF-23 was faster (and stealthier).

Would have been interesting if they did try it as a small bomber.

always thought their should have been a replacement for the F111.

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by bfng3569

[TrustMe]

It could be this  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II  although this was intended for the USN.