Northrop Grumman unveils B-21 bomber(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Northrop Grumman unveils B-21 bomber
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/northrop-grumman-set-unveil-b-21-nuclear-bomber-us-air-force-2022-12-02/
65 comments
>The B-21 is a digital bomber. Northrop Grumman uses agile software development
I stopped there. We're fucked.
I stopped there. We're fucked.
Don't worry, they probably just want to fill out requirements documents with "Agile" written on them.
The 6th gen is primarily based on a completely new generation of stealth technology. The data infrastructure is more 5th gen (which is still pretty sophisticated).
F35 is built with upgradability in mind, so I think with regards to software the lines will be very blurred.
The connections I understand but software being shared means one vulnerability can bring down multiple types and generations of aircraft.
This is an interesting point. While pulling of an attack like that wouldn't be easy, just having your entire air force having to patch for it simultaneously would be devastating from an availabilty PoV. Perhaps information security assurance is the real 6th gen? :)
As soon as they are able to get rid fo the bugs in the current system.
I’m going to go with this isn’t an actual flying article. It’s just too smooth, even the high-rez pic. No cutouts/markings for ejection seats. No air sensors, no hatches, access panels. Possible it’s so fresh out of paint booth they’re not marked, but doubt it.
Probably a structural/ground test victim. That NG said “you won’t see it again until it flies” says we won’t see much more.
Lots of wing washout, more than the B-2. It’s porky, so they didn’t go with two or three engines (unless there’s a top inlet) so four P&Ws, draggy, lots of fuel needed. But I bet the payload is more than 2/3 the B-2.
It makes the B-2 look svelte.
Probably a structural/ground test victim. That NG said “you won’t see it again until it flies” says we won’t see much more.
Lots of wing washout, more than the B-2. It’s porky, so they didn’t go with two or three engines (unless there’s a top inlet) so four P&Ws, draggy, lots of fuel needed. But I bet the payload is more than 2/3 the B-2.
It makes the B-2 look svelte.
Afaik even the B-2 didn't have pitot tubes for airspeed sensors.
If I remember correctly, it used lasers to measure the change in the refractive index of air, which changes based on density, and used that to calculate dynamic and static air pressure.
If I remember correctly, it used lasers to measure the change in the refractive index of air, which changes based on density, and used that to calculate dynamic and static air pressure.
Lack of ejection seats, or visible provisions for them have come to my mind, too.
“The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.
The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.”
75 Billion or what? 10% of all defense spending on these planes?!
The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.”
75 Billion or what? 10% of all defense spending on these planes?!
They might not buy all of them. The military usually reserves themselves a right to buy hundreds of jets, but due to various conditions (such as a recession or the cold war ending) they sometimes don't buy all of them. There were some plans for 132 B-2 Spirit planes, but only 21 were made in the end. One of them crashed and was destroyed, and I'm not sure about the one that went of the runway last year, so there might only be 19 usable airframes at this point. You can't use all of them at the same time due to maintenance, so it could take months for all of them to get a chance to drop bombs from the start of an actual war. For the F-22 Raptor as well, an original idea in the 1980s was to order up to 750 aircraft, but only 187 production models were actually made. Not all could be made operational due to crashes and other damage.
They probably won't buy all of them in a single year. They will phase out older bombers like the B-1 and B-2 and replace them with these.
I'm more shocked that $550 2010 dollars are worth $750 now.
Wait wait, $750m EACH?!
Fucking hell war is expensive.
Fucking hell war is expensive.
Like zppln said, it's actually pretty cheap. But it gives you the ability to fly with impunity everywhere and do surgical (or less surgical) strikes on anything. That's a pretty big stick, and even not using it buys you a lot of leeway in other areas.
The B2 Spirit cost like $2B+ each. In the 90's...
Does anyone know how much of a cost savings is due to moving to more software-driven tech? (kind of like in Teslas)
B2 program had a lot of problems from what I’ve heard. E.g. a lot of the equipment made to make parts for the blame would break after being used to make parts for one or two planes lol.
Especially when you consider that they'll probably only be used for air strikes on militant groups like the B-2 has been. And only so because they will be there so might as well be put to some use (missiles and drones can do the job more cheaply and more safely)...
We are in a ton of trouble long term. Think about how much of that 750 million is just to feed all the pigs at the trough.
The USS Zumwalt is an even bigger joke if you look it up. 20+ billion and basically a mistake.
Then just think about what China can build all this for in terms of speed and cost. It is game, set, match on a 100 year time frame.
The USS Zumwalt is an even bigger joke if you look it up. 20+ billion and basically a mistake.
Then just think about what China can build all this for in terms of speed and cost. It is game, set, match on a 100 year time frame.
Huh? No government’s military has yet proven to have developed tech that rivals that of the planes and such in the US or that of its Allies.
Look how much a 747 or a380 costs
$420m, Google says. You can almost buy two 747-8s for one B-21, and the 747s get used all day.
My point is that it’s within the same order of magnitude and does a lot more. I bet if the gov committed to ordering 1500 of them the price could come down
A b21 can be used everyday too?
A b21 can be used everyday too?
I think the "used every day" point was more along the lines of a cargo / passenger jet can haul stuff all day every day, whereas (hopefully) you don't have a need to bomb the living shit out of someone all day every day.
Then again, perhaps maintenance of a stealth bomber really is horrendous enough that it wouldn't be able to fly sorties "every day".
But basically I read GP cooment as an apples to oranges comparison (since you traditionally wouldn't drop bombs using a cargo aircraft, and wouldn't airlift cargo with a bomber.)
Then again, perhaps maintenance of a stealth bomber really is horrendous enough that it wouldn't be able to fly sorties "every day".
But basically I read GP cooment as an apples to oranges comparison (since you traditionally wouldn't drop bombs using a cargo aircraft, and wouldn't airlift cargo with a bomber.)
War? What war? What war is using a nuclear bomber ever?
What's expensive is pathetic dong measuring contests by sad old men.
What's expensive is pathetic dong measuring contests by sad old men.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Ukraine is a good example of what will happen otherwise.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
I'm not a pacifist or a warmonger.
The big cost is "stealth" in these things. You only need that if you intend to enact a war intentionally. Cheaper old style bombers are fine for the majority of day to day deterrence operations. In fact they are probably better since they can optimize for cargo loads.
The big cost is "stealth" in these things. You only need that if you intend to enact a war intentionally. Cheaper old style bombers are fine for the majority of day to day deterrence operations. In fact they are probably better since they can optimize for cargo loads.
B2 and B21 are capable of carrying nuclear bombs, doesn't mean that's the only thing they do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Op...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Op...
US ended up only buying 21 of the B2.
This is like someone robbing you and then showing you how nice their new watch is.
So, most of capitalism in the 21st century
I had expected the military to go with autonomous self-flying self-bombing
if necessary, kamikaze drone strategic bombers.
It could maneuver and operate in conditions a ride along pilot could not survive.
As several others have pointed out the promo shots seems to leave out ejection facilities and other nifty things for humans to survive.
It could maneuver and operate in conditions a ride along pilot could not survive.
As several others have pointed out the promo shots seems to leave out ejection facilities and other nifty things for humans to survive.
So we now have apple'esc style reveal events for death machines. That's nice /s
If this thing ever gets to see action a lot of lives will be lost.
If this thing ever gets to see action a lot of lives will be lost.
There isn't much to go on but it seems weird to me, that compared to the extremely complex geometry of the B-2's intake that clearly looked computer designed, the B-21 has smooth, clean, flowing lines. It looks like something that could've been designed with a slide rule in the 60s.
I bet that the design is telltale of the computational power that was available for simulations at the time they were designed. They probably had to use clunky approximations for the B1, and the resulting design was clunky as a result. And better technology and knowledge of aerodynamics let them design models with smoother (read: more computationally intensive) contours later.
Whether these smooth shapes were achievable in the 60s is a difficult question. They had parametric curves back then, but probably less idea how these contours influence aerodynamics and radar cross section, and even much less what the optimal shapes would be.
Whether these smooth shapes were achievable in the 60s is a difficult question. They had parametric curves back then, but probably less idea how these contours influence aerodynamics and radar cross section, and even much less what the optimal shapes would be.
I think you’re correct! There’s a fantastic book called Skunkworks by Ben Rich that covers the development of the F-117. Part of the reason it came out so “blocky” looking was due to computer design limitations of the time.
I'd rather have heatlhcare and better schools
You guys pay enough for healthcare already to have both, you just need to organize it better (you could look to the rest of the world for some inspiration).
Tell Putin.
Cheap excuse for a country of shooters.
Just say that you like to plunder.
Just say that you like to plunder.
If we're plundering you, rest assured, you'll know it.
I like to plunder. Gotta pay for the healthcare and schools somehow. Don't you care about the children?
Lmao Putin isn't Putin up much of a fight these days. if you wanna scare him air drop solar panels all over the place and show a picture of some old howitzers.
He's killed 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers so far, by the best current estimates, and he couldn't care less about that.
He's lost a similar number of his own people, and he couldn't care less about that, either.
But yeah, let's appease him, and see how that goes in the long run. Maybe it'll work this time. Maybe this time is different.
He's lost a similar number of his own people, and he couldn't care less about that, either.
But yeah, let's appease him, and see how that goes in the long run. Maybe it'll work this time. Maybe this time is different.
Yeah buddy, giving sick kids healthcare isnt appeasing Putin, breathe.
5th generation fighters aren't good enough against Putin?
People like Putin and Xi understand only one language: force. (Actually that old cliché is true of pretty much any head of state.)
Whatever your own beliefs, they won't fare as well in a world where the West has abandoned the upper hand in defense technology.
Whatever your own beliefs, they won't fare as well in a world where the West has abandoned the upper hand in defense technology.
> West has abandoned the upper hand in defense technology.
Ah yes, superior Russian technology, as demonstrated in Ukraine.
Ah yes, superior Russian technology, as demonstrated in Ukraine.
I'd rather America does not provoke Russia and have a military presence bordering Russia and not support Ukraine joining NATO.
> I'd rather America does not provoke Russia and have a military presence bordering Russia and not support Ukraine joining NATO.
Appeasing Russia will never work, they have appeased for decades and it just leads to more conflict. The only thing Russia will respond to is being physically rebuffed, luckily this is happening in Ukraine.
Russia was never provoked into invading Ukraine, they merely used their own propaganda machine to invent excuses for the invasion.
Appeasing Russia will never work, they have appeased for decades and it just leads to more conflict. The only thing Russia will respond to is being physically rebuffed, luckily this is happening in Ukraine.
Russia was never provoked into invading Ukraine, they merely used their own propaganda machine to invent excuses for the invasion.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-beg...
Ukraine offered to stay out of NATO to prevent war, guess what, it didn't prevent it.
Nothing we can do will stop Russia except defeating them.
Ukraine offered to stay out of NATO to prevent war, guess what, it didn't prevent it.
Nothing we can do will stop Russia except defeating them.
All, in all, if you also count Ukraine, NATO and EU expansion meant adding about a hundred million people to the western world. This may or may not be worth anything to you, but I'm glad you didn't make the decision.
Appeasing Putin is what got us into this shit. And appeasing Putin will just give us more shit in the future.
This isn't about NATO too, gas was found in Crimea that could replace Russian gas.
Time to kick him out of Ukraine, the hard way.
This isn't about NATO too, gas was found in Crimea that could replace Russian gas.
Time to kick him out of Ukraine, the hard way.
That's playing Putin's game.
Am I the only that sees a flying saucer shape if you look at it from the bottom?
No they’re definitely getting more saucer like with each generation.
Realist: I wonder how long the military has been playing with such shapes and if that explains the flying saucer phenomena of the 1950s UFO mania.
Conspiracist: I guess they’ve finally started to figure out how the flying saucers that crashed in the 50s worked and are incorporating them slowly into designs to hide the alien influence.
The realist interpretation seems more sane but it wouldn’t surprise me if the conspiratorial interpretation is bouncing around corners of the internet.
Conspiracist: I guess they’ve finally started to figure out how the flying saucers that crashed in the 50s worked and are incorporating them slowly into designs to hide the alien influence.
The realist interpretation seems more sane but it wouldn’t surprise me if the conspiratorial interpretation is bouncing around corners of the internet.
One conspiracy theory proposes a mix of both: that the flying wings use reverse-engineered antigrav technology from UFOs, which is argued to be required for takeoff.
Some of those UFO sightings are also clearly forced perspective errors. If you think a ship is larger than it is then it appears to accelerate much, much faster than it actually can, because you assume it’s farther away and for it to cross fifteen degrees of your field of view in one second it must have pulled 50 G’s. Or it was a drone sized object four hundred yards away.
Additional PR from Northrop: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/1...
I have to admit that the 6th gen classification sounds a bit weak. Data links are hardly new and fighters have been integrating every weapon under the sun for decades.
But the Open Architecture stuff (and more generally how tech is shared between projects) appears to have started serving America well.