Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: sumpnz on December 03, 2022, 01:40:56 PM
-
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/
Skip ahead 9:30 for the freedom boner if you want. Though the national anthem with the B-52, B-1 and B-2 flyovers is worthwhile too.
-
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/
Though the national anthem with the B-52, B-1 and B-2 flyovers is worthwhile too.
What is it with people who feel they have to "interpret" the national anthem? That was a horrible version of it.
Just fly the mission, Dude. The Star Spangled Banner was officially adopted 91 years ago, and the score has been available for about two hundred years.
-
Eh, these days I’m just glad it was the real national anthem, not the “black national anthem”. Most renditions anymore are not the original version anyway. Besides, I wasn’t listening to the music so much as watching the fly overs.
-
I'm familiar with the B-1 and B-2, but now . . . B-21? What happened to the modern B-3 through B-20?
-
Wake me when it actually flies and then put in service.
Seen too many unveilings for AC that then went nowhere to get excited until then.
-
Must suck to be the B-52 flying over watching the new child get all the attention while knowing you will still be doing the actual work when this thing is retired.
-
Wake me when it actually flies and then put in service.
Seen too many unveilings for AC that then went nowhere to get excited until then.
I was going to post "Set me straight... they haven't even built one yet and they're having an Academy Awards Celebration over it?"
Remember what happened to the first B-17 plane? A little problem with a checklist, no big deal. (Crashed on takeoff because the blocks holding the control surfaces steady were not removed.)
Jeeze, a 35 minute orgasm over something that's not even built yet. Makes you wonder what their motivation is to do all this now.
???
-
. . . Makes you wonder what their motivation is to do all this now.
No need to wonder: "We've scheduled a cost over run and need more money - this project is too great to fail."
-
Yeah, I know. It's getting to be a business model: "We're too big to be allowed to fail."
-
I was going to post "Set me straight... they haven't even built one yet and they're having an Academy Awards Celebration over it?"
Remember what happened to the first B-17 plane? A little problem with a checklist, no big deal. (Crashed on takeoff because the blocks holding the control surfaces steady were not removed.)
Jeeze, a 35 minute orgasm over something that's not even built yet. Makes you wonder what their motivation is to do all this now.
???
Northrup Grumman has six prototype B-21 aircraft at various degrees of completion. IIRC, first flights will occur sometime next year.
The planned buy is 100 aircraft, with possible expansions of that number to 145-200 airframes. But that likely won't happen given the history of the B-2 and other large aircraft projects. The B-2 had a planned buy of 132 aircraft, and that was scaled back to just 21 airframes. It would be reasonable to assume the same will happen to B-21 procurement.
-
Suppose to make it's first flight sometime next year. Even if everything goes well in flight testing figure another 2-5 years before being put into service.
I try not to get too excited about a new AC until at least it's passed some flight testing first. Even in this day of computer modeling lots of bugs can pop up.
Anyone want to place bets on when the Chinese copy rolls out?
-
Northrup Grumman has six prototype B-21 aircraft at various degrees of completion. IIRC, first flights will occur sometime next year.
The planned buy is 100 aircraft, with possible expansions of that number to 145-200 airframes. But that likely won't happen given the history of the B-2 and other large aircraft projects. The B-2 had a planned buy of 132 aircraft, and that was scaled back to just 21 airframes. It would be reasonable to assume the same will happen to B-21 procurement.
That'll drive the amortized cost-per-plane up so high the USAF will be reluctant to commit any to a high-threat environment. Or worse, POTUS will micromanage their use. (This happens a lot in the post-WWII era. During the Vietnam war, LBJ boasted that the military "couldn't bomb an outhouse" without his approval.)
. . . Anyone want to place bets on when the Chinese copy rolls out?
Christmas 2025?
-
Christmas 2025?
Dear Santa.....
You'll bomb you eye out kid
-
During the Vietnam war, LBJ boasted that the military "couldn't bomb an outhouse" without his approval.)
LBJ's micromanagement of the war was a large part of the problem.
-
Northrup Grumman has six prototype B-21 aircraft at various degrees of completion. IIRC, first flights will occur sometime next year.
The planned buy is 100 aircraft, with possible expansions of that number to 145-200 airframes. But that likely won't happen given the history of the B-2 and other large aircraft projects. The B-2 had a planned buy of 132 aircraft, and that was scaled back to just 21 airframes. It would be reasonable to assume the same will happen to B-21 procurement.
Supposedly, (and that's a big supposedly) the B21 will replace the B-52 (~75 active aircraft) the B-1B (~60 active aircraft) and the B2 (20 left in service) which would imply they need about 150 of them or so. We'll see.
-
Keep in mind the B52 is getting major upgrades. Rolls Royce engines, full glass cockpit, electronics upgrades, and so forth. Doesn’t sound like it’s going to be replaced anytime soon.
-
The new engines for the B52 and the B21 are scheduled to be operational at about the same time. Both projects are in the "promise the world before the cost overruns " stage, so I have no idea if either or both will actually happen, or when.
It'll be interesting to see how the airforce spins strategic bomber relevance over this decade. A solid war in Taiwan would help them out.
-
If it's the Air Force, they'll get their money. What's the old joke about how the Air Force stands up new bases? Build the bowling alley and rec facilities first, then when they run out of money say, "But we need more money to put in the runway!" :laugh:
-
The B-21 program is, astonishingly, on time and within budget.
Whether it results in the B-52 retirement or not, there’s every reason to see it replacing the B-1 and B-2. But even with the upgrades remember the B-52 airframes are older than the parents of the crews. Eventually they will have so much fatigue they’ll have to scraped.
-
I remember in Dale Brown's book "Flight of the Old Dog" (published in 1987 according to wiki) They had modified a B-52 with composite airframe parts to combat fatigue and improve performance. The actual Air Force was like "nah, it'll be fine. Aluminum lasts forever."
-
The B-21 program is, astonishingly, on time and within budget.
Bear in mind the B-21 has yet to make its maiden flight.
-
Keep in mind the B52 is getting major upgrades. Rolls Royce engines, full glass cockpit, electronics upgrades, and so forth. Doesn’t sound like it’s going to be replaced anytime soon.
The Air Force will get 100 years out of that airframe, it is a pride (and bragging rights) thing now that they are so close.
If it's the Air Force, they'll get their money. What's the old joke about how the Air Force stands up new bases? Build the bowling alley and rec facilities first, then when they run out of money say, "But we need more money to put in the runway!"
There is truth there, we flew out of several AF bases, they had some top notch gyms and other amenities.
bob
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/HLfzXZfopkANSkIt9UIr7Imbu7ln_TMyVLJd3qo21Lk.jpg?auto=webp&s=49d0b4c020fc95db2f5272a9f9509a544468ba29)
-
LBJ's micromanagement of the war was a large part of the problem.
The rest of the problem was McNamara and Kissinger. They were giving our weekly attack plans to the north vietnamese.
-
I remember in Dale Brown's book "Flight of the Old Dog" (published in 1987 according to wiki) They had modified a B-52 with composite airframe parts to combat fatigue and improve performance. The actual Air Force was like "nah, it'll be fine. Aluminum lasts forever."
Aluminum is easier and much cheaper to maintain, repair, or replace. As far as economy bomb-trucks go that's actually a good choice.
-
Compared to composites, sure.
Interesting thing about fatigue. Most steels have a stress level at which the S/N curve goes flat, which means at or below that stress level the fatigue life is actually infinite. Aluminum has no such effect. The S/N curve keeps going down until you hit 0 stress. So no matter how low the amplitude of the stress cycles you will eventually cause a crack in aluminum.
-
Compared to composites, sure.
Interesting thing about fatigue. Most steels have a stress level at which the S/N curve goes flat, which means at or below that stress level the fatigue life is actually infinite. Aluminum has no such effect. The S/N curve keeps going down until you hit 0 stress. So no matter how low the amplitude of the stress cycles you will eventually cause a crack in aluminum.
Yeah, but you don't build airplanes out of steel because of the absurd loss in fuel efficiency. So you use aluminum with the understanding that the parts will fatigue or age out eventially. This limited life is also true for composites but unlike aluminim you have to replace entire structures whole where as the aluminum can be cut, rivetted, patched, etc. You can replace small segments as they wear out instead of trashing the entire wing/body/strut every time one spot is critically compromised. This is where the economical replacement factor happens.
So, as I said, sticking to the non-exotic aluminum alloys is very sensible.
-
Eh, these days I’m just glad it was the real national anthem, not the “black national anthem”. Most renditions anymore are not the original version anyway. Besides, I wasn’t listening to the music so much as watching the fly overs.
The original? Like a poem with no music?
-
As a guy who worked for Northrop for 8 years and with Northrop for 5 (in a government program office) I’m sure it’s well over budget and behind schedule…..
That being said, looks like a B2 part duex
-
I've read that in WWII the Japs used a high strength aluminum alloy in their Zero fighters that fatigued to the point that you could gouge out big chunks of the wing spars with a screwdriver - and that's the main reason that hardly any of the few surviving Zeros are flyable.
-
I've read that in WWII the Japs used a high strength aluminum alloy in their Zero fighters that fatigued to the point that you could gouge out big chunks of the wing spars with a screwdriver - and that's the main reason that hardly any of the few surviving Zeros are flyable.
Thin not fatigue. The skin was made ultra thin to save weight and the pilot accidentally stepping on it climbing in or out would punch through. There were pop out foot rungs to use.
-
As a guy who worked for Northrop for 8 years and with Northrop for 5 (in a government program office) I’m sure it’s well over budget and behind schedule…..
That being said, looks like a B2 part duex
A lot smaller right off the bat. Count the wheels. And the air intakes seem to be recessed down into the upper surface more than on the B2. Deeper swoop to the belly lines (deeper belly) compared to the B2. And perhaps better cockpit visibility for the pilots.
That's all that really sticks out to me from the low rez video of the unveiling. Also note how they bloviated without ever actually giving any actual performance values or information. And man did they all suck at speaking. It was like listening to Ben Stein reading a kindergarden dictionary, but somehow worse.
-
Thin not fatigue. The skin was made ultra thin to save weight and the pilot accidentally stepping on it climbing in or out would punch through. There were pop out foot rungs to use.
Areas marked "No Step" or with similar markings are very common on aircraft of all makes even modern airliners.
-
Supposedly, (and that's a big supposedly) the B21 will replace the B-52 (~75 active aircraft) the B-1B (~60 active aircraft) and the B2 (20 left in service) which would imply they need about 150 of them or so. We'll see.
What I've heard is the B-21 is supposed to replace the B-2 and B-1B but not the B-52. The idea being that the B-21 replaces the stand-in strike capability currently split between the B-2 and B-1B, and the B-52 continues to maintain and expand its standoff strike capabilities.