# The B-21, the 21st century bomber.



## Avenger hammer (Feb 26, 2016)

Revealed to the public recently was a picture of the Air Forces new B-21 bomber. The designation B-21 comes from a clever blend of bomber for the 21st century and relies on technology used on the B-2 bomber.

The Air Force is looking towards their own Airmen to help name this new long range strike bomber, which is very interesting. I can't help but think it looks 95% like the B2 and I even thought I was looking at a picture of some type of updated version of one. 

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northrop Grumman B-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air Force reveals B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber

Video:





I wonder what it will be named and what design changes will take place over the coming years.
Any thoughts?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 26, 2016)

Grundlefuck


----------



## CDG (Feb 26, 2016)

Gender Neutral


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2016)

Seriously, can't we hit the same targets with missiles nowadays? 

Wonder how "show of force" low-level flybys work with stealth aircraft?

They definitely DO work with B-1s...just saying.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2016)

Excuse me while I go take a B21 in the crapper.


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2016)

I'd either remind airmen of their legacy (Superfortress II) or use a badass name which evokes death and destruction. My money's on something stupid like "Defender" or some nonsense followed by a historical tie-in. The "kill errybody" option won't be considered because violence.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 27, 2016)

The Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust Bomber.

The i-Thrust Eagle Hammerhead.

The Thrust i-Hammerhead Eagle.


----------



## Avenger hammer (Feb 27, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The Hammerhead i-Eagle Thrust Bomber.
> 
> The i-Thrust Eagle Hammerhead.
> 
> The Thrust i-Hammerhead Eagle.



Loving the Top Gear reference haha


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seriously, can't we hit the same targets with missiles nowadays?
> 
> Wonder how *"show of force" *low-level flybys work with stealth aircraft?
> 
> They definitely DO work with B-1s...just saying.



You do know you can see it, right?

IMO, this is smoke and mirrors as it looks like the original B-2 configuration, and i would be surprised to see the same design after so many years.


----------



## CQB (Feb 28, 2016)

F-111a


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 28, 2016)

The legacy airframes we have are fantastic pieces of equipment, but there's been a ton of hours run up on them over the years. We need new steel, titanium, and composites in the "fleet" so to speak, if we want to be able to keep flying into the next decade.

With modern AA comes the necessity for modern airframes capable of getting close enough to actually engage them without just getting swatted out of the sky.

I just want "them" as in the powers that be, make fucking sure that it's the right thing for the job before dropping dosh.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2016)

CQB said:


> F-111a



I haven't been around the "A" models much, but the FB-111's are some impressive platforms.  Just watching one launch is impressive.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 29, 2016)

So we will get an aircraft after billions of dollars. Yay!


----------



## Etype (Feb 29, 2016)

How bout the B-21 Murder Mystery???

Because it's quiet and stuff, so nobody knows who done it.


----------



## CQB (Feb 29, 2016)

CQB said:


> F-111a



Irony is my strong suit. Maybe it should be called the F-111 Fuckin' A!


----------



## Avenger hammer (Feb 29, 2016)

I'd like to see the naming of aircraft stay with the birds of prey. But truth be told we are kind of running out of names like Eagle, Falcon, Osprey, Harrier. Too bad we wasted Global Hawk on the UAV. Only one I can think of is Condor right now.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 29, 2016)

So...we get a "brand new" aircraft based on an existing airframe for only billions more?  And what we have now is NOT good enough why?

Maybe this is as good as it gets.  And maybe I am wrong but is seems like instead of putting the Skunk Works on it to develop the best aircraft we need, we get "good enough to get by."


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 29, 2016)

Avenger hammer said:


> I'd like to see the naming of aircraft stay with the birds of prey. But truth be told we are kind of running out of names like Eagle, Falcon, Osprey, Harrier. Too bad we wasted Global Hawk on the UAV. Only one I can think of is Condor right now.


Bombers shouldn't get birds of prey names, that should be reserved for fighters and attack aircraft.

I think we should call it la Migra as it will look pretty, but actually be toothless.


----------



## AWP (Feb 29, 2016)

The airframe's shape doesn't bother me in the least.

1. Look at modern stealth aircraft. They are rounded, blended, and generally lack a vertical empennage. When they have one the angles aren't conventional.
2. It is a conceptual drawing. Everyone thought the "F-19" would be this flying teardrop thing until the F-117 finally saw the light of day (almost literally).
3. The B-2's design is 30 years old or thereabouts. That includes construction methods and materials. We haven't learned anything about the design in that time, there was no more data to wring out? Look at the F-15 Silent Eagle, a gazillion year old (by today's standards) design updated with stealthy characteristics, including design and materials.
4. If the thing came in 10% late and 10% over budget while meeting it's performance goals/ specs I would be elated. It will have managed to do everything the F-35 can't and won't at that point.

I don't care if they paint a potato black as long as it kills people in creative ways and never shows up on radar.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 29, 2016)

FWIW- The B-2's (re) design was very costly, the AF decided that it needed a low-level capability and the wing had to  be redone, so seeing the original concept design being thrown out as something new is pretty funny.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 29, 2016)

B-21 Peacemaker
B-21 America Made Great Again
B-21 Retirement Check
B-21 LeMay


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 29, 2016)

The B-21 "fuckery"


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The airframe's shape doesn't bother me in the least.
> 
> 1. Look at modern stealth aircraft. They are rounded, blended, and generally lack a vertical empennage. When they have one the angles aren't conventional.
> 2. It is a conceptual drawing. Everyone thought the "F-19" would be this flying teardrop thing until the F-117 finally saw the light of day (almost literally).
> ...



Exactly. It's not like it's got to do a ton of maneuvering anyway, especially if you can't tell the fucker's there... therefore, no standard design tail is fine. It just needs to maintain controllability and not have issues with departure from controlled flight throughout and beyond standard operating envelope... shit should be recoverable.

I think it'd be interesting to see something that's got the same or larger conventional capacity as a B-52... it'd be pretty baller.

I have no good ideas for a name, though.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 29, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Exactly. It's not like it's got to do a ton of maneuvering anyway, especially if you can't tell the fucker's there... therefore, no standard design tail is fine. It just needs to maintain controllability and not have issues with departure from controlled flight throughout and beyond standard operating envelope... shit should be recoverable.
> 
> *I think it'd be interesting to see something that's got the same or larger conventional capacity as a B-52..*. it'd be pretty baller.
> 
> I have no good ideas for a name, though.



B-1

Just saying....


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Feb 29, 2016)

B-21 Chupacabra.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 29, 2016)

If you're gonna launch from the "continental U.S. to deliver air strikes anywhere in the world" you better have a god damn good coffee maker on that thing.


----------



## CDG (Feb 29, 2016)

I'll be impressed if they can make a bomber that will get ordnance off in one pass on a consistent basis, instead of after 3 or 4 "Off dry, systems" calls.


----------



## AWP (Feb 29, 2016)

CDG said:


> I'll be impressed if they can make a bomber that will get ordnance off in one pass on a consistent basis, instead of after 3 or 4 "Off dry, systems" calls.



Imagine pairing that capability with a tanker that doesn't break inflight.

- What do you mean "Exxon" went home?
The boom broke.
- YOU HAVE ONE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

