The B-21, the 21st century bomber.

Avenger hammer

Verified Military
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
39
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?
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,842
Location
221B Baker St
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.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,015
Location
Not Afghanistan
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.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,676
Location
San Antonio Texas
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.
 

Ranger Psych

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,846
Location
Keeping my hatchet sharp in the PNW
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.
 

Avenger hammer

Verified Military
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
39
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

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
4,807
Location
Durham, NC
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

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,676
Location
San Antonio Texas
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

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,015
Location
Not Afghanistan
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

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,676
Location
San Antonio Texas
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.
 
Top