B-21 Raider Thread
- Senior member
- Posts: 438
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
- Location: South Central USA
usafr wrote:Looks like there are only two main landing gear wheels/tires per side and not the 4 wheel/tire MLG like on the B-2.
With a pair of 30,000 lbs thrust non after burning P&W F135 engines that would indicate a MGTOW of ~ 210 to 240,000 lbs.
B-2 MGTOW = ~340,000 lbs.
Good catch, that would enable off the shelf 737 or A320 gears to work. The A321XLR is 223k lbs, the 737-10 should be close to 198k lbs.
- Senior member
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16
mixelflick wrote:Quite a contrast in how we/the US vs. Russia is approaching bomber modernization. We're working on a subsonic flying wing type of future bomber, whereas they're building an up-rated TU-160 (first example recently flew). Yes, they're supposedly working on PAK-DA/full up stealth bomber but quite honestly, they can't even get their "5th gen" fighter working, so fat chance I'd say of PAK-DA seeing the light of day.
The Chinese though, they have something similar to the B-21 in development. Unlike the Russians, they can probably afford/make a go of it. They appear to be hard at work stealing (oops, I mean developing) it...
https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/chinas- ... n-testing/
Funny you should mention that...
The Russian MoD has signed a contract with the developer of PAK-DA long-range stealth bomber to commence production for a possible delivery by 2027 according to state media.
“The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has signed all the necessary contracts to start production of the PAK-DA long-range bomber. Flight tests of the aircraft is scheduled for 2027,” deputy head of the department Alexey Krivoruchk was quoted as saying by Zvezda, run by the Russian MoD reported on Monday.
“The characteristics of the aircraft have been agreed upon, all contract documents necessary for the production of samples have been signed, preparatory design stages are underway,” Krivoruchko said.
The aircraft is expected to be of subsonic speed, have a 12,000 km operational range and a capability to continuously remain in the air for up to 30 hours while carrying both conventional and nuclear payloads up to 30 tons. The aircraft is expected to have a crew of 4.
The PAK-DA is expected to replace all current strategic bombers in the Russian Air Force by the next decade.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russia- ... th-bomber/
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Pretty much most of what is coming out of Russia in regards to future defense programs. Is more fiction than fact....
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
Announcing your intent to field a stealth bomber and providing artist renderings is one thing, actually doing it is quite another. And judging by the way Russian MOD sets dates for XYZ happening vs. reality, first flight will be lucky to occur before 2030.
Actually affording enough to replace your whole fleet with them? Fat chance. In fact, I'd say Russia will be lucky to complete the TU-160 new builds, nevermind PAK DA. They just don't have a good track record when it comes to developing even semi-stealth aircraft, nevermind full blown VLO designs.
Sorry, but their past claims just don't cut it when it comes to reality...
Actually affording enough to replace your whole fleet with them? Fat chance. In fact, I'd say Russia will be lucky to complete the TU-160 new builds, nevermind PAK DA. They just don't have a good track record when it comes to developing even semi-stealth aircraft, nevermind full blown VLO designs.
Sorry, but their past claims just don't cut it when it comes to reality...
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9792
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
If, we had a dollar for every false claim by Russia. We all could retire now.....
- Newbie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 10 Feb 2020, 07:40
I'd bet money on the B-21 being an optionally-manned aircraft when it enters service.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
jessmo112 wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/tech/air-force-180-new-b-21-stealth-bombers
Updated news. We may get 180 B-21s
Nice. We would have a nearly 1:1 ratio of F-22's to B-21's
Srsly though, 180 is quite a bit for a strategic bomber. After the B-52 (and that covers a LOT of ground), the largest production run for a US strategic bomber was the B-1B. The program of record delivered 100, and I'd argue that was one hell of a smart investment.
They had to have made a breakthrough somewhere in manufacturing, driving the unit cost down considerably. LM did so on the F-35, and getting a stealthy tactical fighter into the under $80 unit cost category was extraordinary (and they did it ahead of schedule, to boot)!
If they did indeed do the same on a strategic bomber, it'll be one of (if not the) biggest breakthrough in stealth to date IMO.. Forget all the whizbang ultra low RCS, avionics and propulsion technology. None of that does any good if you can't afford it.
B-21 Bomber Shelter May Reveal Size of Secret Jet
March 3, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak
The Air Force has erected a prototype temporary shelter for the B-21 bomber at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.; one of a number being evaluated for use at B-21 bases, depots, and potentially at forward deployment sites. An image released with a press release about the shelter, however, may also divulge the dimensions of the aircraft, which have never been revealed.
The image shows the temporary shelter on the tarmac at Ellsworth. Adjacent to the shelter is a vehicle in the class of a Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado, both of which are about 20 feet long. Comparing the truck to the grid of concrete sections on the tarmac, also about 20 feet square, indicates the shelter is about 150 feet long and 80 feet deep. The Air Force indicated in its press release that the shelter is meant to cover the entire airplane.
By comparison, the B-2 bomber has a wingspan of 172 feet and a length of about 70 feet. Temporary, deployable, inflatable shelters for that aircraft measure 250 feet by 126 feet, indicating the potential margin required around the edges.
Based on these dimensions, the B-21’s wingspan could be about 140 feet, if its wing sweep corresponds to that of the B-2, and having a length of about 50 feet. Air Force Magazine has previously estimated the size of the B-21 as having a wingspan of no more than 150 feet and a length of 55 feet...
https://www.airforcemag.com/b-21-bomber ... ecret-jet/
I wonder why the smaller size/ payload in comparison to the B-2...help with signatures? More survivable to have more aircraft with higher technology?
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
jetblast16 wrote:I wonder why the smaller size/ payload in comparison to the B-2...help with signatures? More survivable to have more aircraft with higher technology?
Cheaper. That's the first, second, and third reason they went with a smaller bomber.
"There I was. . ."
I'm pinning the tail on this donkey to be an aircraft that does not look like a smaller version of the B-2. I expect a more triangular-like shaping, and higher wing sweep(s) and afterburner.
Yes, I realize what the prototype shelter looks like but it does not have to cover the entire jet. An F-35B or F-35C are OK with salt-spray and tropical sun 24/7, so I think a new bomber can handle the same. It's the people working on B-21s that need these shelters. These are shelters for humans, so these do not need to cover the entire jet upper surface.
Yes, I realize what the prototype shelter looks like but it does not have to cover the entire jet. An F-35B or F-35C are OK with salt-spray and tropical sun 24/7, so I think a new bomber can handle the same. It's the people working on B-21s that need these shelters. These are shelters for humans, so these do not need to cover the entire jet upper surface.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
element1loop wrote:I'm pinning the tail on this donkey to be an aircraft that does not look like a smaller version of the B-2. I expect a more triangular-like shaping, and higher wing sweep(s) and afterburner.
Yes, I realize what the prototype shelter looks like but it does not have to cover the entire jet. An F-35B or F-35C are OK with salt-spray and tropical sun 24/7, so I think a new bomber can handle the same. It's the people working on B-21s that need these shelters. These are shelters for humans, so these do not need to cover the entire jet upper surface.
But I think we're in for a disappointment. I'm expecting just a large X-47. It's all about cost, cost, cost. I'd love this:
"There I was. . ."
sferrin wrote:But I think we're in for a disappointment. I'm expecting just a large X-47. It's all about cost, cost, cost. I'd love this:
Yup, love that too. I'm hoping something that looks more like large X-47 with supersonic dash option.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
- Senior member
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40
element1loop wrote:sferrin wrote:But I think we're in for a disappointment. I'm expecting just a large X-47. It's all about cost, cost, cost. I'd love this:
Yup, love that too. I'm hoping something that looks more like large X-47 with supersonic dash option.
Speed = survivability, or the stealth is as advertised and the speed characteristic is not required.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests