Meet the B-21

a reply to: anzha

Both. At least one is in pieces that we're going to eventuality get around to hunting down. At least one more needed some serious buffing out.

So far all we have is a pretty picture/drawing. Even if it does resemble the B-2, that doesn't mean it doesn't have cool new goodies like visible stealth for instance. And, even when they do the "rollout," we're still not going to see any of the really secret goodies. But, alas, I do agree with some that the "Just Wait" ad campaign and the Superbowl commercials etc had me salivating for much more. Sorry Zaph, just sayin.

P.S. I don't mean to be a bother. But, could you guys that are "in the know" on this aviation stuff give us regular guys a break and "splain" an acronym from time to time. Often, I have no clue what "ABFRDHY" or whatever means. Thank you.

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Good luck with that.

Members have asked for a while on that one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If its as big as advertised, there ought to be some bits around no matter how carefully they hoover.

a reply to: anzha

There always are. We found some neat pieces of the Raptor that crashed near Edwards and SpaceShip Two. And there was a rumor that the recovery was... difficult.

To all the haters and B-21 doubters, here's a little analogy of mine. If I had the drive and attention span to maintain a moderately-trafficked aviation/defense blog, I'd put it there. But I don't, and you're stuck with me.

I've referenced this before, but I've always been a big car guy in a very George Lucasesque "I never cease to be excited by the sound of a good piston engine, no matter what it's powering" sort of way. It can be a little esoteric at times, but it's an area that's familiar to me and I think there are some good parallels between the car world and the aviation one.

So to look at just what the B-21 is and why it is so special in relationship to its forebear the B-2, you need to look at another 1989-era engineering marvel that adorned just as many bedroom walls in early-90's as its winged companion did.

That engineering marvel is the 1989 BMW M5, chassis code E34. In the late 80's, it was the fastest thing on the road this side of a Ferrari F40, but it did it with 4 doors and a level of practicality/daily drivability that was unprecedented at its stratospheric performance level. Hand-built in extremely limited numbers by BMW's M-division in Garching, West Germany, it shipped with a 3.8 liter inline six that revved to 6900rpm and produced an absurd 311 horsepower, more than a Corvette or 911 Turbo at the time, and channeled through its 6-speed transmission, could rocket the car from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds flat. But if you wanted this amazing package and were lucky enough to find one of the few imported stateside, it would have cost you a base MSRP of $51,000 in 1989 dollars.

a reply to: Barnalby

Double post

a reply to: Barnalby
Fast forward to 2016, and there's another, equally impressive car on the road with very similar numbers, though you might be surprised at what it is.

That car is the 2016 Honda Accord V6. Mass-produced in Ohio, it ships from the factory with a 3.5 liter V-6 that redlines at 6900 rpm and produces 278 horsepower, which through its 6-speed manual is enough to rocket the 4-door Honda from 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds, which is faster than the M5. It also returns double the gas mileage (34 highway vs 17 for the M5), runs on 87, and only needs its oil changed every 10,000 miles (compared to every ~3000 for the BMW).

Furthermore, this impressive package ships from the factory with LED headlamps, power everything, a backup camera, parking sensors, heated rear seats, an integrated satnav/infotainment system with bluetooth and CarPlay connectivity to Apple and Android smartphones, automatic hi-beams, and many other features that would have been science fiction in 1989. What does all of this cost you? An MSRP of $34,000 for a top-spec model, in 2016 dollars.

What I'm trying to get at is that the things that make the Accord such an impressive piece of engineering in 2016 aren't its absolute performance specs (which are still impressive even today), but the fact that it makes performance levels that only a generation ago would have made it a supercar so accessible, reliable, and mundane that you wouldn't think twice seeing one drive by, all while adding features that didn't exist even a decade after the 1989 M5 first rolled off of the lots.

a reply to: Barnalby

Wars aren't won with supercars, they're won with Hondas. Quantity is a quality all it's own, and quantity plus reliability with a competitive level of technology is an absolutely unbeatable combination. Just ask the Germans, who saw their Tigers, FW-190s and Me-262's done in by larger numbers of Shermans, Thunderbolts, and Mustangs.

I imagine the B-21 will follow the Honda model, and in many ways that makes it more impressive. Nominally similar to the B-2 in terms of flight envelope, it will likely come with a vastly improved range and much lower RCS, and like the Honda, it will come packed with features that would have been more at home in a Star Trek episode than at Groom Lake back in 1988 when the B-2 was coming together. All with a similarly impressive maintenance footprint and readiness rate.

As a weapons system, that makes it as impressive if not more so than anything that has come before it.

originally posted by: darksidius
reply to: BASSPLYR
The same BASSPLYR, it doesn't look anymore like the Texas sighting so what can be the Texas mystery triangle ?
Another thing that the LRS-B look like the ngb concept or the Boeing rendering so may be the real LRS-B will be a Northrop cranked kite and this picture is an artist rendering in fact the Northrop bird may look little different. For sure the today picture don't look exciting it back us in the 90's we saw a lot of interesting pictures since year about LRS but not this. We saw posting here on the forum that the LRS-B will look awesome ??

Isn't the LRSB a "Family" of systems?

a reply to: Barnalby

I suppose the counter argument to that would be: Hondas shouldn't cost 500 million +.

But I know next to nothing about planes.

a reply to: Jonjonj

The B-2 cost over 700 million in 1989 dollars, while the LRS-B costs 500 million in 2016 dollars. That's nearly the exact same price breakdown as the 1989 M5 vs the 2016 Honda.

a reply to: Jonjonj

For a stealth aircraft that is so advanced it makes the most advanced aircraft in the world look like an abacus, $500M is the equivalent of a Honda. The B-2 is the equivalent of a McClaren.

a reply to: Barnalby

I'm wondering giving the changing times and the bombers mission if it too will include the colorful leading edge seen in Wichita? That would be a awesome addition to have under the hood. Odd color don't you think?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah the McClaren. Some dude's been driving one around my neighborhood lately. It's candy paint red. Looks and sounds amazing. Have no idea why he's driving it through my neighborhood though. Id' figure he would be driving it someplace fancier.

I've always liked your automotive analogies Barnalby.

a reply to: Barnalby
A 2016 BMW M5 goes 0-60 in 4.2s @ 20mpg highway.

Your comparison is more valid for commercial aircraft than military. A more apt comparison would be between different race vehicles. Something that is required to perform right up to the physical limitations imparted by the materials, occupants, and/or design. Which are all easily identifiable due to a couple fundamental laws of physics.

For example, an F1 will never look like a NASCAR and succeed at F1, and vice versa. The fundamental designs of these vehicles won't allow it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR
What you mean by family of system ?

'The' McLaren?

When did they slim down to one model?

a reply to: peck420

The analogy was perfect because the two look superficially similar. An F1 car would never be be mistaken for something in NASCAR, and the big complaint here is that the B-21 and B-2 are so similar.

a reply to: peck420

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I had to be super specific to make the point I was making.