Air Force unveils never-before-seen look at secretive NUCLEAR stealth bomber

Air Force releases most detailed images yet of secretive Raider nuclear stealth bomber

Nuclear? As in weapons or propulsion? or both?

Anyone got details beyond the article posted?

Nuclear weapons would be a given in any modern bomber…..ie B-2

But are we at the nuclear propulsion stage?

Aviation Historian and Aerospace Graphic Artist, Michael Schratt, had drawn the B-2 (21)…..long ago in which he lists ‘powered by a nuclear reactor’

Hmmmm



🧐🤔

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Nuclear weapons, not propulsion. Aircraft designated as nuclear-weapon-capable have to have special, highly secure and reliable data/communication links so that they can be recalled before releasing their weapons, if necessary or given a go signal, if necessary.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Nuclear capable, and it’s not as much a given as you think. Both the B-1, and more than a few B-52s have had their nuclear capability removed.

Yeah, it doesn’t have a nuclear reactor on board.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The pic states "powered by a nuclear reactor" ??

a reply to: HrdCorHillbilly

That’s a drawing by a guy who took a wild ass guess, and it’s about as far from official as you can get. He also claims the B-2 uses antigravity and can hover.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I don't know.

If it can really perform the maneuvers listed from that blueprint, that would be one of few changes to the overall design.

Looks like the "Spirit of St Louis" to me. I guess if Glock can get away with it for ~50 years, the MIC can too it seems.

Semi-yawn.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: HrdCorHillbilly

That’s a drawing by a guy who took a wild ass guess, and it’s about as far from official as you can get. He also claims the B-2 uses antigravity and can hover.

I was awaiting your guidance. Thank you.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Here’s Michael Schratt’s master drawing suitable for framing at 11x17

Legacy of Classified Aircraft

Mind you it was drawn August 21st, 2008

👍🏼

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: EternalShadow

Here’s Michael Schratt’s master drawing suitable for framing at 11x17

Legacy of Classified Aircraft

Mind you it was drawn August 21st, 2008

👍🏼

Hey that's pretty cool! I'm going to print that out, thx! 💯👍

If it is capable of all that was stated, that would explain away most of the triangular UFOs.

a reply to: Gothmog

Except it isn’t. It’s a normal aircraft, subject to normal aerodynamic rules, not nuclear powered, not capable of hovering, or the other wild claims.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Let's not lump reports of mysterious, exactly-shaped triangular-craft and B-2 bombers together. The former are usually silent, or almost so, and slow enough in airspeed to qualify as "hovering." The B-2 bomber is not silent and not slow.

However, I'm reminded of a report filed with the international UFO Reporting Center back in about 1997 about a hunter's report of a very low, silent and slow-moving triangle that he witnessed through his rife scope. He reported that on the front of the craft was a red-outlined hatch with the word "emergency". either on it or about it. Triangles are usually of that shape and frequently well-defined by large "lights" at each point.

My own proof that the mysterious and large craft frequently seen moving low, slow and silently happened in 1998 at a UFO conference in Laramie, Wyoming. It was a huge, huge craft with several equally huge strobe lights calling attention to itself as it moved low, slow, and silently over Laramie. Given that the timing was a few minutes after the evening's lectures were over, it seemed obvious that some US flyboys were giving us an unexpected thrill of their wonderous craft. The timing of the event was perfect. --But maybe the joke was instigated by ET pilots wanting to show us UFO nuts their thing?

In consideration of how that business of "now you see it, but now you don't, business works, you may come to understand that we are being played. Perhaps by both sides.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I know , you know, but we can still hope....

B2 and BFT,s are totally different animals..

OmGz taht look exatcly lik teh thing I saaw at that airshow yearz ago LOL!!1

My wondering in my OP was whether or not the B-21 may possibly have nuclear propulsion…..

The consensus is NO

I have shown an old drawing (2008) from a much larger drawing previously linked, that some would say ‘hypothesizes’ and couldn’t be real….a nuclear reactor propulsion for a B-21 Raider ‘outline’ designed aircraft in the OP. If anything…forward thinking to where we are now in respect to what what was drawn in 2008 and what we have now.

Zaphod called it a wild ass guess. But a guess, nevertheless that is true to the current shape.

Michael Schratt Aviation Historian and Aerospace Graphic Artist also got the initial Prime contractor Northrop…correct.

(Depiction image on the right is a little stretched … but you get the idea)


At this point…..I’ll agree there’s NO nuclear propulsion on the B-21 Raider.

Written in 2022…. Here’s an article Quietly aboard America's new stealth bomber — CT's Pratt & Whitney engine ….. which in parts states the following

Muffled in the U.S. Air Force's ballyhooed reveal of the new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider — the engines powering the stealth bomber, made by East Hartford-based Pratt & Whitney and parent Raytheon Technologies.

The B-21 is the Air Force's first new bomber since the 1989 debut of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, with both using a "flying wing" design to reduce the odds of showing up on radar, which uses four engines from GE Aviation. The Air Force has yet to specify how many engines will power the B-21.

Military trade publications have cited analyst speculation that the B-21 engine may be a variant of the F135 engine Pratt & Whitney makes for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. Pratt & Whitney recently completed its 1,000th engine under the F135 program.

B-21 Raider with Nuclear propulsion?

Wishful thinking I suppose…….

👽

Btw….my avatar is now in effect……have a wonderful holiday season folks!

Ophi

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Two things here. That planform is the original B-2, not the B-21. The original B-2 was designed as a high altitude penetrating platform, resulting in that design. So yeah, he got the contractor right, because this was after it was announced. During the design process the Air Force changed the mission requirements to include a low altitude capability, resulting in a redesign to the aft fuselage we are all familiar with.

Second, the original ATB design worked really well and was incredibly stealthy, so it only makes sense that Northrop would use it for the B-21, with some modernization and improvements.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

If it could hover, it wouldn't need wings, an aerodynamic 'lifting body' shape, or a runway.

So where is the anti-gravity machine? You know. "The those things we see in the sky, They are ours" crew.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if this one has Epoxy Rivets too?