b21 bomber

this guy (a-100)
can most likely detect f22 and f35
but still b21 stealh is more about geometry and waves absorbing materials
so i gues it will be less visible on radars

>>34000934
First of all try to spell check your OP. I can see where you are going with this. Second of all, Anytime a new Aircraft is being announced, the Russians dump funds into a counter that won't even bare fruit. It won't shift the balance of power, just makes Ivan a bit more on edge

>>34000985
>>34000985
Says what source they can detect The F-22 and 35. All stealthy aircraft rely on the same principles of Radar reflecting shape and RAM.
Probably learn more about stealth before you make assumptions

>>34001169
i dont mean like the entire balance of power but if it could be undetected than striking enemy airfileds would be painfull strike for any country
, and thats why i post ... can rusia or china detect this stuf and if how long distance , cos its looks like race for air superiority is still going on

>>34001189
i know raptors use geometry too but
fighters must also have aerodynamics in consideration , bombers dont so thats why i think b2 and b21 are still less detectable

well if anyone needed proof what kind of absolute retards debate the disgusting stealth meme, this thread is a pretty good example

>>34002086
I'm pretty sure this guy is ESL, not retarded.

>2 billion shekels per plane

jesus christ thats like 1/5th of my countries GDP

>>34001242
>fighters must also have aerodynamics in consideration , bombers dont so thats why i think b2 and b21 are still less detectable

The reason why the B-2 incorporated curved geometry rather than angled facets as seen on the F-117 was the advance of computational dynamics and an explosion in processing power, which was only just beginning in the 1980s. The F-22, designed in the mid-90s, takes computational dynamics a step further and incorporates a great deal of stealth without compromising its aerodynamics. The F-35 and B-21 (unless Northrop goofs) only take this further.

Honestly, I'm actually less interested in the B-21 than I am than the probable KB-21 variant. A stealth tanker will open up so many options for US air power.

>>34000934
>will b21 new us stealh bomber be undetectable for beriew a-100 new rushian awac ?
No, but stupid question. Real question is how FAR it has to be to be detected.
>if yes , then i think it will disrupt balance of power
Stupid comment. Russia is literally going through a lot of steps of pre WW2 germany, so to hell with "balance of power", if shit hits the fan they are the only ones to blame.

>>34000934
With it's sizes OTH radars can see it. L-band radars are thing too.

>>34000934
>if yes , then i think it will disrupt balance of power

Not really
'Stealth' is one of those things bandied around with the other memes, but actuality is that its more like 'detection range' before someone can sniff your shit. The close your get, better probability of success and shit gets blown up- hooray!

What it does beat the shit out of is the Russian and Chinese armaments industry, when they're trying to flog off the latest and greatest stuff to various countries- they've got to do what they say on the can, or your country gets fucked. That's really why when places like Syria get blown the fuck up by US missiles and other stuff, its not so much saying to the world that the US is bullying some sand people with missiles, the bigger picture is that Syria is a dumping ground for masses of Russian and Chinese AA systems... that didn't actually work.

>>34006036
L band is ~1m in wavelength; UHF / VHF is better.

>>34003216

What are the external differences between the B-21 and B-2? They look nearly identical.

>>34007499
The pictures we've seen of the B-21 are just concept art. The actual design of the aircraft is still classified.

>>34002108
See
>>34001242
They're hardly mutually exclusive.

>>34007499
there won't be many, but it'll have simpler geometry - the B-2 has some extra flaps, etc for low altitude penetration manoeuvrability capability (they weren't 100% sure about stealth in the 80s). The B-21 will also very likely be smaller.

are you having a seizure, OP?

>>34007499

We don't know what the B-21 final design will look like yet, though in the same way that most fighter jets share common features across generation, it is only natural that stealthy blended wing body bomber designs will look similar. Two of the biggest external differences will be in the stealth radar absorbing material (the B-2 used an earlier technology, which was high maintenance, while the B-21 will use technology matured during the JSF programme. The other difference will be the B-21 using two non-afterburning versions of the F-135 engine, instead of four non-afterburning versions of the F-110 engine. Noting that the F-135 is expecting an upgrade after the mid 2020s, it seems likely the B-21 will be around 70-80% of the mass of the B-2 (noting that aerospace materials have got lighter since the B-2 programme)

>>34014136
>B-21 using two non-afterburning versions of the F-135 engine, instead of four non-afterburning versions of the F-110 engine
I think it will use the next generation engines. Basically, what the F-35 blocks built after 2025 will have. Also, I think they will be afterburning engines. Multiple sources have sad the plane is actually fast, Mach 1.2+. Finally, the only sources I know that say in confidence the plane only has two engines are Russian and Chinese.

>>34014151

Well yeah, it will be a given that they will use the upgraded F-135 version since the time frame is correct, and there would be no point making a production version with an inferior engine. The problem with an after-burning version would be that it would eat into the range massively, and the problem with a four engine version would be the cost would be so much higher for a program that is supposed to avoid massive unit costs in replacing legacy bombers. It would be amazing if a four engine version could supercruise, though I suspect the design would just be too draggy.

>>34014186
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-07-01/ge-pratt-whitney-win-contracts-next-generation-engine
This is what I am thinking will power the B-21.

>>34014214
>>34014186
Key Quote: "In dual contract announcements on June 30, the Department of Defense (DOD) said GE Aviation was awarded $919.5 million and Pratt & Whitney $873 million to design, build and test “multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000-pounds thrust turbofan adaptive engines.” The contracts, overseen by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, call for completing work by Sept. 30, 2021. When including a priced option, both contracts exceed $1 billion.

Current, fixed-cycle engines powering military jets are optimized for either maximum power or fuel efficiency. GE said its three-stream adaptive cycle AETP engine can transition from a high-bypass, fuel efficient engine similar to engines used on tankers and transports to a low-bypass, high-performance engine required for fighters. In addition to the adaptive feature, a “third stream” of airflow can be used to improve fuel efficiency or further increase thrust."

>>34014221
>>34014214
>>34014186
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3eudKVbdG0
Yeah, I think it could have these GE next generation engines, especially since it will definitely have lasers for self defense.

>>34000934
learn english properly before posting, vanya.

>>34001169
>your
Spell check yourself faggot

>>34014616

>He used "your" correctly, which you wrongly pick on
>He used "bare" instead of "bear" which you missed

/k/ truly is a magical place

>>34014303
You're going to be sorely disappointed - you have to remember that the #1 feature of the B-21 is its affordability and use of MOTS equipment.

>>34014733
So they just gave GE a billion dollars to specifically develop this technology for nothing?