# B-21 Revealed



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2020)

From Aviation Week:

"A new rendering of the Northrop Grumman B-21A released by the U.S. Air Force Jan. 31 offers a fresh perspective on the overall size and features of the highly secretive stealth bomber, revealing an aircraft that, as expected, broadly resembles the B-2A but with several important differences. "
Some analysts have speculated the Air Force wanted a new bomber about two-thirds the size of the B-2A, and the rendering appear to back up those estimates. Tellingly, the images show a single-truck main landing gear for the B-21, indicating an aircraft significantly lighter than the B-2, which requires a double-truck gear. 

"Air Force leaders unanimously say the program is on track and running smoothly, but some concerns still have emerged.It’s possible the renderings offer only a partial—and even intentionally inaccurate or obscured—early glimpse of the final, pre-flight test design of the B-21, but it could be another two years before the first real aircraft comes into public view."

"Northrop started assembling the first test airframe for the B-21 in the Site 4 complex at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California—possibly in the same assembly bay of Building 401 where the B-2 fleet was assembled over 25 years ago."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 3, 2020)

The question is what haapened to B-3 through B-20. Other than, of course, marketing. The B-2 was an immense waste of money. Let's burn some more for defense contractors' welfare

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The question is what haapened to B-3 through B-20. Other than, of course, marketing. The B-2 was an immense waste of money. Let's burn some more for defense contractors' welfare


The numerical designation may be a result of FY funding, more about budget semantics. As far as it being a waste of money, very debatable. 77 units were cut after the cold war, production was already underway it it would have been more expensive to bring everything to a halt. Lastly, it did perform well in the missions it was called to complete.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2020)

Whatever happened to the B-46, B-59, B-60, B-67, B-68, etc? There are more concepts created on paper than are ever built; that's normal and still more built in prototype form that never see production. For all we know there was a B-15 or a B-20 and it flew and was not accepted.


----------



## AMCKen (Feb 6, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> Whatever happened to the B-46, B-59, B-60, B-67, B-68, etc? There are more concepts created on paper than are ever built; that's normal and still more built in prototype form that never see production. For all we know there was a B-15 or a B-20 and it flew and was not accepted.
> 
> View attachment 568631
> View attachment 568629
> View attachment 568628



List of military aircraft of the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 18, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> Whatever happened to the B-46, B-59, B-60, B-67, B-68, etc? There are more concepts created on paper than are ever built; that's normal and still more built in prototype form that never see production. For all we know there was a B-15 or a B-20 and it flew and was not accepted.
> 
> View attachment 568631
> View attachment 568629
> View attachment 568628


Going out on a limb here (not bothering to research) but there was a flying B-15. I thought the B-19 was cooler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 18, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> Whatever happened to the B-46, B-59, B-60, B-67, B-68, etc? There are more concepts created on paper than are ever built; that's normal and still more built in prototype form that never see production. For all we know there was a B-15 or a B-20 and it flew and was not accepted.
> 
> View attachment 568631
> View attachment 568629
> View attachment 568628



I believe these boxes are "what ifs", not actually produced by Monogram


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2020)

The "B" designations kind of reached a "reset" point much like the "F" designations did.
The F-15 Eagle shares it's designation with the recon version of the P-61, the F-4 Phantom shares it's designation with the recon version of the P-38 and so on.

The North American B-21 was a typical design for it's time but the new B-21 is actually being named for the first new bomber of the century instead of being named B-3 (as one would have expected).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 18, 2020)

US designation systems have never been either entirely consistent or entirely rational. There was, for example no P-74, and the USAAC would give an aircraft a different number for a change in engine, even one which could be easily reversed, or a change in a cargo aircraft's interior, but then the same number may be kept for massive changes, like the major redesign of the Mustang that was the P-51H or the rather significant changes between the F9F Panther and F9F Cougar.

The AV-8 Harrier was designated in the V-for-VTOL sequence, but its number was treated as if it were in the A-for-attack sequence, meaning that the A-7 was followed by the A-9. The USN's attack aircraft started (and killed) during the Reagan Administration was the A-12, but A-11 was a Lockheed designation assigned to the aircraft that became the YF-12A and SR-71.

When development of new aircraft was common, it made sense to have a consistent designation system (which they never quite managed), but now, with so few new aircraft being developed, I'm not sure a designation system is particularly useful.

(the DC-3 in USAAF service was designated, variously, as the C-41, C-47, C-48, C-49, C-50, C-51, C-52, C-53, C-68, and C-84)


----------



## special ed (Nov 18, 2020)

The XB-46, XB-48, and B-49 were built as prototypes and lost to the B-47, Photos are in threads in this site. The XB-15 gave Boeing research data leading to the B-17. The XB-15 was converted to cargo as C-108 and was used during ww2 for runs between the US and Panama.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 18, 2020)

B-60 flew, it was the full jet powered version of the B-36, it lost to the B-52


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2020)

The A-12 Archangel predates the Navy's proposed A-12 by 25 years.

The Oxcart aircraft were the A-12, YF-12 and SR-71 with A-11 being given to the third Archangel design (after Archangel 1 & 2) and A-12 was given to the final design that was derived from the A-11.

The USN's A-12 was an expensive proposal for a flying wing that was plagued from the onset. Being killed off by the "Reagan administration" was actually a blessing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 18, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> I believe these boxes are "what ifs", not actually produced by Monogram



I prefer the Alternate Universe explanation. I have had I don't know how many dreams where I walk into a store and they have model kits on sale of airplanes that we do not even have.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 18, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> I prefer the Alternate Universe explanation. I have had I don't know how many dreams where I walk into a store and they have model kits on sale of airplanes that we do not even have.
> 
> View attachment 602260
> View attachment 602261


I think the XP-87 and XB-39 made it to prototype stage and flight test


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 18, 2020)

I know the XB-39 did as a single copy


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> I prefer the Alternate Universe explanation. I have had I don't know how many dreams where I walk into a store and they have model kits on sale of airplanes that we do not even have.
> 
> View attachment 602260
> View attachment 602261


There have been kits of "X" types in the past - then there are occasional finds like this:
US ARMY AIR CORPS Aircraft Collection II: (22) Built and Painted, 1/144 Scale | eBay





*Models in this Collection:
1) Ford Trimotor C-4A
2) YC-19 Alpha
3) Bell FM-1 Airacuda
4) Curtiss P-36
5) Curtiss YP-37
6) Boeing-Stearman XA-21
7) Douglas DC-2
8) Martin XB-16
9) Boeing XB-15
10) Douglas B-23
11) Douglas B-18
12) Grumman Sky Rocket
13) Lockheed XB-30
14) Martin XB-33
15) Boeing YB-17
16) Boeing XB-20
17) North-American XB-21
18) North-American NA-40
19) Martin XB-27
20) North-American XB-28
21) Curtiss XP-42
22) Seversky XP-41*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The numerical designation may be a result of FY funding, more about budget semantics. As far as it being a waste of money, very debatable. 77 units were cut after the cold war, production was already underway it it would have been more expensive to bring everything to a halt. Lastly, it did perform well in the missions it was called to complete.


Why were so few built?



GrauGeist said:


> There have been kits of "X" types in the past - then there are occasional finds like this


What was the four engined one near the front with the elliptical wings?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Why were so few built?



Bush Sr, cut the program citing the end of the cold war


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bush Sr, cut the program citing the end of the cold war


Did anybody cite the fact that it would have costed more to shut the program down than to keep it rolling?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Did anybody cite the fact that it would have costed more to shut the program down than to keep it rolling?



I did earlier - at the time of cancellation AV 7 was in the assembly jig being built. Because of termination costs and perceived mission requirements in the post cold war years, the number was kept at 21 units.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 23, 2021)

I like the idea of naming it the Raider, after Doolittle's men.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> What was the four engined one near the front with the elliptical wings?


Boeing XB-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 25, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The question is what haapened to B-3 through B-20.


I think somebody left out a decimal point. Logical successor to B2.0 would be B2.1. Typo, anyone? It looks the part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 25, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> the DC-3 in USAAF service was designated, variously, as the C-41, C-47, C-48, C-49, C-50, C-51, C-52, C-53, C-68, and C-84


Hey, you left out the C117, a Navy version of the super DC3. NADF Warminster was still flying one of these when I was in the Nav in the the 1970s.
When I was a kid I used to pedal my bike 5 miles uphill to hang out at the local airport. When a Northeast Airlines DC3 stopped by, (several times a day) I would wander out on the ramp and look at its data plate. (No TSA back then) They had C47s, a couple C50s, and several C53s, all modified to a common passenger configuration and equipped with speed kits. (R1830s, streamlined cowlings, low drag cowl flaps, ejector exhausts, and full enclosure landing gear doors). On some of them you could see in the metalwork where the extra wide cargo door had been filled in to accommodate the airliner airstair door. Those were the days!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The numerical designation may be a result of FY funding, more about budget semantics. As far as it being a waste of money, very debatable. 77 units were cut after the cold war, production was already underway it it would have been more expensive to bring everything to a halt. Lastly, it did perform well in the missions it was called to complete.



It also looks so cool! Stops people in their tracks when it arrives...





DSC_0896-2




DSC_0899-2 




DSC_0901-3

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 26, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It also looks so cool! Stops people in their tracks when it arrives...
> 
> View attachment 617430
> DSC_0896-2
> ...


Holy boomerangs, Batman, they stole our plane!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 27, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I did earlier


You were the guy who raised the issue? It's really kind of cool to meet people who actually were involved in matters.

One time I remember discussing with somebody the issue of NOx levels on high altitude supersonic aircraft (The SST program, an interest of mine since I was a child): With afterburners generally not favored in lieu of dry-power only. At first it was my assumption that it had to do with fuel consumption, but afterburner usage at higher altitudes doesn't burn as much fuel as lower altitudes, and if the speed is fast enough, it actually works out (The XB-70 is a good example of this) if the afterburner is efficient enough.

So, the next thought was soot production, but I was told that the low air/fuel ratio in the afterburner would reduce NOx formation and, it turns out that a discussion with the guy who actually was part of the experiment said the reason NOx production was so low was because the sensor quickly was covered with soot and it became useless!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> You were the guy who raised the issue? It's really kind of cool to meet people who actually were involved in matters.


This was a known fact throughout the program and it's usually that way when a production line ramps up and aircraft are starting to be delivered. I quit Boeing the week Bush made the cuts (yes, Boeing - at the beginning of the program most of the assembly workers were employed by Boeing.) It was just shear luck that I got another job as I probably would have been laid off within 30 days of the announcement. Many of my friends were able to stay on until the end of production, eventually being absorbed by Northrop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 27, 2021)

It looks like there are five B-21s currently under production...









Air Force Chief Anticipates ‘Something Special’ for B-21 Public Debut


The Raider is still on schedule to make its first test flight with the next year, Air Force chief says.




www.defenseone.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Oct 28, 2021)

I recall that during the GHW Bush Admin some idiot who was Asst Sectry of Defense for Left Handed Widgets on Alternate Wednesdays went to the B-2 production lines and then said that he was appalled that Demming's Statistical Quality Control was not being used.

The man should not be filling a job even as complex and demanding as asking, "Do you want fries with that?" Demming's ideas were from the automotive industry where you are building millions of nearly identical units and doing individual quality control inspections are not feasible. Applying those concepts to a unique aircraft that you are building only 20 of is insane. I would not want anyone that stupid even cutting my grass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> I recall that during the GHW Bush Admin some idiot who was Asst Sectry of Defense for Left Handed Widgets on Alternate Wednesdays went to the B-2 production lines and then said that he was appalled that Demming's Statistical Quality Control was not being used.
> 
> The man should not be filling a job even as complex and demanding as asking, "Do you want fries with that?" Demming's ideas were from the automotive industry where you are building millions of nearly identical units and doing individual quality control inspections are not feasible. Applying those concepts to a unique aircraft that you are building only 20 of is insane. I would not want anyone that stupid even cutting my grass.


"TQM" was widely pushed during the late 80s and early 90s and then rolled into the ISO 9000 craze. But be advised however that there was a time when there were plans to build over 100 B-2s (I worked on the production line). After witnessing TQM and even ISO being introduced to some companies I worked at with disastrous results, I think the whole concept is a scam to a point. MIL-Q-9858A and and MIL-I-45208 were great programs that worked for many years until overthinkers and bean counters got into the fray.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Oct 28, 2021)

DoD went nuts over Demming while NASA pushed ISO 9000. And as the final report for the investigation of the loss of the Shuttle Columbia said, "There is no evidence that ISO 9000 is applicable to the demands of manned spaceflight." I had already observed that ISO 9000 probably would be fine for the organization of a warehouse for lawn mower parts, but nothing more complex that that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 28, 2021)

ISO has become a box to check to say you're doing what you said you do, and ignores if what you say you should do is the smart thing to do.

Or in other words, "doo doo doo doo"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2021)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 28, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "TQM" was widely pushed during the late 80s and early 90s and then rolled into the ISO 9000 craze. But be advised however that there was a time when there were plans to build over 100 B-2s (I worked on the production line). After witnessing TQM and even ISO being introduced to some companies I worked at with disastrous results, I think the whole concept is a scam to a point. MIL-Q-9858A and and MIL-I-45208 were great programs that worked for many years until overthinkers and bean counters got into the fray.



TQM even filtered down to us lowly firefighters. We had to sit through hours of indoc on it, praying for a false alarm to get us on our trucks. It had some good ideas -- mainly about listening to workers on the floor -- but it was a really big wash that never came to anything, in most cases.

I have successfully used that "listening to subordinates" things in my civilian management life, but outside of that, nothing inspiring.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Nov 8, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> I think the XP-87 and XB-39 made it to prototype stage and flight test


Two XP-87s built.








Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




One XB-39








Boeing XB-39 Superfortress - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 23, 2022)

Senior US official says Washington would consider supplying B-21 bombers to Australia | The Strategist


A senior Washington official has indicated that the United States would consider providing Australia with B-21 Raider long-range bombers, if Canberra requested them. US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was hosted in Canberra this week ...




www.aspistrategist.org.au

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

