B-21 Revealed

[MIflyer]

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."

 

[swampyankee]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

 

[MIflyer]

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]

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 568631View attachment 568629View attachment 568628

List of military aircraft of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[SaparotRob]

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 568631View attachment 568629View 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.

 

[Capt. Vick]

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 568631View attachment 568629View attachment 568628

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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).

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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.

 

[vikingBerserker]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[MIflyer]

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.

 

[swampyankee]

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 602260View attachment 602261

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

 

[vikingBerserker]

I know the XB-39 did as a single copy

 

[GrauGeist]

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 602260View 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

 

[Zipper730]

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?

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]

Why were so few built?

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

 

[Zipper730]

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]

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.