B-21 Revealed

[Token]

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

I suspect I, (just a guess here, I am not directly associated with the B-21 program in any way) that it has more to do with the 21st century and posturing the warfighter and services for the 21st century. Everybody likes buzz words, and an aircraft harkening to a buzz word will probably last forever.

T!

 

[GrauGeist]

My first thought, when I saw it, was B2 bomber Version 2.1

 

[Alan Stevens]

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

Should have been designated as B-3.

That comes after B-1 and B-2.

 

[SaparotRob]

It's to confuse China.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Should have been designated as B-3.

That comes after B-1 and B-2.

Yeah, the designation is squonky, but the naming after the Raiders is very apt, imo.

 

[GTX]

The US designation system went out the window with the F-25...err F-35

 

[MIflyer]

Should have been designated as B-3.

We don't talk about the B-3 through B-20. We just don't talk about them. Shhhhh!

The US designation system went out the window with the F-25...err F-35

It really when off the rails when they prototypes for the F-32 and F-35 were designated X-32 and X-35 rather than XF.

And of course the infamous F-117 designation came from the classified program being designated Project 117 and when they had to start labeling documents they used "F-117" for lack of anything else. Giving it an "F" designation came from the TAC Commander saying, "The very best fighter pilots will fly this airplane and no such pilot would consent to flying anything with an "A" designation."

We probably will never have another "A" designation aircraft, lest someone's feelings get hurt.

 

[GrauGeist]

There is the F/A-18...

And the "B" designations are going to soon start rolling over the earlier types, like the Keystone B-3.

 

[MIflyer]

There is the F/A-18...

And there is the F/A-22. But "A" by itself may be done in the USAF, maybe the USN as well. Note that the F-117 pilots trained on the A-7D but the airplane was still designated "F" even though it had no known air-to-air capability.

 

[GrauGeist]

Mostly a change in doctrine.

The majority of USAF fighters (F) are capable of ground attack, leaving only the A-10 and AC-130 as dedicated ground attack types.

The "Wobbly Goblin" is capable of stand-off air to air, but the nature of it's secrecy in the beginning is what gave it the odd designation of "F" along with it's out of sequence number.

Same goes for the USN - with the advent of the multi-role F-35, it's not very likely that there will ever be another "A" type dedicated ground attack aircraft after the F/A-18 is retired.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Same goes for the USN - with the advent of the multi-role F-35, it's not very likely that there will ever be another "A" type dedicated ground attack aircraft after the F/A-18 is retired.

... or if there is another one, it will be a "DA" designation -- "drone attack". Once AI is capable, unmanned, non-suicide attack drones will, repeat will, be a thing, I think.

 

[GrauGeist]

... or if there is another one, it will be a "DA" designation -- "drone attack". Once AI is capable, unmanned, non-suicide attack drones will, repeat will, be a thing, I think.

"Q" is the core of the UAV designation for the AF, like RQ or MQ. So far, "MQ" stands for "Multi-Mission" and "RQ" stands for the various recon types.

I'd imagine if they employed a dedicated attack type, it would be something like "AQ" designated.

The USN currently follows the "Q" designation, too.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Q" is the core of the UAV designation for the AF, like RQ or MQ. So far, "MQ" stands for "Multi-Mission" and "RQ" stands for the various recon types.

I'd imagine if they employed a dedicated attack type, it would be something like "AQ" designated.

The USN currently follows the "Q" designation, too.

Right, mental glitch on my part. They flew Qs from Mugu when I lived in Hueneme, etc, for testing missiles.

 

[GreenKnight121]

We don't talk about the B-3 through B-20. We just don't talk about them. Shhhhh!


It really when off the rails when they prototypes for the F-32 and F-35 were designated X-32 and X-35 rather than XF.

Those designations were because they were officially "technology demonstrators, NOT prototypes for the eventual production aircraft".

Their purpose was:
1. prove the company had the ability to build a flying airframe using the required composite materials
2. show that the flying airframe met the expected/predicted flight characteristics
3. show the company had a good handle on cost predictions

They did NOT have to be in anything resembling the production configuration (although Lockheed tried to get as close as possible, while Boeing was just trying to get SOMETHING to fly the way they predicted it would).

Lockheed's X-35 met all 3, while Boeing's X-32 failed #2 - the flying airframe had aerodynamic deficiencies in the flight regimes most important to a carrier-based aircraft, requiring significant modification to meet expected flight characteristics (adding a v-tail with control surfaces to the delta-winged aircraft).

The "developmental/pre-production" F-35s had a LOT of changes from the X-35s - length/wingspan/height were different in all versions than their X-35 predecessors, as well as many internal changes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] while Boeing was just trying to get SOMETHING to fly the way they predicted it would).

Don't forget "look fat, dumb, and happy" ...

 

[MIflyer]

Those designations were because they were officially "technology demonstrators, NOT prototypes for the eventual production aircraft".

And so it was for the X-33, despite the fact that its was proposed to serve as a prototype for a radical new reusable launch vehicle, none of the three X-33 designs offered could even attain orbit, even without a payload. Fortunately the USAF got the assignment to develop a new expendable booster using existing technology and that resulted in the Delta IV and Atlas V, FINALLY giving us space boosters that were not based on 1st generation ICBM technology. The X-33 was to be the subscale prototype of a fully reusable RLV but NASA made enormous error of using the same mission requirements as the Space Shuttle and ended up canceling the program before anything actually flew because they figured it would never meet the requirements. Trying to build an "X" vehicle that is halfway between a pure X research vehicle and an X prototype of a production vehicle seems to have at best a checkered history.

 

[Token]

Don't forget "look fat, dumb, and happy" ...

View attachment 748708

I mean come on man, the F-35 is called Fat Amy, and it is positively svelt looking compared to this. Can you imagine what nickname the X-32 would have ended up with?

T!

 

[GTX]

I mean come on man, the F-35 is called Fat Amy, and it is positively svelt looking compared to this. Can you imagine what nickname the X-32 would have ended up with?

T!

I thought it was already known as "Monica"

 

[SaparotRob]

I love Boeing and Boeing related accessories but the X-32 does look like it should be filter feeding krill.

 

[z42]

I love Boeing and Boeing related accessories but the X-32 does look like it should be filter feeding krill.

That's some next generation tech, a plane that can work as a submarine too, and refuel by diving down into the sea and ingesting krill.