How come the B-21 isn't the B-2EX?
>>65606391
>>65606391Because it's still an F-15.B-21 is a clean sheet design. Stealth flying wings are all going to look more or less the same because it's an optimized design.
>>65606391Because the EX is still the same general airframe.Yes significant changes were made for the new systems, but it's still undoubtedly an F-15 variant.A B-21 is an entirely different airframe, even if it's based on the B-2 design.
>>65606391A better question is, "How come the B-21 isn't the B-3?"
>>65606391Not the first time.F-8 crusader -> A-7 Corsair IIF-5 -> F-20 tigersharkF-4 phantom -> F-110 Spectre
>>65606415You're asking the real questions. It's the same reason the Sentinel is the LGM-35, NGAD is F-47, fucking Malice is AIM-424. Nobody gives a fuck about designation systems any more and it's making everything messy for no good reason.
>>65606417>F-8 crusader -> A-7 Corsair IIChanged to reflect the role switch from fighter to attack. It preserved the sequential designator, a good thing.>F-5 -> F-20 tigersharkThis is the outlier, there was no F-19. Possibly skipped to avoid confusion with the MiG-19. Good early example of designations getting bent for political reasons because Northrop wanted a formal name to help with sales, all the good that did them. F-4 phantom -> F-110 SpectreOther way around, it had the F-110 designation first. Which would have been sequential with the other century series jets. Due to its use with the Navy it received a then new Tri-service designation of F-4, which is what the navy had first designated it.
>>65606391This would be a better question for the F-18
>>65606417>F-8 crusader -> A-7 Corsair IICompletely different airframe. A-7 is just derived from Vought aerodynamic research that governed the F-8's design.F-8 was assigned that designation in the US 1962 tri-service system because it had originally been F8U under the old naval system (Vought's 8th fighter aircraft design submitted to the Navy - following F7U Cutlass) and there wasn't another F8 (such as the F8F Bearcat) still in Naval service in 1962, so it got to keep the number.While A-7 followed A-6 Intruder as an attack aircraft in 1965.>F-5 -> F-20 tigersharkWas F-5G but as it went from a twin-engine to single engine, had totally different avionics, and wasn't going to be operated by the US military, they treated it as a new plane and gave it a more up-to-date designation that sounded better to export customers.>F-4 phantom -> F-110 SpectreF-110 was the US Air force's designation before 1962. It followed McDonnell's initial submission for what became the F-101B, to be F109, but in the end there was no F-109.Naval designation was F4H as McDonnell's 4th fighter design submitted to the navy (following F3H Demon) it got to keep the F-4 name while the F4D Skyray (Douglas' 4th naval fighter design) was redesignated F-6 despite being older.
>>65606391While similarly shaped, the B-21 and B-2 are very different in sizeKind of the same deal as the Mig-29 and Su-30, they superficially look pretty much the same but side by side the Su-30 is 15 feet longer, it's WAY bigger
>>65606602>This is wrong it was just proven the wingspan of the b-21 is 152.3 feet wide
>>65606602>>65606607
>F-15 Obr. 2024
>>65606602The B-21 is an 88% scale original design B-2.>>65606624This. The B-21, in actuality, is only 12% smaller in width and length than the B-2.
>>65606648This is assuming similar metrics that the F119 went through to become a non afterburning and two F135 derivative for the B21 without afterburner and bigger fans, like the B2 has as well but with 4 engines
>>65606664The B2 has 174 pounds of thrust per cubic foot of engine
If the F-18 super hornet is still an F-18.How the B-21 cannot be B-2 pocket?
>>65606694It's the B-2.1.
>>65606694It isn’t really though. That was a lie they told to Congress to get it paid for. In a more forgiving budget environment it would’ve ended up being called F-19 or F-21.
>>65606664Isn't it dangerous to only have one engine on each side?
>>65606740No, it'd have been called the F/A-24, since that was the first number available.
>>65606756-19 was never used by anything so would’ve been correct to keep sequence. Unfortunately Northrop fucked up the entire system when they lobbied to get the F-20 designation to help sales, only for nobody to ever buy the damn thing.
>>65606752no look at any modern airliner they can still land with only 1 engine and unequal thrust. It probably needs to drop its payload and or some fuel but modern controls account for and test engine out
>>65606780>no look at any modern airliner they can still land with only 1 engine and unequal thrust.Those planes aren't boomerangs.
>>65606795>flying wings dont have electronically controlled flight computers that are tested with engine out capability
>>65606766Would have made most sense to simply skip 19 at that point. But then you have the whole X/F-35 thing because it was derived from an X plane.
>>65606816They don't have flight control surfaces that can correct for asymmetric thrust.
>>65606871I'm sure you are smarter than the US Airforce and Northrop maybe you should suggest a test regime with only 1 engine operating and using computer controlled split-drag rudders and differential elevon deflection to cut asymmetrical yaw and roll...
>>65606664I work for nasa, let me tell you a secret.B-21 has 3 engines.The third engine is at the center, and it can rotate to replace any of the other engines.
>>65606412is it based on the B2?or is it simply a successor, and that is what all of these stealth bombers will look like.I mean an F22 looks a lot like a F15 but its not based on it.
>>65607152It is 100% based on the B-2.They're both Northrop designs, and the layout/design is FAR too similar to not be based on the B-2.It's obviously NOT just a scaled down copy, but it's not exactly a distant relative either.
>>65607076Lol>>65607172Convergent evolution B-30 will be a crab
>>65606871>They don't have flight control surfaces that can correct for asymmetric thrust.https://theaviationist.com/2026/06/09/b-21-speed-brakes/
>>65606411>clean sheet design its a smaller b2 there is nothing radical about it
>>65607350>crabposters have infiltrated /k/
>>65607076thrust vectoringin the literal sense
>>65606411>Stealth flying wings are all going to look more or less the same because it's an optimized designUntil the next generation of stealth planes comes out, looks different and the same bullshit line will be repeated another 30 years with the new design.Nigger.
>>65606740F-21 was already assigned to pic relatedMost of the 20 and 30 series isn't used for US aircraft, to avoid confusion with MiGs and Sukhois
>>65606752It's already aerodynamically fucked, unstable as shit and only flyable because the three flight computers that are constantly checking each other for errors are making microadjustments to the control surfaces.If the plane still has enough thrust with one engine, it just becomes a problem for the flight computer, but I would assume they have taken that scenario into account.
>>65607740>It's already aerodynamically fucked, unstable as shit Relaxed stability is literally the most aerodynamically efficient regime, because it eliminates trim drag during cruise>the three flight computers that are constantly checking each other for errors are making microadjustments to the control surfacesthat's just standard fly-by-wire architecture for everything. It's not particularly expensive or unique. You can buy radiation hardened lockstep CPUs in retail.
>>65607738
they should only for the reason that military guys would take the "B-2EX" and start calling it the "BUTTSEX". and that would be hilarious
>>65607736sure, until your schizo nonsense happens then everything will change
>>65606871>My source? I said so lol
>>65607076Actually I work for the Space Force and last I saw there were five, just in case three were destroyed and one was being used to heat chili.
>>65606843Which always bugged me because there was no reason to treat JSF differently than ATF. They should've been YF-24 and YF-25.
>>65606648I'm a little confused... if it's 88% of the size, with >75% of the thrust on lighter, more fuel-efficient engines, does that mean all the claims of it being half the MTOW with half the payload are wrong?
>>65610063The airforce is claiming the longest unrefueled range is now the B-21with only 2 engines it has significantly more room for fuel and bombs where the additional 2 engines were in the B2https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/the-b-21-raider-will-need-less-aerial-refueling-than-the-b-2-spirit
>>65610063The b-21 is expected to have just 11% less power than the B2 but its 88% the size and likely significantly lighter due to materials and technology getting stronger and smaller. 164 less cubic feet for engines to go into compared to a B2. Its power to weight is gonna be better than the B2 its fuel efficiency is going to be significant and has likely similar fuel volumes while still being a smaller bomber.
>>65606391B-2 is sexier than B-21.
>>65610036Supposedly even Lockmart were surprised when it was announced as the F-35, they internally expected F-24.
