Home
It's been a while since talk started about the new ВΩⅿ㍴ but since then things kind of died. This years it's gonna be put to the test. Some patents have been floating around since 2009 and yet no bloody artist on the net took it up yet. Note even some kids at devianart. So I thought it was about time I looked into the design, too. 
hide
hide
hide
- Spoiler:
All images are to scale!
From the get go Northrop's idea was a modular design. Well, it's a bad idea for several reasons:- modularity as in flexibility is best meant for some sizable things not whole ship-sections
- modularity for ship-section is best for construction and having many designs but
is not meant to be mission flexible; changes takes too long anyway (months) - modularity requires extra space to fit things as well as taking future consideration into account, so efficiency is bad
- for aircraft where every pound counts this is very bad
As you can see here, Northrop intends to have a module in a module. This means more space needed as well as more (2) thick bulkheads. Their reason is to keep the back the same which contains all the expansive electronics. It's like keeping the spine while exchanging the content of the belly and the limps.
my own illustration of the same with more realistic interpretation; I kept the same single bulk to connect two sides, hence halving weight.
Anyway, based on the specification and requirement it can be build with just two engines. That's why they displayed such a model sometime before the program started.
I had my own idea before, too, and they happen to fall in line. In any case performance wise it's a bit better than the B2.
max Weight: ~140000 lb fuel 70-80000 lb payload 30000 lb
In order to fill in for tankers and transporters, hence, more versatility, Northrop decided on the idea of modularity and four engines. From a simple point of view there's no gain for the ВΩⅿ㍴ whether it has 2 or 4 engines because the aircraft would be double as large and requires double the fuel. But there's a trick to it!
Having so much extra engine power the engine can be run at low power, hence, not as much fuel is required.
The 4-engine version is roughly 70% larger or about 60% more fuel;
performance wise it's wothin possibility to go for Mach 1.2.
IMHO Mach 1.2 is a target feature for a dash.
The canards are in two possible sizes I left them for misinformation purposes
Tanker and transporter version are essentially the same with a minor difference in the back (w/ or w/o door). It can carry a SpecOps team of 12, 3 Storm Search and Rescue Tactical Vehicle at max weight, and more extra personnel for a mission.- modularity as in flexibility is best meant for some sizable things not whole ship-sections
hide
- Spoiler:
Boeing/Lockheed are competing, too, but I doubt them.
the ВΩⅿ㍴ is about the same size as N's
but the tanker is way larger
Just as with before they probably will have a lesser design but may win politically.
But then again there are two ВΩⅿ㍴ programs. This one is just the interim medium ВΩⅿ㍴. The real heavy ВΩⅿ㍴ program is still awaiting. If it does get underway. then N has a chance to win the small one while B/L get the big one.
Aerodynamic wise both team will end up with superficially the same design. The difference lie in the details. Boeing doesn't have a modular design but probably will have to in order to compete. I still think N has superior skillz.
The biggest disadvantage/advantage is that the wing design is huge because the thickness has to fit in humans. If they want to compete in size they will have to go for a hybrid like N does, too. So they definitely will end up being quite similar.
