Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[4decaa]

The inlet are interesting they look closed ?

no

 

[dark sidius]

no

No and ? the interior shape seem to don't be a classical shape the stream going down in the intlet ?

 

[4decaa]

No and ? the interior shape seem to don't be a classical shape the stream going down in the intlet ?

it's dark, so you can't really see much. But if it had a cover on it, the inlet would look like the image below. with a line in the middle. I don't see a line in the picture so I am assuming the inlet is open

 

[bobbymike]

Would love to know how stealthy this beautiful aircraft is. I’m clinging to the program to fuel my normal technological optimism.

 

[Josh_TN]

I consider it likely incrementally superior to B-2, or else there would be no need to bury the inlets or shrink the windows.

 

[aim9xray]

Would love to know how stealthy this beautiful aircraft is. I’m clinging to the program to fuel my normal technological optimism.

"The B-21 is stealthy. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly stealthy it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist B-2, but that's just peanuts to the B-21."

 

[JoshuaH]

Would love to know how stealthy this beautiful aircraft is. I’m clinging to the program to fuel my normal technological optimism.

Knowing how many compromises Northrop made with the B-2 that affected its stealth performance: Increase in leading edge radius, elevated inlets, low bypass engines (on the infrared side), the edges of the cockpit windshield are not even aligned for some reason... I would be very surprised if the B-21 does not offer significantly improved stealth performance…

 

[quellish]

"The B-21 is stealthy. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly stealthy it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist B-2, but that's just peanuts to the B-21."

To give some perspective, -70dbsm (0.0000001 m2) was being flown regularly in the 1990s. It would be reasonable to expect that B-21 has an RCS in relevant bands equal to or lower than that.

 

[sublight_]

To give some perspective, -70dbsm (0.0000001 m2) was being flown regularly in the 1990s. It would be reasonable to expect that B-21 has an RCS in relevant bands equal to or lower than that.

But the difference is the skin on B-21 can likely be maintained in a reasonable manner, for an affordable amount of capital now. All those toxic death burn pits at Groom helped push the wheels of progress forward.

 

[aonestudio]

B-21 Highlights Strong Performance Through Innovative Technology

Northrop Grumman continues to deliver strong performance across test and production on the B-21 Raider, with an LRIP Lot 2 award late last year signaling further confidence in the program’s technical performance and progress. In partnership with the U.S....

news.northropgrumman.com

 

[Hydroman]

B-21 Highlights Strong Performance Through Innovative Technology

Northrop Grumman continues to deliver strong performance across test and production on the B-21 Raider, with an LRIP Lot 2 award late last year signaling further confidence in the program’s technical performance and progress. In partnership with the U.S....

news.northropgrumman.com

NGC is very good at this. B-2 was also built from the beginning on production tooling. B-2 used "early" Northrop digital engineering techniques.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/3/18/stratcom-commander-beats-drum-for-45-more-b21-bombers

 

[bobbymike]

STRATCOM Chief: Air Force Needs 145 B-21s and More New Strategic Systems

STRATCOM commander Gen. Anthony J. Cotton thinks the Air Force needs 145 B-21s, and both USAF and the Navy need more strategic systems.

www.airandspaceforces.com

This is not the first time Cotton has indicated he would like more Raiders. Last year, he told lawmakers that he would “love” to have morethan 100 of the bombers, but he did not offer the 145 figure he presented now.

“That gives us 220 bombers when the BUFFs (B-52s) are included,” Cotton said at McAleese. Cotton also said he’s “really happy with the work Northrop Grumman is doing” with development and testing of the B-21.

He also praised Raytheon for its “amazing” work on the LRSO, the new nuclear missile the Air Force is working on to succeed the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile. Like the B-21, though, he suggested the program needs to grow…………..

…………..Cotton also said that the Navy’s new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine also likely needs to be built in greater numbers than were originally envisioned, for all the same reasons. The threat is “significantly greater” than it was in an earlier era, and “this is not ‘Cold War 2.0,’” he said.

 

[Hanse]

How is workforce size/ability not related to build rate? (To whomever deleted the relevant posts.)

 

[flateric]

Why should subject litter exactly this thread and start an endless mess? Why just not open a new thread to discuss it in relation to US (you-name-it) aerospace industry problems?

 

[In_A_Dream]

It'll be interesting to see how Russia & China respond once B-21 production ramps up, especially if the order quantity grows.

Strategic decisions come with strategic consequences.

 

[Josh_TN]

It'll be interesting to see how Russia & China respond once B-21 production ramps up, especially if the order quantity grows.

Strategic decisions come with strategic consequences.

China is already developing their equivalent and has long range low frequency radars and backscatter radars as a potential counter, and probably a shit load of projects we do not know about. The existence of the B-2 has always made this type of aircraft a threat to them.

Russia simply is unable to respond; they lack the resources.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How is workforce size/ability not related to build rate? (To whomever deleted the relevant posts.)

Adding a pile more workers in 6-12 months when their clearance finally comes through now means that you need to train them in whatever proprietary techniques go into baked-in RAM etc. So it'd be a couple of years or so before they'd be able to start work on B-21 lines. And that assumes that just throwing more bodies at the problem would increase production speed; at some point you don't have enough space to move things around and you're just getting in each other's way.

 

[Ainen]

Russia simply is unable to respond; they lack the resources.

This is kinda strange conclusion, since all the solutions you listed originate from Russia in the first place. China, Iran, DPRK picked them up and developed on their own, later.

 

[Hanse]

Strategic decisions come with strategic consequences.

Clearly, we should cancel the B-21 immediately then. We wouldn't want to upset anybody.

 

[Josh_TN]

This is kinda strange conclusion, since all the solutions you listed originate from Russia in the first place. China, Iran, DPRK picked them up and developed on their own, later.

I do not doubt their technical abilities but they have other priorities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Source for 24,000 lb figure?

B-2 Spirit, The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI, ISBN 978-0-7603-0893-6

In any case, in actual practice the B-21 is going to have a larger number of bombs of most any size, even if we use a single B-2 bay as the baseline. And in fact the bay is longer, so alternate bomb loads might have been adopted.

And yes, the B-21 does have a longer bay so that it can actually pack ALCMs inside (~21ft versus ~15ft I think). I don't know if the bay is set up to handle additional small bombs when the rotary launcher isn't installed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The maximum combat load with which the F-15E flew was about six tons, 13000 lbs, the rest was suspended and conformal fuel tanks.
B-21 - 13500 kg / 30000 lbs

I'm pretty sure I've seen higher loads than that before... 6x 1000lb bombs per CFT, 4x Sparrows, 4x sidewinders, LANTIRN pods, and a 5000lb LGB on the wing on one side (with either another 5000lb on the other or a large fuel tank).

The B-21 30,000lb max load is assuming a GBU-57 MOP, which takes advantage of the fact that the rotary launcher or bomb rack assembly doesn't count in the normal bomb load discussions. A more typical load would be 8x 2000lb bombs on the rotary launcher (16,000lbs), or 40x 500lb bombs on the Bomb Rack Assembly (20,000lbs).**

** 40x 500lb bombs is from the B-2, if the B-21's bomb bay is 50% longer it might be possible to fit up to 60x 500lb bombs into the bay.

 

[Josh_TN]

B-2 Spirit, The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI, ISBN 978-0-7603-0893-6


And yes, the B-21 does have a longer bay so that it can actually pack ALCMs inside (~21ft versus ~15ft I think). I don't know if the bay is set up to handle additional small bombs when the rotary launcher isn't installed.

B-2s warload/2 does not tell us what B-21s is. Moreover both aircraft likely can trade fuel load for warload; we know B-2 can carry two 30,000 lb bombs even though that is well past its nominal warload.

B-2 bay is closer to 21’ (GBU-57 is 20.5 feet) and B-21 appears to be 24-25’.

I would be shocked if B-21 did not have a SBA rack or equivalent, and I would be even more shocked if it did not have some method for carrying ~100 SDBs. The entire point of adopting a penetrating bomber vice cruise missile platform was to 1) have more munitions per aircraft and 2) retain a hardened burried target capability.

 

[Josh_TN]

Hypothetically an F-15 might carry 7 mk84 bombs, but I think the IAF strike against Lil Naz was the only time I’ve heard of f-15s carrying such a large weapons load. Not sure if B-21 is limited to 8 for its bay like B-2, but certainly 40 mk82s should be possible. It’s even possible three SBARs can be carried given the slight length increase over B-2.

USAF released a graphic circa 2021 that stated B-21 load was “30,000+”, though again that might be with reduced fuel.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm pretty sure I've seen higher loads than that before... 6x 1000lb bombs per CFT, 4x Sparrows, 4x sidewinders, LANTIRN pods, and a 5000lb LGB on the wing on one side (with either another 5000lb on the other or a large fuel tank).

The B-21 30,000lb max load is assuming a GBU-57 MOP, which takes advantage of the fact that the rotary launcher or bomb rack assembly doesn't count in the normal bomb load discussions. A more typical load would be 8x 2000lb bombs on the rotary launcher (16,000lbs), or 40x 500lb bombs on the Bomb Rack Assembly (20,000lbs).**

** 40x 500lb bombs is from the B-2, if the B-21's bomb bay is 50% longer it might be possible to fit up to 60x 500lb bombs into the bay.

Never seen a configuration that included a 5,000# with other weapons, but I assume it is possible. That aircraft must handle like an overloaded UHaul though.

Heaviest load I can remember being pictured was a dozen CBU-87 on the CFTs and a dozen mk82 on MERs with a centerline drop tank during ODS.

 

[Moose]

Maybe take the B-21 discussion to that thread, folks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

B-2s warload/2 does not tell us what B-21s is. Moreover both aircraft likely can trade fuel load for warload; we know B-2 can carry two 30,000 lb bombs even though that is well past its nominal warload.

However, the GBU-57 replaces the entire rotary launcher assembly or BRA.

So the weight of the RLA stops counting as "empty weight" of the aircraft, freeing up some weight for ordnance without getting over MTOW.

B-2 bay is closer to 21’ (GBU-57 is 20.5 feet) and B-21 appears to be 24-25’.

Point taken on B-2 bay length, I forgot to check GBU-57 length.

I was honestly assuming that the B-21 bay was B-52 length.

I would be shocked if B-21 did not have a SBA rack or equivalent, and I would be even more shocked if it did not have some method for carrying ~100 SDBs.

As would I.

 

[eagle]

Never seen a configuration that included a 5,000# with other weapons, but I assume it is possible. That aircraft must handle like an overloaded UHaul though.

Heaviest load I can remember being pictured was a dozen CBU-87 on the CFTs and a dozen mk82 on MERs with a centerline drop tank during ODS.

I don't think MERs were ever used operationally.
The heaviest load was probably 4 Mk84 bombs plus 3 tanks. Take off with a reduced fuel load as with full tanks, weight would exceed MTOW.

5 2000 lbs bombs is the practical limit usually. So in practice, a B-21 with 8 2000 lbs bombs has a higher bomb load.

 

[Hanse]

I don't think MERs were ever used operationally.
The heaviest load was probably 4 Mk84 bombs plus 3 tanks. Take off with a reduced fuel load as with full tanks, weight would exceed MTOW.

5 2000 lbs bombs is the practical limit usually. So in practice, a B-21 with 8 2000 lbs bombs has a higher bomb load.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe take the B-21 discussion to that thread, folks.

The point of having the discussion in the F-47 thread was to point out that unless the F-47 has large bays, sized for SiAW/AARGM-ER and AGM158s, then it's not physically capable of replacing the Strike Eagles (and therefore we're talking about having a smaller total production run).

Also, if the F-47 does not have deep bays, it means the USAF is setting itself up to have to buy another Navy plane. Buying FAXX to fly the Strike NGAD missions!

 

[Josh_TN]

Maybe not connected to the photo, but the IaF raid that took out Lil Naz reportedly involved a dozen F-15s wearing seven 2,000# class penetrators - wings, centerline, and CFTs. But the IAF has a lot of freedom of action over Kebanon in terms of resistance and distance. That is not a configuration you would want to use if there was any chance of someone shooting at you or if you needed any kind of endurance.

 

[Josh_TN]

The point of having the discussion in the F-47 thread was to point out that unless the F-47 has large bays, sized for SiAW/AARGM-ER and AGM158s, then it's not physically capable of replacing the Strike Eagles (and therefore we're talking about having a smaller total production run).

Also, if the F-47 does not have deep bays, it means the USAF is setting itself up to have to buy another Navy plane. Buying FAXX to fly the Strike NGAD missions!

F-47 is not a F-15E replacement. In all likelihood there simply won’t be a direct F-15E replacement, outside F-15EX. Why would the USAf need one?

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-47 is not a F-15E replacement. In all likelihood there simply won’t be a direct F-15E replacement, outside F-15EX. Why would the USAf need one?

Because the F-15EX's life expectancy inside even a Russian battlefield IADS is measured in seconds. Life expectancy inside a Chinese A2AD? Zero.

The F-15EX is replacing F-15C/Ds in the North American air policing role. FFS it's going straight to Air National Guard units!

If you want an interdiction bomber that can penetrate an IADS or A2AD bubble, you need a stealth airframe. The USAF isn't currently planning on buying enough B-21s to assign any to the interdiction role. The USAF isn't currently planning on using any CCAs for bombing, either.

So either they're giving up on the interdiction bomber role entirely and losing another 200 airframes from the inventory or they're going to need SOMETHING to replace the Strike Eagle. Plus, God forbid the USAF have to buy yet another Navy plane, as the FAXX is designed around long range strike/interdiction with some air-to-air capabilities and would be an excellent replacement for the Strike Eagle, if only it wasn't a Navy plane.

 

[Josh_TN]

More B-21s or F-35s then.

 

[eagle]

View attachment 765019

That's exactly the one exception that's already been mentioned.
Even so, 7 is still less than 8.

 

[eagle]

he F-15EX is replacing F-15C/Ds in the North American air policing role. FFS it's going straight to Air National Guard units!

Kadena is getting the F-15EX... Eventually.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

So either they're giving up on the interdiction bomber role entirely and losing another 200 airframes from the inventory or they're going to need SOMETHING to replace the Strike Eagle. Plus, God forbid the USAF have to buy yet another Navy plane, as the FAXX is designed around long range strike/interdiction with some air-to-air capabilities and would be an excellent replacement for the Strike Eagle, if only it wasn't a Navy plane.

IMO B-21 eats the role. I think we see B-21s dropping UAS or loitering munitions in this role: quarterbacking a swarm of interdictors from afar with great loitering time. They'll also be able to passively put fires on targets at these interdiction ranges. Otherwise, the F-35 with perhaps some novel additions to its fuel capacity can perform this mission as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Kadena is getting the F-15EX... Eventually.

While the Oregon Air National Guard is getting it right now.

IMO B-21 eats the role. I think we see B-21s dropping UAS or loitering munitions in this role: quarterbacking a swarm of interdictors from afar with great loitering time. They'll also be able to passively put fires on targets at these interdiction ranges. Otherwise, the F-35 with perhaps some novel additions to its fuel capacity can perform this mission as well.

Except that B-21s are at least twice the cost of F-47 or FAXX, and there's currently no plans to buy more than ~150.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

Except that B-21s are at least twice the cost of F-47 or FAXX, and there's currently no plans to buy more than ~150.

In all fairness, that number is widely speculated to increase, but I'm willing to concede this point. However, whether or not there are enough B-21s in total to perform the mission, doesn't preclude it from interdiction. To include the F-35, some things have to be done, even when the circumstances are not optimal. The emerging CCA paradigm is also going to open a lot of tactical opportunities/dilemmas for the interdiction game that have yet to unfold.

In any event, IMO we don't see the Strike Eagle replaced, if for no other reason than it was designed to interdict in the European Theater, of which there appears to be lessening interest. I think we see less overseas basing; more B-21 presence globally, over the course of the next 20 years. Pumping out B-21s is still going to be cheaper than a whole new airframe, no?