Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[TomS]

The USAF's stated plan is for the next gen penetrator to be lighter than MOP so it can fit on a wider range of aircraft. Probably will need rocket assistance for maximum penetration.

 

[TomcatViP]

"For sure distributed propulsion"? As in a hybrid electric system?

yes but jet outlets at the trailing edge (essentially).
It was reported that the piping was of a major challenge.

 

[NeilChapman]

Have US Bombers deployed or landed west of Guam recently? I wasn't sure if there are any training exercises down under or at Kadena where the bombers actually landed. I'm asking as I'm wondering if B-21 would be able to forward deploy west of Guam.

 

[TomS]

I believe there have been bombers flying out of Tindal and Darwin as recently as 2018.

US B-2, B-52 and B-1 Bombers Exercising in Australia

A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.

gentleseas.blogspot.com

 

[NeilChapman]

I believe there have been bombers flying out of Tindal and Darwin as recently as 2018.

US B-2, B-52 and B-1 Bombers Exercising in Australia

A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.

gentleseas.blogspot.com

Thanks Tom

You've pointed me in the right direction. Looks like there is quite a bit going on with fuel depots and munitions storage facilities being built at different bases. Also cryptic statements by officials about future plans. Looks like they're waiting for the US Congress to complete the 2020 NDAA for funding before additional plans to be shared.

Interesting times.

 

[rooster]

What do you guys mean by hybrid propulsion? As in the mythical ability of the B2 to use electric charge as propulsive force?
Also as a US citizen and patriot, is it wise for the new bomber to use 2engines? One flames out and 1 isn't enough to maintain flight. Isn't it better to use 4 smaller engines if 1 should fail, then 3 is enough to return to base.

 

[NeilChapman]

What do you guys mean by hybrid propulsion? As in the mythical ability of the B2 to use electric charge as propulsive force?
Also as a US citizen and patriot, is it wise for the new bomber to use 2engines? One flames out and 1 isn't enough to maintain flight. Isn't it better to use 4 smaller engines if 1 should fail, then 3 is enough to return to base.

They're pretty good engines, and powerful. I don't believe they would design an aircraft with two engines where one wouldn't be able to maintain flight.

 

[marauder2048]

I'd be pretty skeptical about hybrid electric: you need (at the very least) large, nuclear hardened cryocoolers for the
multi-megawatt class motors and a nuclear hardened kVDC distribution system.

Not sure any of that is mature enough to have earned it's way on especially in the face of a third-stream engine
that's close-ish in potential fuel burn improvements.

 

[kaiserd]

What do you guys mean by hybrid propulsion? As in the mythical ability of the B2 to use electric charge as propulsive force?
Also as a US citizen and patriot, is it wise for the new bomber to use 2engines? One flames out and 1 isn't enough to maintain flight. Isn't it better to use 4 smaller engines if 1 should fail, then 3 is enough to return to base.

They're pretty good engines, and powerful. I don't believe they would design an aircraft with two engines where one wouldn't be able to maintain flight.

Did you expect a different answer if you weren’t a “US citizen and patriot”?
(No offense meant.)

I would naively have thought that 2 versus 4 engines would have very much been a consideration at initial design stage, and at evaluation and selection stages.
Indeed (unless I’ve missed an announcement) my understanding is that we don’t actually know if the B-21 is twin engined, just that this is the current understanding of what is most likely.
I understand that’s because the engine is P&W and is expected to be related to the F135, as well as exceptions of the B-21 being somewhat smaller and lighter than the B-2.
And as commented on by other contributors there would be assumed to be a certain level of acceptable one-engine-down performance that goes all the way back to my comments above re: initial design stage trade-offs.
And in terms of the expected reliability of modern turbofan engines I can point you to the F-35 being single engined and the absolute death of all 4 engined airliners in the face of twin engined competitors.

Some ‘hiccups’ with engine design, but B-21 on track, Wittman says

There have been some challenges with airflow and wing design early in B-21 production, but those shouldn't be game-stoppers, Rep. Rob Wittman says.

www.defensenews.com

The Air Force Has Started Building the First B-21 Bomber, Which You Haven't Even Seen Yet

The U.S. Air Force and defense contractor Northrop Grumman have begun construction of the first B-21 Raider bomber. The airplane, which will carry both conventional and nuclear payloads, is the U.S.’s first first new heavy bomber in more than thirty years. And despite a plane already being...

www.google.com

 

[bring_it_on]

Yup. The ”4 engines 4 long haul” slogan was fairly short lived on the commercial side. I don't see much problem with the B-21 having twin engines..

 

[VTOLicious]

I would guess the Raider will have narrow horizontal exhaust openings that distribute the hot air along a large portion of the trailing edge of the wings center section. Similar to those of F-117...

 

[flateric]

what you guess is based on? why it shouldn't look like those on company's heritage still more modern B-2 or X-47B?
why it shouldn't look like those on NGB renderings? official rendering points on exhaust looking exactly like those
why post meaningless stuff and guesses if you just don't know?

 

[VTOLicious]

what you guess is based on? why it shouldn't look like those on company's heritage still more modern B-2 or X-47B?
why it shouldn't look like those on NGB renderings? official rendering points on exhaust looking exactly like those
why post meaningless stuff and guesses if you just don't know?

Why so upset?
Actually my guess is based on the claims of "distributed propulsion" by other forum members...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-b-21-long-range-strike-bomber.25915/post-357903

...and I think such trailing edge exhausts perfecly match with the only official picture released so far

 

[flateric]

so we have ready to use distributed propulsion system for an aircraft with the first flight scheduled for December 2021
OK

 

[FighterJock]

so we have ready to use distributed propulsion system for an aircraft with the first flight scheduled for December 2021
OK

So when would the USAF reveal the B-21 to the public? It has to be after first flight or when the B-21 reaches Initial Operational Capability.

 

[Sundog]

so we have ready to use distributed propulsion system for an aircraft with the first flight scheduled for December 2021
OK

So when would the USAF reveal the B-21 to the public? It has to be after first flight or when the B-21 reaches Initial Operational Capability.

When they roll it out. It has to perform taxi tests and other ground handling tests before it flies. It's kind of hard to hide something like that rolling around the Palmdale airport.

 

[FighterJock]

Thanks Sundog. By the way any idea as to the public areas of Palmdale airport are in relation to where Northrop are?

 

[rooster]

so we have ready to use distributed propulsion system for an aircraft with the first flight scheduled for December 2021
OK

So when would the USAF reveal the B-21 to the public? It has to be after first flight or when the B-21 reaches Initial Operational Capability.

Spirit was like 9 months ahead of flight. I am guessing less than that for Raider as we don't want to telegraph to the world what we are building. Only wish we were rolling out two PCA as well; would be like 89/90 all over again. Shouldn't Lockheed have some kind of hypersonic demonstrator soon? Edit: reread and it will be before first flight. They can't box this one up likethe night hawk and test in secret.

Curious if they will be armed with alcms or just "bombs" like the spirit. Will they integrate the agm86 into it or wait till the new missile is ready?

Also didn't i read they only plan to build 8 a year? I hope that is incorrect.

Also shouldn't they keep the spirits around as they could now be seen as no longer too valuable to be used in certain scenarios with the Raider in the fleet?

Didn't northrop build a florida facility for the B21? Read that a year or two ago. Is that still the case?

 

[Sundog]

Didn't northrop build a florida facility for the B21? Read that a year or two ago. Is that still the case?

The facility in Florida is just for the engineering team.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The facility in Florida is just for the engineering team.

It's interesting they didn't use an existing facility.

 

[GeorgeA]

The facility in Florida is just for the engineering team.

It's interesting they didn't use an existing facility.

They did. It was an existing facility in Melbourne that they expanded for the B-21 program. They were also playing Florida and California off each other for tax subsidies.

 

[Grey Havoc]

They were also playing Florida and California off each other for tax subsidies.

Thanks, I should have remembered that little factoid.

 

[Sundog]

As George noted, the existing facility in Florida, IIRC, was used for converting/upgrading systems into aircraft. I think it's where they installed the systems for the Joint Stars aircraft, among other modifications they've performed there.

 

[GeorgeA]

As George noted, the existing facility in Florida, IIRC, was used for converting/upgrading systems into aircraft. I think it's where they installed the systems for the Joint Stars aircraft, among other modifications they've performed there.

Yes, the site was originally Grumman Mission Systems before the merger. I think E-2D systems integration still happens there.

 

[NeilChapman]

...

Also didn't i read they only plan to build 8 a year? I hope that is incorrect.

Also shouldn't they keep the spirits around as they could now be seen as no longer too valuable to be used in certain scenarios with the Raider in the fleet?

...

If there were plans to build 8 per year, I can only expect that the discussions about potential production rate increases have taken place.

It will be quite awhile before Raider squadrons are fully capable. They may be flying in the mid 2020's but they need time to learn its capabilities and how best to deploy them. The United States has only had 20 "stealth" bombers. That's not a very deep cadre of pilots with experience in this type of mission.

If it were me, I think I'd keep as many bombers as I could afford. The tragedy is that the United States has very few bombers. They want re-engine the B-52's and ensure they can carry on pylons whatever was in the pipeline but I'd be reticent to go wild with new tech. Perhaps a program to 3D print as much of the B-52 as makes sense and start stockpiling parts. Any viable Buffs in the boneyard should get new engines as well. There're probably not enough left to make a viable squadron but you could add a "spare" to existing squadrons and increase their MCR's. There will be those that want glass cockpits, laser weapons, DAS, etc, etc. They'll probably get it. Personally, I'd rather see Buff, Bone, and B-2 as arsenal planes going nowhere near contested airspace once Raider is ready. Every study I've read is unequivocal that the US needs at least 200 bombers for any sustained near-peer engagement.

 

[FighterJock]

...

Also didn't i read they only plan to build 8 a year? I hope that is incorrect.

Also shouldn't they keep the spirits around as they could now be seen as no longer too valuable to be used in certain scenarios with the Raider in the fleet?

...

If there were plans to build 8 per year, I can only expect that the discussions about potential production rate increases have taken place.

It will be quite awhile before Raider squadrons are fully capable. They may be flying in the mid 2020's but they need time to learn its capabilities and how best to deploy them. The United States has only had 20 "stealth" bombers. That's not a very deep cadre of pilots with experience in this type of mission.

If it were me, I think I'd keep as many bombers as I could afford. The tragedy is that the United States has very few bombers. They want re-engine the B-52's and ensure they can carry on pylons whatever was in the pipeline but I'd be reticent to go wild with new tech. Perhaps a program to 3D print as much of the B-52 as makes sense and start stockpiling parts. Any viable Buffs in the boneyard should get new engines as well. There're probably not enough left to make a viable squadron but you could add a "spare" to existing squadrons and increase their MCR's. There will be those that want glass cockpits, laser weapons, DAS, etc, etc. They'll probably get it. Personally, I'd rather see Buff, Bone, and B-2 as arsenal planes going nowhere near contested airspace once Raider is ready. Every study I've read is unequivocal that the US needs at least 200 bombers for any sustained near-peer engagement.

I would also like to see the B-52 B-1 and B-2 turned into arsenal planes, Imagine them all being armed with the new AIM-260 and flying ahead of the main attack force shooting down enemy fighters and bombers, it would be total devastation.

 

[sferrin]

...

Also didn't i read they only plan to build 8 a year? I hope that is incorrect.

Also shouldn't they keep the spirits around as they could now be seen as no longer too valuable to be used in certain scenarios with the Raider in the fleet?

...

If there were plans to build 8 per year, I can only expect that the discussions about potential production rate increases have taken place.

It will be quite awhile before Raider squadrons are fully capable. They may be flying in the mid 2020's but they need time to learn its capabilities and how best to deploy them. The United States has only had 20 "stealth" bombers. That's not a very deep cadre of pilots with experience in this type of mission.

If it were me, I think I'd keep as many bombers as I could afford. The tragedy is that the United States has very few bombers. They want re-engine the B-52's and ensure they can carry on pylons whatever was in the pipeline but I'd be reticent to go wild with new tech. Perhaps a program to 3D print as much of the B-52 as makes sense and start stockpiling parts. Any viable Buffs in the boneyard should get new engines as well. There're probably not enough left to make a viable squadron but you could add a "spare" to existing squadrons and increase their MCR's. There will be those that want glass cockpits, laser weapons, DAS, etc, etc. They'll probably get it. Personally, I'd rather see Buff, Bone, and B-2 as arsenal planes going nowhere near contested airspace once Raider is ready. Every study I've read is unequivocal that the US needs at least 200 bombers for any sustained near-peer engagement.

I would also like to see the B-52 B-1 and B-2 turned into arsenal planes, Imagine them all being armed with the new AIM-260 and flying ahead of the main attack force shooting down enemy fighters and bombers, it would be total devastation.

Not enough enemy planes to justify it. Stuff one bay on the B-1Bs with AIM-260s, one bay with LRASMs, and a fuel tank in the 3rd bay and use it for patrol.

 

[Forest Green]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

 

[Forest Green]

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Exactly, so there's no need to have them at the front, when you can have smaller, stealthier fighters at the front detecting the oncoming enemy fighters.

 

[GARGEAN]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Because at that range they will be in danger of being yeeted on by R-37 and Izd. 810?

 

[sferrin]

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Exactly, so there's no need to have them at the front, when you can have smaller, stealthier fighters at the front detecting the oncoming enemy fighters.

Depends what your definition of "the front" is. If you have them in the rear, with the tankers, you're going to be in danger of shooting down your own fighters.

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Because at that range they will be in danger of being yeeted on by R-37 and Izd. 810?

Elaborate.

 

[Forest Green]

Depends what your definition of "the front" is. If you have them in the rear, with the tankers, you're going to be in danger of shooting down your own fighters.

Depends on altitude and the flight profile of the missiles. If you have them up front, you aren't making use of the range of the missiles and you're putting a large aircraft like a B-1 up front to be seen and targeted by enemy stealth fighters.

 

[GARGEAN]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Because at that range they will be in danger of being yeeted on by R-37 and Izd. 810?

Elaborate.

What exactly? If you're holding those big unmaneuverable targets in the rear without proper armament they can be easily plinked by long range AAMs from range barely reachable even by frontend fighters.

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't you have the arsenal planes flying to the rear since they are more detectable but carry longer range missiles?

Why would you put them to the rear? We're talking maybe a 200 mile range AAM.

Because at that range they will be in danger of being yeeted on by R-37 and Izd. 810?

Elaborate.

What exactly? If you're holding those big unmaneuverable targets in the rear without proper armament they can be easily plinked by long range AAMs from range barely reachable even by frontend fighters.

Go back and read what was said.

 

[sferrin]

If you have them up front, you aren't making use of the range of the missiles and you're putting a large aircraft like a B-1 up front to be seen and targeted by enemy stealth fighters.

The whole point of an aresenal plane, with long range, is to extend the distance you can defend. Parking them back with tankers defeats the entire point of having arsenal planes.

 

[Forest Green]

The whole point of an aresenal plane, with long range, is to extend the distance you can defend. Parking them back with tankers defeats the entire point of having arsenal planes.

More like it stops them being shot down by stealth fighters carrying similar missiles, which won't even be detectable at 200 miles. There's no point in the missiles having 200 mile range if you can only detect stealth fighters at say 30-50 miles and they can detect you at 150-200 miles and you're in a large unmanoeuvrable blob. Ideally would want unmanned drones detecting the enemy planes up front, but in the meantime stealth fighters up front are the best option.

 

[GARGEAN]

Go back and read what was said.

Calmness and politeness are just overflowing... What was said is that you technically SHOULD put arsenal planes to the rear, cuz they are easy and valuable targets. But to exploit that you need missiles that outranges ones that fighters carry at least on the depth of formation OR combined with AAMs on fighters outranges LRAAMs of enemy. Putting missile trucks in the back in the situation where enemy can reach them without entering launch envelope of either fighter lead or missile truck might end in shabby situation.

 

[kaiserd]

“Arsenal plane” versions of strategic bombers is one of those ideas that pop up every so often but rarely get anywhere near hardware.
The closest aircraft to this concept that ever get into service is probably the Russian TU-128 (long range loitering interceptor based a couple times removed from a bomber design).
Then there were not unsimilar concepts for the British Vulcan bomber, all essentially airborne radar and missile posts that assumed the absence of opposing fighter aircraft (the Tornado ADV & MIG-31 conceptual not a million miles from this, though obviously quite different in execution).

In the absence of a directly equivalent role or need (with similar assumptions of lack of opposing fighters) not seeing a driver for any of the existing US bombers to pick up such a role; only the B-52 likely to live long enough for any major hardware changes to be worth while anyway. And the B-2 would appear highly mismatched for this role.

Re: the B-21 seems potentially a very risky tasking for such a high value asset (that will also be highly tasked in its actual intended role); if this air-to-air arsenal role is 100 percent needed then surely better done by less expensive more expendable and tailored UCAVs and the like.