Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

FighterJock said:
It is rather surprising that the USAF do not want the B-21 a lot quicker especially with what is going on in the world right now Josh_TN.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it makes sense to continue slowly without trying to speed production ahead, as this will balance budgets (at least the ones that are publicly available). B-2 planned to stay in service until ~2030, so they have quite a bit of time to at least fully replace the spirit's capabilities.
 
Forgot about the B-2 out of service date being 2030, I was worried about the B-2 going earlier than that. So there will be no capability gap between the B-21 and B-2.
 
That is the plan unfortunately. First the B-1 then the B-2, And that will only leave the B-21s and B-52Js in service ultimately.
 
Forest Green said:
Standard procedure, once production ends, production lines tend to end too. Better to keep them open longer, that way your options remain open longer.
Click to expand...
Though things might be about to change back in favour of the older model of mothballing production lines during fallow periods.
 
They just need the B-21 to simply exist as a deterrent and to hold certain targets at risk, even 10 is enough to send a message. If China started mass producing strategic bombers, I'm sure those plans would change.
 
In_A_Dream said:
They just need the B-21 to simply exist as a deterrent and to hold certain targets at risk, even 10 is enough to send a message. If China started mass producing strategic bombers, I'm sure those plans would change.
Click to expand...

No, clearly the U.S. needs to replace the B-1s at least 1:1 since they are already flight limited due to fatigue. And while the b-2 is in better shape, it still requires a huge amount of man hours per flight hour. It also is hard to integrate new weapons onto, from what I understand, a legacy of its 1980s vintage design.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think people are reading way too much into one statement.
Click to expand...
Josh, while I agree, most stuff here is speculation on limited information, so nothing too out of the ordinary here.

Additionally - curious about the statement alluding to the B-21 being more than just a "playbook" bomber (carrying A2A packages, EW, sensor stuff, etc). Wonder how many AMRAAM-D's we could fit in this thing
 
FighterJock said:
I find that rather shocking Josh_TN, the last B-21 not being built until the mid 2030s at least. By then the Chinese H-20 and the Russian PAK-DA will be in service.
Click to expand...
I'll be shocked if there is ever more than a few prototypes of the PAK-DA. I don't mean like 21/132 B2s, I mean like half a dozen tops.

How many Su57s are there?


4decaa said:
Josh, while I agree, most stuff here is speculation on limited information, so nothing too out of the ordinary here.

Additionally - curious about the statement alluding to the B-21 being more than just a "playbook" bomber (carrying A2A packages, EW, sensor stuff, etc). Wonder how many AMRAAM-D's we could fit in this thing
Click to expand...
If the bay is long enough, 16. 2 sets of 8. Maybe 32, if the rotary launcher can handle double launchers per face.
 
4decaa said:
Josh, while I agree, most stuff here is speculation on limited information, so nothing too out of the ordinary here.

Additionally - curious about the statement alluding to the B-21 being more than just a "playbook" bomber (carrying A2A packages, EW, sensor stuff, etc). Wonder how many AMRAAM-D's we could fit in this thing
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

If the B-21 has any A2A capability, I'm confident it will not involve slinging medium range AAMs. I would suspect either air launched surogates, like DARPA's Long Shot, or else something truly long ranged saved for special occasions.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough.

If the B-21 has any A2A capability, I'm confident it will not involve slinging medium range AAMs. I would suspect either air launched surogates, like DARPA's Long Shot, or else something truly long ranged saved for special occasions.
Click to expand...
great comment. Agreed, however I'd be skeptical of surrogates when simply devloping a LRAAM (like the phoenix) that could both be used by the '21 and in small quantities on fighters might be more cost effective. Obviously, missiles would need enough range to allow the raider to fire and escape from long ranges, especially as once it fires a missile, it'll light up on most radars.

On that note, I'm curious about how the bomb bays on the raider have been optimized, considering that no matter how stealthy it is on the approach, it's going to be visible as munitions are released.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough.

If the B-21 has any A2A capability, I'm confident it will not involve slinging medium range AAMs. I would suspect either air launched surogates, like DARPA's Long Shot, or else something truly long ranged saved for special occasions.
Click to expand...
SM-6 would be fun. You could fit eight pretty easy.
 
Last edited:
What about the AIM-260? While we know next to nothing about it, as it currently stands it has the best chance of getting adopted for the B-21s. Just a thought.
 
Josh_TN said:
No, clearly the U.S. needs to replace the B-1s at least 1:1 since they are already flight limited due to fatigue. And while the b-2 is in better shape, it still requires a huge amount of man hours per flight hour. It also is hard to integrate new weapons onto, from what I understand, a legacy of its 1980s vintage design.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that there are currently only 43 B-1Bs in service, with another going through mods at Tinker to rejoin the fleet.

Therefore 63-64 B-21As would replace the B-1B and B-2A 'one for one'. (Yes I know that there were originally 100 B-1s!)
 
They don't have the same payload capacity. So, an increase in number is to be expected.
 
Last edited:
The B-1B is the heaviest bomber in the Air Force and will remain so for a long time to come, even after it is retired.
 
Josh_TN said:
No, clearly the U.S. needs to replace the B-1s at least 1:1 since they are already flight limited due to fatigue. And while the b-2 is in better shape, it still requires a huge amount of man hours per flight hour. It also is hard to integrate new weapons onto, from what I understand, a legacy of its 1980s vintage design.
Click to expand...

Unless the US decides to get itself involved in a new, prolonged conflict, the pace of B-21 procurement is fine.

Both manned fighter and manned bomber roles are going to see their numbers drop going into the future due to unmanned offerings, the B-21 is no different. That is where the USAF is trending, so I wouldn't panic too much.
 
Quite right, let's not get too upset about where the future of manned/unmanned aircraft is going, if the Air Force wants unmanned aircraft in the future then that is fine by me.
 
apparition13 said:
SM-6 would be run. You could fit eight pretty easy.
Click to expand...
FighterJock said:
What about the AIM-260? While we know next to nothing about it, as it currently stands it has the best chance of getting adopted for the B-21s. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
yes and yes. Perhaps we could consult Paralay about the dimensions of the bomb bay, as I have a model of it but do not have software that allows me to measure & properly scale items. Would be extremely interesting to see how efficient of a missile truck the Raider is.

Perhaps something similar to the Smart Bomb Rack Assembly could be used to efficiently hold and deploy a large amount of smaller medium-range missiles?
 
That would work 4decaa, a Smart Bomb Rack Assembly could be converted to carry medium range missiles instead of bombs.
 
4decaa said:
yes and yes. Perhaps we could consult Paralay about the dimensions of the bomb bay, as I have a model of it but do not have software that allows me to measure & properly scale items. Would be extremely interesting to see how efficient of a missile truck the Raider is.
Click to expand...
I've been assuming B-52 size, 6ft wide/deep and 28ft long. The bay doors seen on the flight test(s) look about that proportion.

On the grounds that the B21 will need to carry big things like hypersonics, not just what fits into the B2 bays.

4decaa said:
Perhaps something similar to the Smart Bomb Rack Assembly could be used to efficiently hold and deploy a large amount of smaller medium-range missiles?
Click to expand...
Especially if we get some halfRAAM sized missiles like CUDA. (AMRAAM range, half the overall length)
 
While I would not be surprised if the B-21 had some kind of air to air capability for self defense, I cannot imagine that it would ever be used with an A2A focused payload. Firing an AAM is going to mark the aircraft’s position with a road flare for every launch event, heavily negating its stealth and putting a pricy, limited inventory asset at increased risk. Air to ground missiles would have a similar effect, but presumably the entire payload would be launched all once for an air to ground engagement. Glide munitions would not have a large IR event when released and are probably preferable.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
While I would not be surprised if the B-21 had some kind of air to air capability for self defense, I cannot imagine that it would ever be used with an A2A focused payload. Firing an AAM is going to mark the aircraft’s position with a road flare for every launch event, heavily negating its stealth and putting avv CB pricy, limited inventory asset at increased risk. Air to ground missiles would have a similar effect, but presumably the entire payload would be launched all once for an air to ground engagement. Glide munitions would not have a large IR event when released and are probably preferable.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, needs must when the devil rides, as the old saying goes.
 
4decaa said:
great comment. Agreed, however I'd be skeptical of surrogates when simply devloping a LRAAM (like the phoenix) that could both be used by the '21 and in small quantities on fighters might be more cost effective. Obviously, missiles would need enough range to allow the raider to fire and escape from long ranges, especially as once it fires a missile, it'll light up on most radars.

On that note, I'm curious about how the bomb bays on the raider have been optimized, considering that no matter how stealthy it is on the approach, it's going to be visible as munitions are released.
Click to expand...
1 they won’t be carpet bombing.
2 turn to put bomb bay away from radars
3 have lots of them launching at the same time.
 
Or couple the B-21 with that Flying Missile Rail drones DARPA was toying with. Depending on the geometry, maybe up to eight FMRs in the bomb bay, each with two AAMs. Deploy a couple before an engagement and use them to launch missiles well away from the mothership itself.
 
The US has rightfully said in the past that NATO allies need to increase defense spending, which many are now doing, yet here we have an important strategic weapon like the B-21 and US lawmakers are talking about cutting its numbers. What kind of message does that send out to us in Europe?
 
Flyaway said:
The US has rightfully said in the past that NATO allies need to increase defense spending, which many are now doing, yet here we have an important strategic weapon like the B-21 and US lawmakers are talking about cutting its numbers. What kind of message does that send out to us in Europe?
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing lawmakers talking about cutting the B-21? The statement everyone seems to be freaking out about simply reiterates what the Air Force has said before -- there is no need to commit to more than 100 B-21s right now. A decision on whether to make more B-21s or pivot to something newer/better can wait for quite a few years at the current planned production rates.
 
Unless the Air Force are developing something else in the Black World that we do not know about, and won't be revealed for a number of years. That is maybe why the number of B-21s is being kept low. We will never know for sure.
 
It’s probably in the thread somewhere but has an “airframes per year” number come up for the B-21?

Once you get to 100 if the plane is “doing well” as a catch all description of “production to operations”, it seems a no brainer to keep building 10+/year until there is a replacement.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom