Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[4decaa]

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.

I think it's just dependent on the situation, but I'd assume the best use case would be with long-range missiles instead of AMRAAMs or anything of the sort. Even if the Raider flies at high altitudes, the simple fact that it's slow as fuck would require A2A truck load-outs to be spec'd for range.

More sensibly, there will probably be CUDA/AMRAAM-type missiles carried in the bay for self-defense on ground attack/ISR missions.

 

[Jeb]

Maybe a MALI-type loitering A2A munition with cruise missile range and a rocket-boosted Pitbull stage? I mean, I can dream.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem is, that the entire program's viability is based around procurement numbers well in excess of the 100 mark.

No, the fleet size has always been 100 any time it's been mentioned.

 

[Elysium]

Wild speculation time: I think the USAF-s chief operating principle is maximizing the amount of enemy targets it can attack while spending the minimum amount of money. That gave rise to the 'cost onion' which basically describes what sort of weapon you need to engage a target successfully. At the top of the cost chart sit the long range cruise missiles, below them the medium range ones, and somewhere at the bottom are the unpowered glide bombs. That's why stealth matters - the closer you can get to the target without being endangered, the more 'bang' you can get for your buck.
The fact that the B-21 will only get procured in modest numbers can mean a couple of things off the top of my head:

• The plane is more expensive to maintain/procure than anticipated
• Anti-stealth technology is more developed than anticipated
• UCAVs can do most of the job of the B-21 for less money
• Modern manufacturing/technology breakthroughs mean that cruise missiles can be made much cheaper than previously thought

It's so weird to think that some aircraft can move from 'workhorse' to 'novelty' status just by the development of seemingly unrelated technologies. Meanwhile, other planes (namely the teen series fighters) are seemingly immune to such disruption.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wild speculation time: I think the USAF-s chief operating principle is maximizing the amount of enemy targets it can attack while spending the minimum amount of money. That gave rise to the 'cost onion' which basically describes what sort of weapon you need to engage a target successfully. At the top of the cost chart sit the long range cruise missiles, below them the medium range ones, and somewhere at the bottom are the unpowered glide bombs. That's why stealth matters - the closer you can get to the target without being endangered, the more 'bang' you can get for your buck.
The fact that the B-21 will only get procured in modest numbers can mean a couple of things off the top of my head:

• The plane is more expensive to maintain/procure than anticipated
• Anti-stealth technology is more developed than anticipated
• UCAVs can do most of the job of the B-21 for less money
• Modern manufacturing/technology breakthroughs mean that cruise missiles can be made much cheaper than previously thought

It's so weird to think that some aircraft can move from 'workhorse' to 'novelty' status just by the development of seemingly unrelated technologies. Meanwhile, other planes (namely the teen series fighters) are seemingly immune to such disruption.

We can pretty well discount that idea, the USAF had been planning on a UCAV B21 and have publicly said there's very little savings at that size airframe.

 

[Josh_TN]

We can pretty well discount that idea, the USAF had been planning on a UCAV B21 and have publicly said there's very little savings at that size airframe.

That assumes a UCAV of equivalent size and numbers. That said, I suspect the role of bomb truck is harder for UAVs than A2A/ISR/EW roles. You have to cart a lot more shot around and probably accept some really low performance points for an attritional UAV with an air to ground focus and any reasonable range.

 

[TomcatViP]

I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?

Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.

 

[bobbymike]

I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?

Especially when the number has always pretty much been 100 so the speculation seems way off.

 

[bobbymike]

Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.

Missed the part where he said “in the 21st century”

 

[Scott Kenny]

Missed the part where he said “in the 21st century”

The US barely fields 150 total bombers right now, and will field ~175 or so when the B21s replace the B1s and B2s. ~75 B52 and 100 B21s.

 

[Josh_TN]

Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.

To be fair, we could also compare it to the number of F4F Wildcats produced. Would that be relevant?

 

[Scott Kenny]

To be fair, we could also compare it to the number of F4F Wildcats produced. Would that be relevant?

No.

But when the B21 Program of Record is the same size as both the B1 and (planned) B2 programs at ~100 airframes each, I don't see the issue.

Again, buying 100 B21s will increase the total US bomber fleet from 42x B1 + 17x B2 + 72x B52H = 131 to 100x B21s and 72x B52Js = 172 total aircraft.

An effective gain of +40 aircraft.

 

[quellish]

No.

But when the B21 Program of Record is the same size as both the B1 and (planned) B2 programs at ~100 airframes each, I don't see the issue.

Again, buying 100 B21s will increase the total US bomber fleet from 42x B1 + 17x B2 + 72x B52H = 131 to 100x B21s and 72x B52Js = 172 total aircraft.

An effective gain of +40 aircraft.

The B-21 will not be executing the war plans that “required” those numbers under the conditions that required them.

 

[totoro]

Will there even be 70 b52 in service by the time b21 count gets to 100?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Will there even be 70 b52 in service by the time b21 count gets to 100?

That's the plan. There's still 15ish in the Boneyard to remanufacture-as-needed. By my count, the USAF has only lost 9x B52Hs out of a production run of 102, and hasn't lost a BUFF since 2016 (knock on wood).

 

[4decaa]

They're too expensive to maintain, the stupid things have to live inside an air conditioned hangar when not in flight. Their RAM coatings are easy to damage, too, which eats more maintenance time.

B21s should have RAM baked into the skin panels like the F35 does, so they're a lot tougher and so don't take as much work to keep the RAM in good shape.

It's actually incredibly difficult to see the seam tape on the first 'production' raider, and it could honestly be quite a bit more advanced than that on the F-35, especially considering how it's development only started what, 10 years ago?

something that is interesting that screws are still present - likely for panels that are frequently accessed. Hydro/Mech bay, Engine Bay, and the foremost bay with red squares (flight computer / cockpit avionics access?) all have screws visible.

However, if you look at the radar/air data panel, it's not going to be opened anywhere near as much as the aforementioned panels, so it's sealed and finished shut (quite flawlessly, might I add). Note that this image is slightly enhanced, and the light makes it easier to spot these details.

Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.

perhaps this is better off in the B-21 raider thread...

 

[flateric]

Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.

Jack pads attachment points.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's actually incredibly difficult to see the seam tape on the first 'production' raider, and it could honestly be quite a bit more advanced than that on the F-35, especially considering how it's development only started what, 10 years ago?

something that is interesting that screws are still present - likely for panels that are frequently accessed. Hydro/Mech bay, Engine Bay, and the foremost bay with red squares (flight computer / cockpit avionics access?) all have screws visible.

However, if you look at the radar/air data panel, it's not going to be opened anywhere near as much as the aforementioned panels, so it's sealed and finished shut (quite flawlessly, might I add). Note that this image is slightly enhanced, and the light makes it easier to spot these details.

Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.

perhaps this is better off in the B-21 raider thread...
View attachment 727848

Since this photo is from flight testing, I assume that those panels showing screws now would be taped over on a mission-ready B21.

 

[FighterJock]

Almost certainly Scott Kenny, not to do so would negate all the hours of hard work that went into designing the stealth qualities of the B-21 in supercomputers and leave them vulnerable.

 

[Forest Green]

Or the screws might be made of a radar-absorbing material, or both.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1786737003163210068

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1786737003163210068

 

[FighterJock]

Highly interesting Forrest Green, screws that are made of Radar Absorbent Material that should help with reducing the Radar Cross Section of an aircraft no end.

 

[4decaa]

Or the screws might be made of a radar-absorbing material, or both.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1786737003163210068

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1786737003163210068

yes. And I bet the screw part that interfaces with the screwhead is probably specially designed to allow it to be opened with a screwhead effectively, while also minimizing returns in addition to coatings, of course

 

[Forest Green]

Or maybe there is no screwhead or screw for that matter.

 

[4decaa]

I guess I'll throw some more questions to you guys since the thread is active and I'm working on these for my model - what on earth are these black attachments on the elevons? I've heard people talking about active flow control, but I'd be wary to think that sort of technology has already made it's way into production readiness. Quite mysterious...

 

[quellish]

Since this photo is from flight testing, I assume that those panels showing screws now would be taped over on a mission-ready B21.

There has been a general move away from tapes across the industry. There are now a wide de variety of conductive edge sealing methods available, such as conductive rubber seals.

 

[flateric]

I guess I'll throw some more questions to you guys since the thread is active and I'm working on these for my model - what on earth are these black attachments on the elevons? I've heard people talking about active flow control, but I'd be wary to think that sort of technology has already made it's way into production readiness. Quite mysterious...

Strain gauges likely. Active flow control is inside Smithers' brains.

 

[Tuna]

Or the screws might be made of a radar-absorbing material

Radar-absorbing material does not make for a good screw. When you think of the kind of RAM that can be manufactured in arbitrary shape, think of it having the structural strength of a pencil eraser.

If you can see screws on a stealth plane, assume that they just haven't been covered up yet, because it makes no sense for a prototype.

 

[Sundog]

Strain gauges likely. Active flow control is inside Smithers' brains.

I was thinking that or static dischargers. I would be interested to know how they handle static discharging now. But I agree that those are most likely strain gauges.

 

[TomcatViP]

@4decaa : Probably anti-lightning tapes (with a sacrificial anode as the bolt like item connected at the end of it)

Ahh, @Sundog just beat me on it

You can see that the protuberant pin is encased in a square tile of slightly different material (lighter gray in the pictures).

 

[Scott Kenny]

There has been a general move away from tapes across the industry. There are now a wide de variety of conductive edge sealing methods available, such as conductive rubber seals.

So what was that big push for flight-cleared appliques for? Or was that just a stepstone on the way to other methods?

 

[quellish]

So what was that big push for flight-cleared appliques for? Or was that just a stepstone on the way to other methods?

Primarily legacy platforms.

 

[Forest Green]

Radar-absorbing material does not make for a good screw. When you think of the kind of RAM that can be manufactured in arbitrary shape, think of it having the structural strength of a pencil eraser.

If you can see screws on a stealth plane, assume that they just haven't been covered up yet, because it makes no sense for a prototype.

TBH, the picture doesn't clearly show screws anyway. But yeah, it's a DA for testing flight dynamics, so details are probably slightly different to final aircraft

 

[FighterJock]

I suppose we will see what happens when the first true production B-21enters service and see how production techniques have changed since the days of the B-2, quite a lot I would imagine.

 

[F119Doctor]

yes. And I bet the screw part that interfaces with the screwhead is probably specially designed to allow it to be opened with a screwhead effectively, while also minimizing returns in addition to coatings, of course

F-22 access panel screw heads are non-standard and require specific tools to loosen and tighten. You can be sure there was a good reason for this.

 

[Byeman]

While I would not be surprised if the B-21 had some kind of air to air capability for self defense,

no, uses up too valuable of bomb bay space, plus requires opening doors making the plane more visible and venerable.

 

[FighterJock]

NG could make the bays quick opening and closing like what happens to the bays on the F-22 and F-35, where the bay's open and shut in seconds and that is long enough to drop a missile at an enemy plane while mantaining optimum stealth.

 

[Josh_TN]

NG could make the bays quick opening and closing like what happens to the bays on the F-22 and F-35, where the bay's open and shut in seconds and that is long enough to drop a missile at an enemy plane while mantaining optimum stealth.

Probably not the primary bomb bay. If there are secondary bays, perhaps EDIT: it does not appear that there is more than one bomb bay). But in general you would never want to fire an AAM since it would make a huge thermal bloom on top of an open bay messing up the RCS. It is unavoidable for the primary payload, but not something you would want to do repeatedly for air to air engagements.

That said, modern radars and avionics are so flexible now adays it would not surprise me if it was at least an update option, perhaps for some piece of ordnance that had an air to ground and air to air mode. None of these is known to exist now, but something like an air launched SM-6 would, or possibly even HACM.

 

[4decaa]

@Josh_TN more realistically, there could eventually be capable wingman ucavs, or something along the lines of “expendable flying missile rails” filling that defensive role for penetrating platforms.

although, a flying SAM Site (Sm-6) would be something to marvel at lol

 

[Josh_TN]

@Josh_TN more realistically, there could eventually be capable wingman ucavs, or something along the lines of “expendable flying missile rails” filling that defensive role for penetrating platforms.

although, a flying SAM Site (Sm-6) would be something to marvel at lol

Given that CCAs will start enter service around the same time as B-21, I would think they would end up having some or operating behind fighters that did

I was thinking SM-6 would be a fascinating piece of ordnance because it would be long range air to surface/anti ship/air to air, but more realistically SiAW will fill two of those roles and be carried in larger numbers, so presumably that would be adopted once available.