B-21 is following the B-2 path, production tooling, six FSD aircraft but with an accelerated LRIP phase. Should see the second 21 first flight soon. B-21 moving somewhat quicker due to the B-21 being more than likely a "180" derivative, safe guess.
It would be even better if the test aircraft are brought to full-rate production standards - since nothing would be a "well, that only applies to the test aircraft" item.I suspect all four EMD aircraft are raised to production standards, assuming any modifications are even necessary. That does not preclude those airframes from being used for testing.
You need extra instrumentation on the test aircraft, and what you find during testing may influence the final production standard (cf the F-35B needing a redesigned bulkhead). The only way to build test aircraft to final production standard is if you have a time machine. You can update them later, but some of the changes may not be cost effective.It would be even better if the test aircraft are brought to full-rate production standards - since nothing would be a "well, that only applies to the test aircraft" item.
See also the Tranche 1 Typhoons. One of the bulkheads can't take any more holes in it, or any larger holes, so those planes cannot be updated to Tranche 2 spec.You need extra instrumentation on the test aircraft, and what you find during testing may influence the final production standard (cf the F-35B needing a redesigned bulkhead). The only way to build test aircraft to final production standard is if you have a time machine. You can update them later, but some of the changes may not be cost effective.
It would be even better if the test aircraft are brought to full-rate production standards - since nothing would be a "well, that only applies to the test aircraft" item.
You need extra instrumentation on the test aircraft, and what you find during testing may influence the final production standard (cf the F-35B needing a redesigned bulkhead). The only way to build test aircraft to final production standard is if you have a time machine. You can update them later, but some of the changes may not be cost effective.
Which was why I edited myself (I did misread it initially) to note it may not be cost effective. But if you've drilled and wired the aircraft for strain gauges and the like, then ever getting them to production standard may be difficult. In any case, you're likely to have a continuing need for test aircraft, cf the Eurofighter test fleet adding three new Instrumented Production Aircraft in recent years, so converting all aircraft to production standard may not make sense.Which is why I said "brought to" and NOT "built to"!
With the U.S. Air Force now signaling increasing uncertainty regarding the fate (and form) of its new stealth fighter, and emerging technologies allowing for a broader capability set in larger platforms than ever before, the future of the air superiority mission may be facing its most dramatic shift since the advent of stealth.
This role, once reserved for only the most aerobatically maneuverable and powerful tactical aircraft, could soon be absorbed by larger and undoubtedly more sluggish platforms that rely on superior stealth, long-range sensors, and advanced new weapons to dominate the skies... Platforms like the B-21 Raider?
Let's talk about it.
I wouldn't expect a B-21 to carry more than 8x SM6 sized weapons, and they'd need to fold the tail fins while stored on the rotary launcher.A couple dozens super stealthy long range air systems launches a couple hundred long range AAMs I’m loving the concept.
One thing I've questioned is whether the launcher will be the same length, given that there's only one and it's on the centreline, which would theoretically make having a longer one easier.I wouldn't expect a B-21 to carry more than 8x SM6 sized weapons, and they'd need to fold the tail fins while stored on the rotary launcher.
One thing I've questioned is whether the launcher will be the same length, given that there's only one and it's on the centreline, which would theoretically make having a longer one easier.
Do we know the length of LRSO though? I was thinking more of internal carriage of a revived HCSW.
AGM-183 is mostly dead.
Which is why watering down NGAD's performance with a smaller engine is dumb.The problem with a B-2 launching AAMs is that each launch is going to mark the position of the B-21, and the B-21 cannot evade nearly as quickly as a fighter. NGAD is likely a supercruise capable platform that can rapidly displace after a missile launch. A big component of the CCA concept is offloading the launch event from manned aircraft when possible.
He suggests that it could fill in some roles along with the 'RQ-180'... in fact the 'NGAD' part of 'NGAD.' Er... to clarify, an ability to establish an overall dominance of the battlespace through comprehensive situational awareness over a wide area and the ability to launch strikes from long range as a hub directing other platforms (such as CCAs, F-35s etc.) that are part of the system to actually fire the ordnance, do the jamming, recon etc. It might have a laser for self-defence.Hope they're not going to try argue that it's a replacement for NGAD.
I assumed the same length as ALCMs, since B52s carry them internally.Do we know the length of LRSO though? I was thinking more of internal carriage of a revived HCSW.
It helps that it's not designed for any low altitude BS like the B-2 got redesigned for, which added a lot of weight.I'm surprised most perhaps by the B-21's low-ish max weigh at just 82t / 190,000lb. The weight of a medium bomber than a true heavy like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. I wonder how this affects range?
Did I miss something? When was the B-21 MTOW published?I'm surprised most perhaps by the B-21's low-ish max weigh at just 82t / 190,000lb. The weight of a medium bomber than a true heavy like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. I wonder how this affects range?
which is exactly why its viable. Consider this... forward deployed CCA's lobbing missiles as well as being sensor nodes with the B-21 safe far behind via other CCA's acting as relays and or satellite uplinks controlling ops not unlike an Awacs and therefore not detectable as a launcher.The problem with a B-2 launching AAMs is that each launch is going to mark the position of the B-21, and the B-21 cannot evade nearly as quickly as a fighter. NGAD is likely a supercruise capable platform that can rapidly displace after a missile launch. A big component of the CCA concept is offloading the launch event from manned aircraft when possible.
Got the figure from Wikipedia, and I saw the same elsewhere.Did I miss something? When was the B-21 MTOW published?
Yeah, while the B-2 is a lot heavier than it should be due to the low-altitude redesign, an MTOW of 82 tonnes is way too light, IMO.Thought so. Aviation Week's estimates of size are very much on the low side.
What is CB2015 ?
They are being built using production tooling. It would seem the minor instrumentation could me removed eventually, if necessary.It would be even better if the test aircraft are brought to full-rate production standards - since nothing would be a "well, that only applies to the test aircraft" item.
+ CCAs for magazine depth, why not? At 60k feet, Link-16 should be good for at least 500 miles. Plenty of elbow room.Alex Hollings from Sandbox has an interesting video about a potential interceptor mission for the B-21A Raider:
I suppose in this case it could carry the AIM-174B and AIM-260A AAMs.
Crud, you could probably stick 32x AIM260s into a B-21's bomb bay. 2 missiles per face of the rotary launcher, and the rotary launcher is long enough to hold two of those twin-racks.+ CCAs for magazine depth, why not? At 60k feet, Link-16 should be good for at least 500 miles. Plenty of elbow room.
They've always said Raider wasn't just a bomber.
The beauty of the CCA conceptual structure is you can design a UAV around that anti air mission and offload the emissions bloom of that salvo to a platform(s) at an arbitrarily large distance.Crud, you could probably stick 32x AIM260s into a B-21's bomb bay. 2 missiles per face of the rotary launcher, and the rotary launcher is long enough to hold two of those twin-racks.
Only 8x AIM174s, though.