Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

The best "missile truck" B-21 would be a B-21 carrying no missiles, with CCA's doing all the work and using the B-21 for CEC...(apologies if I'm beating a dead horse here)

Good point Dummy ;)

Aim260s just seem so much less plausible than even Aim174s becuase I doubt they will even come close to the range of the 174, which means a whole lot less distance for an adversary fighter to cover while searching for whatever just launched a bunch of really smart missiles at his buddies.
 
NeilChapman said:
They are being built using production tooling. It would seem the minor instrumentation could me removed eventually, if necessary.

Perhaps they'll stay test airframes to work through future upgrades?
Click to expand...

The four B-2 EMDs were brought to production standards. I’d be shocked if the B-21 EMDs were not eventually.
 
NMaude said:
The USAF had so few B-2As that it ended up getting NG to refurbish to operational standard AV-1 and put it into service.
Click to expand...

Possibly will be done for the B-21 prototype as well, since it was produced on production machinery and has full avionics. It probably will not be a heavy lift to make it production representative.
 
If the USAF buys 100+ B-21's, they will more than likely have maybe two to three vehicles for continued flight testing for upgrades and improvements over the life of the program. If you have noticed, even with now 19 B-2's, there is always one aircraft in "flight test", it seems they rotate the fleet to this position over time.
 
Training_Dummy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure. Though I'd still stick a few AAM racks into the B-21 that is quarterbacking this show. Especially if the AIM260 is reasonably capable as an antiradar missile versus ground targets, since you can carry twice as many AIM260s as you can carry AARGM-ERs.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the faster time lines are due to advances in digital modeling and the fact that the B-21 program was limited to technologies with a readiness level of 6. The modeling probably played a big role in allowing NG to build the prototype aircraft with full systems on production tooling.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Plus, with just how incredibly/beautifully/stealthily flush those intakes are, structurally I guarantee the B21 is nowhere near similar to the B2...
Whenever you have time, just sit and look at the B21s intakes from as many angles as pictures are available. It's truly incredible, it blows my mind looking at it..!
 
As I had to hear here and there that stealth flying wings have to always fly with their split ailerons open, as often displayed in the pictures available on the internet, here is an extract from a Mitchell Institute video where we can see the Raider cruising fully trimmed, with them closed.
Context is important there: pictures of low altitude/slow flying aircraft are not representative of their cruise configuration.

View: https://youtu.be/bUJCgIS54Iw

@martinbayer : I think we had this discussion here ;)
 
Last edited:
Might some Raiders end up based in AUS (in addition to Guam, Diego Garcia) if any shenanigans happen in the Pacific?
 
It’s possible, though it apparently will have sufficient range that it won’t have to. I would think it more likely B-1/2s were based in Aus, since they would need minimal refueling from there. The B-21/52 fleet can likely be refueled via Alaska or Hawaii.

I suspect Guam is too exposed for any bombers to be permanently based there, though perhaps it would be used as a rearming point.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
It’s possible, though it apparently will have sufficient range that it won’t have to. I would think it more likely B-1/2s were based in Aus, since they would need minimal refueling from there. The B-21/52 fleet can likely be refueled via Alaska or Hawaii.

I suspect Guam is too exposed for any bombers to be permanently based there, though perhaps it would be used as a rearming point.
Click to expand...
I think a FARP in Guam, Tinian, and Saipan would work. Also, civilian and military bases in Japan. Japan has the benefit being easier to support in terms of logistics - fuel, multiple entry ports for munitions and parts, a established road network and transportation system.

RAAF Tindall in Aus. Wake Island and Shemya in Alaska as not widely discussed possibilities. It would be great if the AF could generate more than 1 sortie per day. The challenge will be the reloading of rotary launchers. It would be great if the AF could transport munitions lift trailers with loaded rotary launchers C-17s. You could load the rotary launcher at a rear area and then transport them to a FARP. I am not sure how much the USAF has exercised with this capability but they should.
 
TomcatViP said:
As I had to hear here and there that stealth flying wings have to always fly with their split ailerons open, as often displayed in the pictures available on the internet, here is an extract from a Mitchell Institute video where we can see the Raider cruising fully trimmed, with them closed.
Context is important there: pictures of low altitude/slow flying aircraft are not representative of their cruise configuration.

View: https://youtu.be/bUJCgIS54Iw

@martinbayer : I think we had this discussion here ;)
Click to expand...
Look's like the video is moving and scanning along one of the previous photos of the aircraft. I'm sure the B-21 has ETM for Pen Mode. The 21 splits the elevons for standard yaw control (like the X-47B, the 47 also had upper in-laid surfaces as well). The wing aero is probably much more enhanced as compared to the B-2. The B-2 had to keep the rudders 5x5 for crisp yaw control. Will be interesting whenever there is a top view image of the 21.
 
B2Blain said:
I think a FARP in Guam, Tinian, and Saipan would work. Also, civilian and military bases in Japan. Japan has the benefit being easier to support in terms of logistics - fuel, multiple entry ports for munitions and parts, a established road network and transportation system.

RAAF Tindall in Aus. Wake Island and Shemya in Alaska as not widely discussed possibilities. It would be great if the AF could generate more than 1 sortie per day. The challenge will be the reloading of rotary launchers. It would be great if the AF could transport munitions lift trailers with loaded rotary launchers C-17s. You could load the rotary launcher at a rear area and then transport them to a FARP. I am not sure how much the USAF has exercised with this capability but they should.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the USAF has any significant excess number of rotary launchers. I'm honestly only expecting them to have however many per plane, only a couple spares per squadron.
 
@Hydroman : yes, calling it a video is certainly an ill-fatten choice but it refers to the format from which it was sampled and then posted on youtube, a video sharing platform. ;)
The important point being that we have here an high altitude shot of a Raider cruising.

I am surprised however by the alleged continuous opening of the split ailerons you mention. It can be seen in the video below for a low alt flight in turbulent atmosphere but would that be the same for high altitude cruising?

View: https://youtu.be/ZDY2cmn7OAc
 
TomcatViP said:
As I had to hear here and there that stealth flying wings have to always fly with their split ailerons open, as often displayed in the pictures available on the internet, here is an extract from a Mitchell Institute video where we can see the Raider cruising fully trimmed, with them closed.
Click to expand...
The problem is B-21 don't have split rudders (Achilles feet of B-2 fleet due to hinges cracking) at all. It has three control surfaces per wing console that allows it to use them in many different ways including brakes in a scissor mode (even with two surfaces per wing method was used on YF-23). B-2 split rudders always bit split in cruise mode (apart of PEN mode) to allow them to be out of boundary layer hence react momentally to inputs.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure the USAF has any significant excess number of rotary launchers. I'm honestly only expecting them to have however many per plane, only a couple spares per squadron.
Click to expand...

They are building a capability to preload rotary launchers at Guam, so they can speed up aircraft turn times by swapping out the launcher rather than bombing it up in the aircraft. That suggests there are a fair number of spares.

www.twz.com

Proposed Facility Would Drastically Cut Down Time Required To Arm Bombers On Guam

The badly needed improvements would trim the time it takes to load weapons into a bomber's bomb bay from 11 hours to two and a half hours.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

(Article is from 2020, but you can find the contract award from 2021.)
 
FighterJock said:
Same here Josh_TN, even though the B-21 will have a longer production run than the B-2 did. I expect that Northrop will do the same thing to the B-21. Throwing away such an expensive aircraft would be a bad mistake.
Click to expand...
The DoD LOVES throwing things away in the name of making a bad mistake. Peacekeeper, Seawolf, Zumwalt, B-2, F-22, etc. etc.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure the USAF has any significant excess number of rotary launchers. I'm honestly only expecting them to have however many per plane, only a couple spares per squadron.
Click to expand...

The B-1 fleet should have plenty of extras from retired aircraft. The other type probably not.
 
flateric said:
The problem is B-21 don't have split rudders (Achilles feet of B-2 fleet due to hinges cracking) at all. It has three control surfaces per wing console that allows it to use them in many different ways including brakes in a scissor mode (even with two surfaces per wing method was used on YF-23). B-2 split rudders always bit split in cruise mode (apart of PEN mode) to allow them to be out of boundary layer hence react momentally to inputs.
Click to expand...
Yes, the YF-23 split the wing trailing edges in conjunction with the v-tails for yaw control. The flight controls architecture of the 23 was designed for optimizing any flight condition and it was very sophisticated. Northrop evolved and continuously improved LO FCS from Tacit Blue to B-21, lots of company IRAD investments but they have paid off very well related to air vehicle performance.
 
flateric said:
B-2 split rudders always bit split in cruise mode (apart of PEN mode) to allow them to be out of boundary layer hence react momentally to inputs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making that specific reference to PEN mode...I was thinking "umm, they only do that when they're not concerned about radar returns..."
 
B2Blain said:
I think a FARP in Guam, Tinian, and Saipan would work. Also, civilian and military bases in Japan. Japan has the benefit being easier to support in terms of logistics - fuel, multiple entry ports for munitions and parts, a established road network and transportation system.

RAAF Tindall in Aus. Wake Island and Shemya in Alaska as not widely discussed possibilities. It would be great if the AF could generate more than 1 sortie per day. The challenge will be the reloading of rotary launchers. It would be great if the AF could transport munitions lift trailers with loaded rotary launchers C-17s. You could load the rotary launcher at a rear area and then transport them to a FARP. I am not sure how much the USAF has exercised with this capability but they should.
Click to expand...
Shemya was always a tough place for forward deployed EC/RC-135s due to the weather, not sure it would be a basing option.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
They are building a capability to preload rotary launchers at Guam, so they can speed up aircraft turn times by swapping out the launcher rather than bombing it up in the aircraft. That suggests there are a fair number of spares.

www.twz.com

Proposed Facility Would Drastically Cut Down Time Required To Arm Bombers On Guam

The badly needed improvements would trim the time it takes to load weapons into a bomber's bomb bay from 11 hours to two and a half hours.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

(Article is from 2020, but you can find the contract award from 2021.)
Click to expand...
Granted, it's been a long time since I was a B-1 Maintenance Officer, but I don't ever think that it took us 11 hours to load 24 J-series weapons on the jet. Heck, that even seems really long for loading 84 dumb Mk82's and those swing arms were a PITA. Maybe it's that long if you load 80 GBU-38's on a B-2, but I have no experience with that.

Now, I only have experience with ALCM on the HSAB so maybe it's something different on the B-2/B-52 CSRL. Then again surety makes that a real PITA (FYI my old MXG/CD at DY was the MXG/CC at MT when they had the ACM incident).

Then again, maybe I'm just old and looking through rose colored glasses.
 
TomS said:
They are building a capability to preload rotary launchers at Guam, so they can speed up aircraft turn times by swapping out the launcher rather than bombing it up in the aircraft. That suggests there are a fair number of spares.

www.twz.com

Proposed Facility Would Drastically Cut Down Time Required To Arm Bombers On Guam

The badly needed improvements would trim the time it takes to load weapons into a bomber's bomb bay from 11 hours to two and a half hours.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

(Article is from 2020, but you can find the contract award from 2021.)
Click to expand...
Is the US going to be able to defend this facility? Or should they be working on reloading at expeditionary locations?
 
B2Blain said:
Is the US going to be able to defend this facility? Or should they be working on reloading at expeditionary locations?
Click to expand...

Guam is getting some fairly elaborate air and missile defenses, because a fair bit of its infrastructure just can't be replicated at expeditionary airfields.
 
B2Blain said:
Is the US going to be able to defend this facility? Or should they be working on reloading at expeditionary locations?
Click to expand...

TomS said:
Guam is getting some fairly elaborate air and missile defenses, because a fair bit of its infrastructure just can't be replicated at expeditionary airfields.
Click to expand...
Continuing discussion: IIRC it's got Patriot, Typhon, might even have Aegis Ashore, plus THAAD and IIRC is the test launch facility for GBI.
 
A US Army official from the Guam defense effort did a great talk on YT recently - he wants deeper magazines with faster longer ranged interceptors. I hope he gets them, but in the meantime using autonomous, long duration, lower cost aircraft to get a couple dozen 120D3s at 30k feet might be an interesting interim or augmenting addition.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Continuing discussion: IIRC it's got Patriot, Typhon, might even have Aegis Ashore, plus THAAD and IIRC is the test launch facility for GBI.
Click to expand...

Currently it has a THAAD and Patriot battery. In the future this will expand to include ten Sentinel X band short range radars for 360 degree coverage and blind spot coverage, three LTAMD radars for 360 C band defense, and four TPY-6 (basically the SPY-7) S band volume search radars. Additionally the existing TPY-2 ABM radar down the threat axit. IBCS and Aegis are to be integrated. Future missiles/launchers include the mk70 (SM-3/6), MIM-104 family, and IFPC.

By the end of the decade Guam will probably be the best defended airspace in the world.
 
Josh_TN said:
Currently it has a THAAD and Patriot battery. In the future this will expand to include ten Sentinel X band short range radars for 360 degree coverage and blind spot coverage, three LTAMD radars for 360 C band defense, and four TPY-6 (basically the SPY-7) S band volume search radars. Additionally the existing TPY-2 ABM radar down the threat axit. IBCS and Aegis are to be integrated. Future missiles/launchers include the mk70 (SM-3/6), MIM-104 family, and IFPC.

By the end of the decade Guam will probably be the best defended airspace in the world.
Click to expand...
but will it have magazine depth? reports from the UKR/RUS front suggest there are an awful lot of valuable interceptors being used on decoys. this is to say nothing of the CCP stores of all sorts of unfun things that can reach out and touch Guam over a period of time, with sufficient intensity, to deplete defense effectors even without decoys. need dumb cheap interceptor mass at long mid and short ranges plus all the buck rogers stuff you mentioned.
 
Josh_TN said:
I have no idea, but certainly the area will not suffer for lack of radar coverage.
Click to expand...
Yes agree but an agile adaptable conops that contemplates an engagement or sequence of engangements that is designed to deplete magazines. This is a creative engineering problem not an existential one. Rapid Dragon type ingenuity.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Yes agree but an agile adaptable conops that contemplates an engagement or sequence of engangements that is designed to deplete magazines. This is a creative engineering problem not an existential one. Rapid Dragon type ingenuity.
Click to expand...

I suspect that anti UAV systems are integrated with the sam systems. The U.S. is already fielding a number of these. In any case the biggest threat to Guam is likely to be ballistic missiles. UAV deployments would have to be from local civilian ships covertly or from people on the island itself; it might make for a large initial strike but is unlikely to be sustainable.

That said, magazine depth is clearly a major concern across the board in any Sino-American war.
 
UAVs are a whole other headache. I was “only” considering a thoughtful TOT attack w massed cruise, massed ballistic and a sprinkling of hypersonics just in time when the gun goes “click”.
 
Assuming a 2/1 E/T ratio for conventional threats and like 3-4 for hypersonics? Maybe a fold more? I don’t know.
 
Training_Dummy said:
UAVs are a whole other headache. I was “only” considering a thoughtful TOT attack w massed cruise, massed ballistic and a sprinkling of hypersonics just in time when the gun goes “click”.
Click to expand...

Survival of the delivery platforms might a be little tricky. DF-26 ranges Guam, but anything else must be ship or air launched. Possible, but the attacking force likely has to be inside the first island chain and likely fight its way out.
 
I think the point you two are heading towards is that Guam isn't going to be the best place for valuable strike and A2AD assets, at least until there is enough interceptor volume to defend against a coordinated missile/UAV attack (?)

I wonder if the stealth bomber the PLAAF is working on will be here anytime soon. Would definitely change basing strategies and cause more bases to be at risk.
 
4decaa said:
I think the point you two are heading towards is that Guam isn't going to be the best place for valuable strike and A2AD assets, at least until there is enough interceptor volume to defend against a coordinated missile/UAV attack (?)

I wonder if the stealth bomber the PLAAF is working on will be here anytime soon. Would definitely change basing strategies and cause more bases to be at risk.
Click to expand...

I actually think a PRC stealth bomber changes the situation far less than a U.S. one, because the PLARF already can fulfill the roll. Where as the USAF has a limited number of AGM-158s and after that likely has little recourse that is not a stealth bomber.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom