Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Nobody really knows how long the B-21 weapons bay is sferrin, beyond comparing it with the B-2s which I think is the only way to go until Northrop release official data.
 
sferrin said:
Aren't they enabling external carriage on the B-1B for larger weapons? Does anybody know how long the B-21s weapon bay is?
Click to expand...

There is exact one LAM pylon to be shared across two test aircraft. I do not think there is any plan to equip the B-1 combat coded aircraft with it. B-1 retirement is likely 2031-32, so they will not be in service long enough to justify any major mods.
 
sferrin said:
Aren't they enabling external carriage on the B-1B for larger weapons? Does anybody know how long the B-21s weapon bay is?
Click to expand...
Not really. The test jet out of the 419th is not a fleet wide capability. Only the forward right pylons were reactivated, none of the others were reactivated. So far, the only pictures of Ghost Rider with the 5K bunker buster are on that pylon. Memory fades, but IIRC the pylons were never wired for -1760, only for Sniper.

Unless someone can find programing updates that say external carriage is a program of record, this is nothing more that a demonstration of capability or concept validation. My guess is that this is on the program office's wish list but is way down below the cut list. Given where the Bone is in its life cycle, they'd rather have spare parts than carry more bombs.

Boeing of course would like to sell something, but Boeing...
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Northrop Finishes Round of Flight Tests on New Multirole Sensor

Northrop Grumman has completed initial flight tests with its new EMRIS multi-mode sensor system applicable to crewed and uncrewed platforms.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

“These flights, completed in partnership with government partners and on a government-provided aircraft, are the next stage of technology maturation for EMRIS,” Northrop said. The flight demonstrated “the open architecture nature of EMRIS by using third-party integration and operation.” The company could not immediately identify the test aircraft.”

Would B-21 test aircraft fit the profile of the EMRIS test platform as described above?
 
4decaa said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Northrop Finishes Round of Flight Tests on New Multirole Sensor

Northrop Grumman has completed initial flight tests with its new EMRIS multi-mode sensor system applicable to crewed and uncrewed platforms.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

“These flights, completed in partnership with government partners and on a government-provided aircraft, are the next stage of technology maturation for EMRIS,” Northrop said. The flight demonstrated “the open architecture nature of EMRIS by using third-party integration and operation.” The company could not immediately identify the test aircraft.”

Would B-21 test aircraft fit the profile of the EMRIS test platform as described above?
Click to expand...
Seems unlikely. The B-21 has its own systems that were likely frozen with the design in 2018. I would assume some kind of adapted commercial platform carried the equipment as a surrogate. I think they have a biz jet they used to test the AARGM-ER on.
 
How can we be sure about the claims when so much of the B-21s capabilities are shrouded in total secrecy.
 
FighterJock said:
How can we be sure about the claims when so much of the B-21s capabilities are shrouded in total secrecy.
Click to expand...

Reading the article they seem to simply extrapolate statements concerning the B/2s RCS to B-21. A USAF general very long ago stated that the B-2 has the RCS of an insect.

I suspect the B-21 makes some modest improvement to the B-2s RCS but that the main advantage will be far lower maintenance efforts to maintain that capability. The B-2s stealth rely on its outer layer being in tip top condition with constant maintenance.

As for the number of B-21s built: probably more than 100, but not the huge numbers suggested. Also I consider it unlikely that production rate increases without a major effort in Congress that simply is not going to happen. The relatively low rate is budget proofing measure to ensure the program can always be consistently funded. US bomber inventories probably do not increase until B-2 has been replaced, certainly not until B-1 retirement.
 
The B-2 as you say Josh_TN was very maintenance heavy and could also not be out in the rain for long, it will be interesting to see if the Air Force can solve those issues so that they don't affect the B-21 in the same way as the B-2.
 
apparition13 said:
It might be disconnected from funding, but I'd argue not the security reality.

Link to the paper referenced in the article:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/America’s+B-21+Raiders+Dec+2023+(1).pdf
Click to expand...

I could see the U.S. being involved in two major-ish wars but I cannot see a need for a major B-21 contribution to such. Even a war with Russia likely does not require a huge stealth bomber force, at least not given NATO involvement. I also am skeptical of the idea B-21s should be reserved for nuclear roles; I do not think that is a realistic proposition in this day and age.

That said the USAF is definitely going to have a shortage of bombers for roughly the next decade until the older types are retired and the force expands.
 
Josh_TN said:
I could see the U.S. being involved in two major-ish wars but I cannot see a need for a major B-21 contribution to such. Even a war with Russia likely does not require a huge stealth bomber force, at least not given NATO involvement. I also am skeptical of the idea B-21s should be reserved for nuclear roles; I do not think that is a realistic proposition in this day and age.

That said the USAF is definitely going to have a shortage of bombers for roughly the next decade until the older types are retired and the force expands.
Click to expand...
A nuclear deterrent that's doing something else isn't a nuclear deterrent. If you also want bombers to do tactical missions, and even naval ones, you need more. SAC wanted 165 B-2s, 129 was their minimum to get the job done number, and that's with ALCM armed B-52s (but not including B-1s, since Carter cancelled B-1 for ALCMs and the B-2). If it would take 165 B-2 (including training and spare aircraft) each armed with twice as many missiles as a B-21 can carry to maintain a deterrent, how many B-21s would be needed?

Now take that number, and add to it the number of aircraft you would need to do tactical strike missions, and perhaps add to that a number for use as naval assets. Now how many do you need?
 
apparition13 said:
A nuclear deterrent that's doing something else isn't a nuclear deterrent. If you also want bombers to do tactical missions, and even naval ones, you need more. SAC wanted 165 B-2s, 129 was their minimum to get the job done number, and that's with ALCM armed B-52s (but not including B-1s, since Carter cancelled B-1 for ALCMs and the B-2). If it would take 165 B-2 (including training and spare aircraft) each armed with twice as many missiles as a B-21 can carry to maintain a deterrent, how many B-21s would be needed?

Now take that number, and add to it the number of aircraft you would need to do tactical strike missions, and perhaps add to that a number for use as naval assets. Now how many do you need?
Click to expand...

I consider bombers ineffective as a nuclear deterrent. IMO, buy more SSBNs or Sentinels if you need more deterrent.
 
I’ve always believed the USAF would benefit from building a true BWB bomb truck with very large internal payload but given what appears to be a well run program B-21s after 100+ will probably be cheaper than developing an additional airframe.
 
NMaude said:
That is a highly debatable assertion as bombers are flexible in ways that ICBMs and SLBMs aren't also bombers can be recalled after launch, ICBMs and SLBMs can't be recalled once launched.
Click to expand...

I am aware, but the fact they are incredibly vulnerable to various first strike scenarios (nukes, hypersonics, UAVs, etc) IMO make too fragile to provide assured deterrence. They are useful for showing resolve or small scale/tactical strikes, but as a strategic deterrent they have too much time delay and are too vulnerable on the ground. Maintaining a massive force of B-21s just so a dozen could actually be in the air on airborne alert seems incredibly cost inefficient.
 
bobbymike said:
I’ve always believed the USAF would benefit from building a true BWB bomb truck with very large internal payload but given what appears to be a well run program B-21s after 100+ will probably be cheaper than developing an additional airframe.
Click to expand...

The B-52 is the bomb truck for the foreseeable future. To some extent the C-17/130 force might be as well with Rapid Dragon.
 
NMaude said:
Operation Chrome Dome was cancelled in 1968, as far as I know there's no airborne alert for nuclear armed bombers in the USAF (Not to mention that SAC was disbanded in 1993).
Click to expand...

Indeed. So what exactly would be the point of a nuclear bomber force in this day and age where every piece of the earth can be observed multiple times a day and targeted with UAVs? Or Hypersonics? There is no realistic basing scenario that would insure sufficient survival of the bomber force for them to be as survivable as they were even in the 80's, let alone the 60s.
 
NMaude said:
That is a highly debatable assertion as bombers are flexible in ways that ICBMs and SLBMs aren't also bombers can be recalled after launch, ICBMs and SLBMs can't be recalled once launched.
Click to expand...

But how is that relevant for deterrence? The point of deterrence is to say "even if you use nukes on us, our surviving nuclear force will still be able to destroy you." That fundamentally comes down to hardened ICBM silos, some ABM capacity, and especially a robust SSBN force. I don't see how bombers really add much.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Signalling alert levels, aka "general US displeasure" with the Usual Suspects.

Send planes up, everyone can see it. Holy shit, every one of those planes is going to marshalling orbits over Canada...
Click to expand...

Surge another SSBN. They'll get the message.
 
TomS said:
But how is that relevant for deterrence? The point of deterrence is to say "even if you use nukes on us, our surviving nuclear force will still be able to destroy you." That fundamentally comes down to hardened ICBM silos, some ABM capacity, and especially a robust SSBN force. I don't see how bombers really add much.
Click to expand...
Because you cannot show your alert levels with either silo ICBMs or SSBNs. The silos just sit there like a bump on a log, and the SSBNs just go out to sea and vanish. No easy way to say, "Excuse me, Three Fats, but you need to knock that shit off RIGHT F*ING NOW."

Suddenly order all bombers to Elephant Walk and launch? Oh, yeah, you just sent messages to the entire planet that someone is about to get stomped.


TomS said:
Surge another SSBN. They'll get the message.
Click to expand...
Surging SSBNs is not easy to do, and frankly severely effs a lot of things up. That maintenance you needed to get done before the next patrol? Just got deferred. Hope it wasn't something critical like the fresh water distillation plants... Also, that boat that just got surged? Hope they weren't waiting on some spare parts to be delivered... (orders go in basically ~3 days after return to port, stuff gets delivered as it happens)

It's operationally a lot easier to extend a boat that is already out than it is to surge one. Hard on crew morale, though, especially if you're being extended because the (expletives deleted) Pennsyltucky is broke. Again. Still. As usual. No, I only had that happen about 3 times on 3 consecutive patrols, why do you ask? The boats that got sent around to the Pacific had so much maintenance deferred it took years and years, till after I left the Navy, before they got caught up to West Coast deployable standards.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Surging SSBNs is not easy to do, and frankly severely effs a lot of things up.
Click to expand...

Which makes it a really strong signal. Signals that have no cost are low value; if they have consequences, they show you are serious.
 
OliverSedlacek said:
Historically a display of air power has been effective. In 1972 an overflight of Buccaneers over (then) British Honduras checked an imminent Guatamalan invasion. Ark Royal archives
Click to expand...

Different calculus than a strategic nuclear deterrence.

Scott Kenny said:
You're missing the point.

Surging an SSBN weakens the boat surged.
Click to expand...

For the kind of signal-sending here, its readiness for an extended deployment is not that important. The boat needs to get to the dive point with great fanfare. From there, it can probably hit any target of concern, which is the only point to be made.
 
NMaude said:
Operation Chrome Dome was cancelled in 1968, as far as I know there's no airborne alert for nuclear armed bombers in the USAF (Not to mention that SAC was disbanded in 1993).
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a contingency plan in someone's filing cabinet to reinstate it 'if required by the strategic environment'.
TomS said:
For the kind of signal-sending here, its readiness for an extended deployment is not that important. The boat needs to get to the dive point with great fanfare. From there, it can probably hit any target of concern, which is the only point to be made.
Click to expand...
This is also one of the reasons why it's useful for submarines not to have unique external identifiers. When the PENNSYLTUCKY gets rushed to sea in a crisis, the opposition hopefully gets the message and knocks off whatever they were doing. They don't need to know whether the boat that comes back in a couple of weeks later is (a) the CALISOTA relieved on schedule, with the PENNSYLTUCKY staying out, or (b) the PENNSYLTUCKY coming back to get that &$*! condenser pump replaced while the CALISOTA gets another six weeks of sea time.
 
OliverSedlacek said:
Historically a display of air power has been effective. In 1972 an overflight of Buccaneers over (then) British Honduras checked an imminent Guatamalan invasion. Ark Royal archives
Click to expand...
By that rational we should expand our carrier force. In 1997 sailing a couple of them in the South China sea cooled things off between China and Taiwan.
 
TomS said:
Surge another SSBN. They'll get the message.
Click to expand...
The bad guys will definitely take notice if several SSBN's leave port ahead of schedule in a short period of time.
Another nice bonus is that the public and press probably don't notice. As opposed to launching several squadrons of bombers which is a guaranteed spectacle.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom