Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[_Del_]

Surge another SSBN. They'll get the message.

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.

 

[Josh_TN]

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...

This is something that can be done without a dedicated nuclear bomber force. Whatever aircraft is lying around will work. No need to build up a force reserved specifically for the nuclear role.

 

[NMaude]

Which is why the PRC has spent the last 27 years building a military to sink the USN.

The PLA:N's nascent carrier force CVs are where the USN was 100 years ago, they have yet to accumulate the corporate knowledge in how to properly use CVs and to develop the proper doctrines to use them, this kind of knowledge can only be gained through practical experience and that takes years, also from what I understand their current crop of carrier capable aircraft leave a lot to be desired for (Apparently the local Chinese media derisively refers to the JL-15 "Flying Shark" as the "Flopping Fish").

 

[In_A_Dream]

The PLA:N's nascent carrier force CVs are where the USN was 100 years ago, they have yet to accumulate the corporate knowledge in how to properly use CVs and to develop the proper doctrines to use them, this kind of knowledge can only be gained through practical experience and that takes years, also from what I understand their current crop of carrier capable aircraft leave a lot to be desired for (Apparently the local Chinese media derisively refers to the JL-15 "Flying Shark" as the "Flopping Fish").

This is veering off topic, but there is enough trending analysis available today to start pushing back on these "China has yet to..." comments. They are a very serious adversary to the West with a government that is very serious about becoming a hegemon. Before we know it, the oceans will be flooded with their military vessels because they have the ambition and economic capability.

And as for naval doctrine and the like, once the shooting starts, navy leadership will wake up to reality and US naval doctrine will adjust accordingly.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

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.

IMO the main justification for B-21,
is delivery of conventional munitions in a conventional war with a peer opponent.

 

[Josh_TN]

IMO the main justification for B-21,
is delivery of conventional munitions in a conventional war with a peer opponent.

Indeed, and unlike B-2 I expect it was built around the conventional role.

 

[Dreamfighter]

hardened ICBM silos

How hardened are the (old) US ICBM silos exactly? Can they (and e.g. their lids on top) withstand a nuclear attack or a conventional heavy-ordnance high-velocity precision strike, and still be operational (enough) for a prompt response?

I´m still suggesting to at least double the number of US Navy SSBNs to be build (and by doing so bring down their unit-cost a whole lot), to do a few adaptations for launching USAF LGM-35 Sentinel from at least half of them, and then putting those on dry land in states like e.g. Wyoming, Montana and North-Dakota. No more need for the USAF 'to replace all the copper cables and much degraded concrete from the early 60s', with as result the GBSD-program will promptly be back within it´s original cost-schedule, and the Navy will be very happy too with it´s much less costly Columbia SSBNs. And if one puts wheels on the USAF´s land-based SSBNs, they would be road-mobile and could be driven by the Army to Lake Superior. The Royal Navy has been experimenting with such a strategy since many years, and has an SSBN hidden in a Scottish´ lake with it´s periscope occasionally surfacing.

 

[B2Blain]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/whiteman-second-operational-base-b-21/

So Whiteman will be the next B-21 base, which means B-1 operations will continue at Dyess for a while. It likely wasn't based on location. They may have wanted to keep the B-1. It's large weapons capacity and the ability to carry weapons - possibly hypersonic - externally? Or was it based on the higher cost to maintain the B-2s?

Too bad they will not be keeping a wing of B-1s even after the B-21 buy is finished.

 

[Josh_TN]

So would some of the B-1 fleet be replaced first, followed by the entire B-2 fleet, then the last of the B-1s? I had assumed the B-1 fleet would have been completely wrapped up first before the B-2.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So would some of the B-1 fleet be replaced first, followed by the entire B-2 fleet, then the last of the B-1s? I had assumed the B-1 fleet would have been completely wrapped up first before the B-2.

So had I.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is something that can be done without a dedicated nuclear bomber force. Whatever aircraft is lying around will work. No need to build up a force reserved specifically for the nuclear role.

Nobody cares if a couple dozen F15s all elephant walk out and go flying. The US does that normally, on days that end in Y.

The message is that you're scrambling nuclear bombers.

 

[Josh_TN]

Nobody cares if a couple dozen F15s all elephant walk out and go flying. The US does that normally, on days that end in Y.

The message is that you're scrambling nuclear bombers.

I was not advocating for the retirement of B-52s or the cancellation of B-21. I just do not see the point of expanding the planned B-21 force solely for having a much larger number of bombers in the nuclear role.

 

[joshjosh]

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3905536/air-force-announces-second-third-b-21-raider-bases/

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (AFNS)   --
Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has approved the second and third basing locations for the B-21 Raider, the Air Force’s newest bomber. Those bases are Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas, in that order. Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, was previously selected as the first base to receive the B-21.

“We continue to achieve B-21 production milestones; through digital engineering and open architecture design, we are getting an agile strategic deterrent that delivers a decisive response as required,” said Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Air Force Global Strike Command commander.

The B-21 Raider represents a generational leap as a dual nuclear and conventionally capable, stealth, penetrating, long-range strike platform. Air Force Global Strike Command will remain ready and provide strike options for the country by continuing to maintain, modernize and keep its B-1 and B-2 bombers in service until the B-21 is delivered in the mid-2020’s.

The Air Force will purchase at least 100 B-21s. The strategic long-range bomber is currently in low-rate production and executing flight test.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was not advocating for the retirement of B-52s or the cancellation of B-21. I just do not see the point of expanding the planned B-21 force solely for having a much larger number of bombers in the nuclear role.

Well, the US was looking at ~300x B-52s (Gs and Hs), 100x B-1Bs, and ~165 or so B-2s in the 1980s-1990s; ~400 penetrating bombers potentially, depending on how many B-52s were packing ALCMs and how many were carrying SRAMs etc in the bomb bay.

With the B-52Gs getting physically broken up under START treaties, the desired fleet mix ended up as 100x B-52H, 100x B-1Bs, and ~165x B-2s; ~265 penetrating bombers, B-52s staying standoff while loaded with 20x ALCMs.

The actual 1990s fleet mix was 100x B-52H, 100x B-1Bs, and 21x B-2s; 121x penetrating bombers.

I fully expect somewhere above 300x B-21s eventually, because I don't see the USAF building a Strike NGAD (no matter how much I want them to). And the 220x F-15Es will wear out in the 2030s-40s. 100something assigned to primarily a nuclear strike role, another 200 assigned to an interdiction role.

 

[Ozair]

I fully expect somewhere above 300x B-21s eventually, because I don't see the USAF building a Strike NGAD (no matter how much I want them to). And the 220x F-15Es will wear out in the 2030s-40s. 100something assigned to primarily a nuclear strike role, another 200 assigned to an interdiction role.

300 B-21s... That seems too much to me by about a third unless the aircraft did deliver the optionally manned capability as suggested and even then a better investment would be a larger CCA to accompany the manned aircraft to provide magazine depth and greater reach.

The -220 F-15Es are already on the way out, it will likely be a combined fleet of approx 200 F-15E/EX with the EX still.operatinf at Guard units.

 

[Scott Kenny]

300 B-21s... That seems too much to me by about a third unless the aircraft did deliver the optionally manned capability as suggested and even then a better investment would be a larger CCA to accompany the manned aircraft to provide magazine depth and greater reach.

The -220 F-15Es are already on the way out, it will likely be a combined fleet of approx 200 F-15E/EX with the EX still.operatinf at Guard units.

I was under the impression that the EX was replacing F-15C/Ds, not Es.

 

[Ozair]

I was under the impression that the EX was replacing F-15C/Ds, not Es.

It is but the USAF is also retiring the older -220 powered E fleet. Article is from last year but the plan hasn't changed.

The Air Force plans to cut its F-15E fleet to 99 aircraft in the coming years—cutting more than 100 Strike Eagles from the fleet.

...

F-15Es have one of two engines: the newer model fighters are equipped with Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-229, an upgraded version of the F100-PW-220 engines on older F-15E models. The Air Force has decided to keep the models with better engines and modernize them in other ways.

Air Force Wants to Cut F-15E Fleet in Half to Focus on Modernizing, Brown Says

The Air Force plans to decrease its F-15E fleet to 99 aircraft in the coming years—cutting more than 100 Strike Eagles.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[FighterJock]

300 B-21s? That would be a lot more than the 200 than I was expecting. But at a cost to the older F-15Es that have the less modern engines. I wonder what would happen to the Lakenheath squadrons that have the Strike Eagle?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Convert?

 

[FighterJock]

That was what I was thinking Foo Fighter, but what would happen to Lakenheath modernise to operate the B-21?

 

[bob225]

That was what I was thinking Foo Fighter, but what would happen to Lakenheath modernise to operate the B-21?

Nothings impossible but Lakenheath is currently (iirc) Has's with a number of engineering hangers, so you'd need to build a lot of B-21 hangers etc.

Personally i think the bigger issue is the security / visibility, Lakenheath has a large spotter community with easy access / visibility so the jets are going to be photo'd and monitored 24/7.

You'd be better doing detachments somewhere else, perhaps such as RAF Valley, much more remote, less population etc

Shouldn't be to hard to arrange and set up

 

[sferrin]

300 B-21s? That would be a lot more than the 200 than I was expecting. But at a cost to the older F-15Es that have the less modern engines. I wonder what would happen to the Lakenheath squadrons that have the Strike Eagle?

Talk about 300, so they can retire stuff without the politicians complaining, and then cut back to the original 100 (if that) after the retirements have happened.

 

[Scott Kenny]

300 B-21s... That seems too much to me by about a third unless the aircraft did deliver the optionally manned capability as suggested and even then a better investment would be a larger CCA to accompany the manned aircraft to provide magazine depth and greater reach.

Optionally manned B-21s may happen, not sure if that was built into the design at the beginning.

As for a CCA, those would likely be as expensive as a B-21. The cockpit of a plane that big is little more than a rounding error in terms of weight, you'd need all the sensors of a B-21 to find targets autonomously, and you'd need all the stealth coatings etc as well.

There's also no indication that the USAF is interested in a ground-attack-capable CCA right now.

 

[flateric]

Optionally manned B-21s may happen, not sure if that was built into the design at the beginning.

Morning https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-b-21-raider-lrs-b.25915/post-318287

 

[Josh_TN]

Optionally manned B-21s may happen, not sure if that was built into the design at the beginning.

As for a CCA, those would likely be as expensive as a B-21. The cockpit of a plane that big is little more than a rounding error in terms of weight, you'd need all the sensors of a B-21 to find targets autonomously, and you'd need all the stealth coatings etc as well.

There's also no indication that the USAF is interested in a ground-attack-capable CCA right now.

A B-21 sized UAV was dropped early on. It just does not sufficiently reduce cost to justify development. As for unmanned B-21…what exactly does that buy? Are we that worried about a two man aircrew in a major war? A Burke class destroyer represents more manpower than the entire projected B-21 force.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A B-21 sized UAV was dropped early on. It just does not sufficiently reduce cost to justify development. As for unmanned B-21…what exactly does that buy? Are we that worried about a two man aircrew in a major war? A Burke class destroyer represents more manp than the entire projected B-21 force.

Aircrews have limited flight hours per day (yes, even in combat). Flying B-21s unmanned allows for more sorties when the pilots are too tired to fly.

Pilots can tell their boss "I have flown too much today/this week" and get told to go sleep.

 

[Ozair]

Optionally manned B-21s may happen, not sure if that was built into the design at the beginning.

As for a CCA, those would likely be as expensive as a B-21. The cockpit of a plane that big is little more than a rounding error in terms of weight, you'd need all the sensors of a B-21 to find targets autonomously, and you'd need all the stealth coatings etc as well.

There's also no indication that the USAF is interested in a ground-attack-capable CCA right now.

I have a journal article from back in the LRS-B days that stated a manned bomber added approximately 4% to the total cost of the platform. Not quite a rounding error but not far off.

A B-21 sized UAV was dropped early on. It just does not sufficiently reduce cost to justify development. As for unmanned B-21…what exactly does that buy? Are we that worried about a two man aircrew in a major war? A Burke class destroyer represents more manpower than the entire projected B-21 force.

The issue for me is a UAV/CCA that accompanies a B-21 has to be as VLO as the B-21 or else it just gives the game away. In that context then an optionally manned B-21 makes a little more sense but only a little as it isn't any more attritable than the manned B-21 given the cost.

 

[flateric]

Sweep angle is 35, not 40. Distortion due to most spotters position play tricks. Hence while wingspan is 48 m, lenght is less, about 20-21 m.

Seems legit

 

[Josh_TN]

Seems legit

Given that length, what is a revised bomb bay length estimate?

 

[paralay]

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Just saw a local story (I live in St. Louis) that Whiteman AFB has been named the second base to receive B-21s after Ellsworth AFB. Hope so.... Saw the new construction at Ellsworth when we passed by there in June related to the B-21 basing. Guess I'll need to see if the same happens at Whiteman too.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[4decaa]

Well, I had a few seconds of excitement that there was a new picture and another 4 flying test aircraft... WTF NG??

 

[Nicolas10]

Growing threats to whom tho?

 

[BlackBat242]

Just saw a local story (I live in St. Louis) that Whiteman AFB has been named the second base to receive B-21s after Ellsworth AFB. Hope so.... Saw the new construction at Ellsworth when we passed by there in June related to the B-21 basing. Guess I'll need to see if the same happens at Whiteman too.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3905536/air-force-announces-second-third-b-21-raider-bases/

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (AFNS)   --
Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has approved the second and third basing locations for the B-21 Raider, the Air Force’s newest bomber. Those bases are Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas, in that order. Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, was previously selected as the first base to receive the B-21.

“We continue to achieve B-21 production milestones; through digital engineering and open architecture design, we are getting an agile strategic deterrent that delivers a decisive response as required,” said Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Air Force Global Strike Command commander.

The B-21 Raider represents a generational leap as a dual nuclear and conventionally capable, stealth, penetrating, long-range strike platform. Air Force Global Strike Command will remain ready and provide strike options for the country by continuing to maintain, modernize and keep its B-1 and B-2 bombers in service until the B-21 is delivered in the mid-2020’s.

The Air Force will purchase at least 100 B-21s. The strategic long-range bomber is currently in low-rate production and executing flight test.

Feel better?

 

[Forest Green]

Growing threats to whom tho?

The 4 horsemen, War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Feel better?

Yes I do. Now if they would only make as many as they did B-47s....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Ozair]

Yes I do. Now if they would only make as many as they did B-47s....

But with proportionally less accidents and crashes...

 

[martinbayer]

The 4 horsemen, War, Pestilence, Famine and Death.

Shouldn't taxes be in that mix somewhere? Asking for a pseudo ultra-libertarian acquaintance beard of mine, since I'm still a dyed in the wool social democrat...

 

[Forest Green]

Shouldn't taxes be in that mix somewhere? Asking for a pseudo ultra-libertarian acquaintance beard of mine, since I'm still a dyed in the wool social democrat...

I was using them as pseudynms for 4 countries.

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836493991338013157

View: https://x.com/usairforce/status/1836493991338013157

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3910299/