Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[flateric]

'- Jake, get the best footage we have on Raider test flights, we need to make short vid for Bussiere presentation'
- Sure!

 

[flateric]

New B-21 Bomber Now Flying Up to Twice a Week

The secretive B-21 bomber is flying as much as twice a week in test, and two more aircraft are in ground tests, officials revealed.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[zjz]

As usual, great stuff from TWZ ......

New Look At B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber Flight Testing Released

B-21 Raider testing is progressing at Edwards Air Force Base ahead of the planned fielding of the bombers toward the end of the decade.

www.twz.com

B-21 Ground Test Airframes Join Flying Pre-Production Raider

The B-21 Raider test force is growing as trials accelerate with an operational date by the end of the decade still the goal.

www.twz.com

 

[aonestudio]

DAF provides B-21 Raider program updates

The B-21 Raider will incrementally replace the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers to become the backbone of the Air Force’s flexible global strike capability.

www.afgsc.af.mil

 

[4decaa]

As usual, great stuff from TWZ ......

New Look At B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber Flight Testing Released

B-21 Raider testing is progressing at Edwards Air Force Base ahead of the planned fielding of the bombers toward the end of the decade.

www.twz.com

B-21 Ground Test Airframes Join Flying Pre-Production Raider

The B-21 Raider test force is growing as trials accelerate with an operational date by the end of the decade still the goal.

www.twz.com

“Everything we’ve heard is it flies very much like the model. In fact, a funny story I like to tell about the first flight. We’re all very excited to hear from the test pilot… he said ‘it’s almost exactly like the model, but we noticed on takeoff, it rotated slightly differently,” Jones recalled. “So engineers being engineers, they didn’t want their model to be wrong. So they pulled off all of the recorded data and looked at it and went back to the test pilot… [to] say, ‘actually, you kind of double-pumped the stick, and when we put that into the simulation it performed exactly the way the simulation said it would, so the model itself is very good.'”

a highlight from the second article

 

[donnage99]

'- Jake, get the best footage we have on Raider test flights, we need to make short vid for Bussiere presentation'
- Sure!

Jake misunderstood it as a modern art project. he thought using 80's camera to pay homage to b-2 was the icing on the cake.

 

[Manuducati]

Jake misunderstood it as a modern art project. he thought using 80's camera to pay homage to b-2 was the icing on the cake.

Super secret optical jammer but... Shhhh

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836794679876022615

View: https://x.com/MilitaryTimes/status/1836794679876022615

 

[Desertfox]

If the B-21 ends up being cheap to operate (less than the B-52), perhaps we could get to 300 by using them to finally replace the B-52s?

 

[dark sidius]

'- Jake, get the best footage we have on Raider test flights, we need to make short vid for Bussiere presentation'
- Sure!

Is there something to hide for a so grainy picture ?

 

[Josh_TN]

If the B-21 ends up being cheap to operate (less than the B-52), perhaps we could get to 300 by using them to finally replace the B-52s?

The B-52 has more carrying capacity and is much more adaptable to over sized weapons. I think they are retained regardless of B-21 purchases, particularly after the USAF invests in the J upgrade.

 

[publiusr]

This may have been pointed out before--the "spikes" to either side of the fuselage rump... reflectors or something?

 

[TomS]

This may have been pointed out before--the "spikes" to either side of the fuselage rump... reflectors or something?

Those are the auxiliary inlet doors for the engines.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the B-21 ends up being cheap to operate (less than the B-52), perhaps we could get to 300 by using them to finally replace the B-52s?

I mean, maybe in 2060 or so when the B52s are no longer economically repairable, but not before then.

As far as has been said in open sources, the B52 carries about 1.5 the load. Missions wanting 20x cruise missiles delivered are likely to keep the BUFF flying till the upper wing skins are out of hours. Or missions wanting some number of larger-than-cruise-missile-sized long range hypersonics delivered.

 

[NMaude]

Missions wanting 20x cruise missiles delivered are likely to keep the BUFF flying till the upper wing skins are out of hours.

Since the B-52Hs are undergoing a massive upgrade why not also make new wing-skins for their wings or even Boeing just build new wings instead?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Since the B-52Hs are undergoing a massive upgrade why not also make new wing-skins for their wings or even Boeing just build new wings instead?

Those are extremely expensive to do. That's the point where it was decided to no longer be economically viable to repair the B-52s.

 

[Josh_TN]

Since the B-52Hs are undergoing a massive upgrade why not also make new wing-skins for their wings or even Boeing just build new wings instead?

The airframe has plenty of hours left on it; there’s no need for major changes once engines are replaced.

 

[NMaude]

Those are extremely expensive to do.

What exactly is so expensive about this? I mean that new wings would take advantage of all of the massive technological advancements in materials science, manufacturing technology and advances in CAD/CAM in the 64 years or so when the B-52H was designed and put into production.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What exactly is so expensive about this? I mean that new wings would take advantage of all of the massive technological advancements in materials science, manufacturing technology and advances in CAD/CAM in the 64 years or so when the B-52H was designed and put into production.

I don't know what particularly makes it so expensive, it was just noted in some of the B-52 pieces that the fatigue life of the aircraft was determined to be limited to 37,000 hours, when they'd have to replace those upper wing skins. And it wasn't economically viable to replace them.

 

[NMaude]

And it wasn't economically viable to replace them.

In that case it would appear that building new wings would be better if and when the situation arises.

 

[Josh_TN]

In that case it would appear that building new wings would be better if and when the situation arises.

Which is like 2050.

The B-52s have retained the old engines for the same reason: good enough, and enough of them in circulation post C-141 retirement. Does it cost more in fuel? Hell yes. But it is a know cost with no engineering risks.

 

[Ozair]

I don't know what particularly makes it so expensive, it was just noted in some of the B-52 pieces that the fatigue life of the aircraft was determined to be limited to 37,000 hours, when they'd have to replace those upper wing skins. And it wasn't economically viable to replace them.

This is an excellent reference article for B-52 fatigue.

In addition, a tear-down inspection of a retired service aircraft was conducted to assess the corrosion problems on the aircraft, and an updated DADTA was completed in 1995. The corrosion tear-down inspection revealed only relatively minor problems, and it was concluded that, with continued use of corrosion-preventative compounds, corrosion should not be an issue. As part of the DADTA, an estimate was made of the lower-bound economic life of the airframe. It was determined that the limiting component was the upper surface of the wing, where it was determined that the lower-bound economic limit was about 32,000 hours of the current use spectrum. Based on the current utilization rate, it was estimated that this would allow the aircraft to be used beyond the year 2030.

Appendix A: Synopses of Air Force Aging Aircraft Structural Histories | Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft: Final Report | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Appendix A: Synopses of Air Force Aging Aircraft Structural Histories: Many of the aircraft that form the backbone of the U.S. Air Force oper...

nap.nationalacademies.org

That is on expected usage, 300 hours a year, but clearly a conflict with China would see a significant increase in usage and that is potentially before a lot of the aircraft would likely receive any modifications.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is an excellent reference article for B-52 fatigue.

Appendix A: Synopses of Air Force Aging Aircraft Structural Histories | Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft: Final Report | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Appendix A: Synopses of Air Force Aging Aircraft Structural Histories: Many of the aircraft that form the backbone of the U.S. Air Force oper...

nap.nationalacademies.org

That is on expected usage, 300 hours a year, but clearly a conflict with China would see a significant increase in usage and that is potentially before a lot of the aircraft would likely receive any modifications.

Thank you for that!

 

[4decaa]

This may have been pointed out before--the "spikes" to either side of the fuselage rump... reflectors or something?

The big white "spikes" (cat ears is my favorite description of them) are auxiliary intake doors.

someone who is a little knowledgeable can correct me here but these are the 3 of the 4 retractable reflectors? Definitely new to be seeing ones which are retractable rather than F-35/22 reflectors which look like they are installed before flights

 

[Hydroman]

I thinks these are retractable antennas, the B-2 only has a single retractable antenna just aft of the weapons bay doors.

 

[mkellytx]

Is there something to hide for a so grainy picture ?

No, that looks like the camera feeds into the control room on south base. Wouldn't surprise me if they haven't been upgraded since I was there 2005-2008 to HD or 4K. Your iPhone has a better camera, but if it ain't broke...

In all seriousness those cameras are nicely stabilized and attached to nice telescopic lenses that let you see your test bird around a goodly amount of ED airspace.

 

[NMaude]

someone who is a little knowledgeable can correct me here but these are the 3 of the 4 retractable reflectors?

If I were to make a guess I'd say these retractable reflectors are to enhance the B-21's RCS so that it's visible to civilian ATC radars while on flights within the CONUS.

 

[quellish]

The B-52 has more carrying capacity and is much more adaptable to over sized weapons. I think they are retained regardless of B-21 purchases, particularly after the USAF invests in the J upgrade.

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

 

[quellish]

If I were to make a guess I'd say these retractable reflectors are to enhance the B-21's RCS so that it's visible to civilian ATC radars while on flights within the CONUS.

The B-21 is not flying in civilian airspace and the flight data boom increases the RCS more than any luneberg lens ever could.

 

[quellish]

Is there something to hide for a so grainy picture ?

The Air Force does not want any information that has not gone through a dozen different and conflicting departments to become public knowledge.

Right now I am in a 3 year argument with the Air Force about…. Paint. Completely conventional paint they claim is sensitive and subject to export control “because… airplanes”.. This paint is conventional, not propitiate, is well known in the public domain and is available fir export. The Air Force has no proof in its administrative record that this paint is export sensitive.

So they don’t like releasing anything at all unless they think it will increase the $$ they get from Congress.

SECAF is experienced with acquisitions and tries to be transparent about what is going on… much to the frustration of various forum members.

Seriously, it’s just paint.

 

[Ozair]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

And yet while AGM-183 didn't work it is the perfect example of an oversized weapon and quite likely that there will be subsequent weapons in that size and weight class.

 

[quellish]

And yet while AGM-183 didn't work it is the perfect example of an oversized weapon and quite likely that there will be subsequent weapons in that size and weight class.

In the next year Congress will be putting a lot of scrutiny on weapons with no well defined military purpose.

I am involved in discussions with the legislature about a number of issues regarding government transparency and the activities of certain DoD components and I have been told this is an issue.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

ARRW, and the other hypersonics don't seem to be ALCM sized.

 

[Josh_TN]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

At least one USAF RFI seems to contradict that.

 

[Ozair]

In the next year Congress will be putting a lot of scrutiny on weapons with no well defined military purpose.

I am involved in discussions with the legislature about a number of issues regarding government transparency and the activities of certain DoD components and I have been told this is an issue.

And are you saying this with respect to the AGM-183, hypersonics in general, the B-21 or some other as yet undetermined weapon...?

 

[publiusr]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

Hey! I still have some from Gene Rayburn's yard sale!

 

[aim9xray]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

Why wasn't I told of this? (The neckties part, I mean,)

 

[Hydroman]

No, that looks like the camera feeds into the control room on south base. Wouldn't surprise me if they haven't been upgraded since I was there 2005-2008 to HD or 4K. Your iPhone has a better camera, but if it ain't broke...

In all seriousness those cameras are nicely stabilized and attached to nice telescopic lenses that let you see your test bird around a goodly amount of ED airspace.

Why would you go to the design trouble to integrate OML faired, LO retractable cameras for flight test only and they can't be mission-related cameras, there goes your LO? I don't think they are retractable reflectors either. The F-117 had at least two retractable blade antennas and its reflectors were/are bolt-ons.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Oversized weapons went out with piano neckties.

What qualifies as oversized? Big boom is good, long range is good, high speed is good, and sometimes you need all three of those things for important well defended targets, the sort of things strategic bombers might be expected to hit.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think HACM gets adopted by the B-52s eventually. I cannot imagine it is south of 3000#. ARRW seems like a dead end; too expensive with too few per bomber and too few targets worth that level of effort, vice twenty JASSMs of some flavor. Honestly the use case seemed pretty weak from the get go to me; it seemed like hypersonics for the sake of being hypersonic.