Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Hydroman said:
I thinks these are retractable antennas, the B-2 only has a single retractable antenna just aft of the weapons bay doors.
Click to expand...
At least four more...
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...
He is talking of control tower runway cameras.
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...
@Hydroman perhaps you misread my post. It didn't have anything to do with the radar reflectors. It was more about how all the 4K television babies get all suspicious when they see a VGA quality display from the 1990's and assume USAF is hiding something. They probably don't know what a steam gauge is.

LOL, the other day I had to explain Crome Dome to one of our young engineers. He couldn't believe armed jets sat hot cocked and ready to go. The revelation that we flew armed bombers right up to the ADIZ of the big, bad Bear was mind blowing for him. Then again, he wasn't born when I earned my commission/first master's degree.
 
mkellytx said:
@Hydroman perhaps you misread my post. It didn't have anything to do with the radar reflectors. It was more about how all the 4K television babies get all suspicious when they see a VGA quality display from the 1990's and assume USAF is hiding something. They probably don't know what a steam gauge is.

LOL, the other day I had to explain Crome Dome to one of our young engineers. He couldn't believe armed jets sat hot cocked and ready to go. The revelation that we flew armed bombers right up to the ADIZ of the big, bad Bear was mind blowing for him. Then again, he wasn't born when I earned my commission/first master's degree.
Click to expand...
My fault, I misread the original post, my apologies.
 
I thinks it's the internal contour of the inlets before they slope down. But take a look at the left aux inlet door, there looks to be another door or a flap extended. It is kind blurry or is it something in the background?
 
When experimenting with my model, a very similar contour was visible whenever light was shone directly into the inlet (which was based off a b-2 inlet cross section). Just seems like the first time we're seeing into the inlet as it's either been mostly shadowed, too low resolution or had a cover in it.

Note:
it looks like you can actually see where the contour terminates and starts heading more aft than downwards (orange shape), so that's something we haven't yet seen! (red shape is roughly full inlet shape as it dips below wing, and green is our engine :D )
Screenshot 2024-10-01 at 1.05.04 PM.png
 
B2Blain said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this doesn't look like 132 ft as Aviation Week suggested. I know images can be deceiving but looks closer in size to the B-2.
Click to expand...
I agree it look more big thant everybody says, compare with the size of thr truck.
 
4decaa said:
When experimenting with my model, a very similar contour was visible whenever light was shone directly into the inlet (which was based off a b-2 inlet cross section). Just seems like the first time we're seeing into the inlet as it's either been mostly shadowed, too low resolution or had a cover in it.

Note:
it looks like you can actually see where the contour terminates and starts heading more aft than downwards (orange shape), so that's something we haven't yet seen! (red shape is roughly full inlet shape as it dips below wing, and green is our engine :D )
View attachment 742668
Click to expand...
My vote is Photoshop, there's probably something there they don't want us to see.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Telezoom lens will distort the depth of field, would be hard to size the airframe.

Mark
Click to expand...
Completely agree. There are much better ways to estimate that wingspan. It's not like there aren't high quality pictures of that runway that can be used to get a very good estimate.
 
one could look at the shadow and then quite easily use the measure tool on google maps to get a rough estimate
 
4decaa said:
Location tagged at groom lake(??)
Photo pulled from here
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFUpKSdR/ (yes, tiktok, I guess this user didn’t want to post it on their Instagram)

note: my poor cropping skills
View attachment 742890
Click to expand...

This looks like a really bad fake.
It is FAR too early for testing at Groom Lake. When a B-21 goes to Groom it will be for dynamic RCS testing. The first B-21 is not configured for RCS testing. #2 or #3 may be, but those have not been delivered yet. Right now they don't even know if they can reliably fly the maneuvers required for dynamic RCS testing.
 
I thought it looked like a fake quellish. It would be interesting to see when the B-21 starts RCS testing, but the results will be classified during the operational life of the B-21 and possibly forever.
 
I should note that I expect the RCS numbers to be broadly comparable to the B2, just easier to maintain. Sorry Raider mechs, no air-conditioned hangars for you!
 
Scott Kenny said:
I should note that I expect the RCS numbers to be broadly comparable to the B2, just easier to maintain. Sorry Raider mechs, no air-conditioned hangars for you!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. It's easy to forget that the B-2 was one of the earlier stealth aircraft, given how much of an improvement it was over the F-117, but a lot of time has passed and we've learned a lot about RCS reduction since it was designed. The B-21 benefits from better materials, better production methods, and dramatically better computational modeling than the B-2 had available to it. It's also just a smaller aircraft. Even for a program which wasn't designed to push the boundaries too much, it would be very strange if the B-21 did not have significantly reduced RCS relative to the B-2.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have never seen a cost estimate of fielding an ARRW inventory. What was the unit cost predicted at full rate production against what inventory target?
 
Fessus said:
I wouldn't. It's easy to forget that the B-2 was one of the earlier stealth aircraft, given how much of an improvement it was over the F-117, but a lot of time has passed and we've learned a lot about RCS reduction since it was designed. The B-21 benefits from better materials, better production methods, and dramatically better computational modeling than the B-2 had available to it. It's also just a smaller aircraft. Even for a program which wasn't designed to push the boundaries too much, it would be very strange if the B-21 did not have significantly reduced RCS relative to the B-2.
Click to expand...
Valid points, but IIRC the main push was a more maintainable stealth than what the B-2s had. Needing to spend less money and time doing maintenance after every flight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Valid points, but IIRC the main push was a more maintainable stealth than what the B-2s had. Needing to spend less money and time doing maintenance after every flight.
Click to expand...
Definitely. The public information available about B-2 maintenance requirements is horrifying. However, the B-21 lucked out by coming immediately after the F-35 got its act together. If the F-35 had maintenance requirements per square foot of skin anything like the B-2 or even the F-22 it would be untenable. The B-21 gets to cheat off of the F-35s homework by copying its baked in RAM, which also seems to also perform significantly better than the older stuff in absorption given various AF officials' statements. Having a B-2 like aircraft which could be operated in a practical manner was definitely top priority. It's just that even doing a clean sheet design with roughly the goals of making a more practical B-2 in the 2020s instead of the 1990s gets you an airframe significantly stealthier than the B-2. On top of the "free" boost it gets from the F-35s RAM you can see subtle improvements all over the place. The engine inlets on the B-21 clearly took a lot of CFD work to get something that deeply buried which won't starve the engine. If you tried to design that in 1987 that shit quite literally would not fly.
 
Last edited:
Fessus said:
Definitely. The public information available about B-2 maintenance requirements is horrifying. However, the B-21 lucked out by coming immediately after the F-35 got its act together. If the F-35 had maintenance requirements per square foot of skin anything like the B-2 or even the F-22 it would be untenable. It the B-21 gets to cheat off of the F-35s homework by copying its baked in RAM, which also seems to also perform significantly better than the older stuff in absorption given various AF officials' statements. Having a B-2 like aircraft which could be operated in a practical manner was definitely top priority. It's just that even doing a clean sheet design with roughly the goals of making a more practical B-2 in the 2020s instead of the 1990s gets you an airframe significantly stealthier than the B-2. On top of the "free" boost it gets from the F-35s RAM you can see subtle improvements all over the place. The engine inlets on the B-21 clearly took a lot of CFD work to get something that deeply buried which won't starve the engine. If you tried to design that in 1987 that shit quite literally would not fly.
Click to expand...
Okay, I was not expecting any significant improvements in RCS with the baked-in RAM. Maybe a little better, but not orders of magnitude better.
 
Fessus said:
The B-21 benefits from better materials, better production methods, and dramatically better computational modeling than the B-2 had available to it.
Click to expand...
This is an often overlooked significant feature of RCS management. If we consider how the F-35 is built the tolerances are much smaller than previous aircraft and aid the RCS significantly when the target is not LO but VLO. .

“The Electronic Mate and Alignments Systems Stations, or EMASS, is where the four major structure pieces are put together,” Howes explains. “Essentially, we’ve got four main pieces and we’re trying to align them and attach them together using laser alignment.”

During the mate process, the major aircraft components are brought together three times using the laser-guided alignment fixtures. The first time the components are brought together and measured for gaps. Then they are separated again so that the shims (aluminum pieces used to fill tolerance gaps), once they’re fabricated, can be installed. Then the aircraft is brought together again for a match drilling operation through the shim and both pieces of mating structure. The components are separated one final time to debur the holes, followed by a third and final mate for permanent fastener install.

Following EMASS, the jet will be on its own wheels and it is lifted by an overhead crane to final assembly, where control surfaces will be added, along with final systems and engine installation.
Click to expand...
www.twz.com

Building The F-35 – One Of The Most Advanced Machines Ever Made

Branded Content: From assembly to getting airborne for first flight, this is the story of F-35 stealth fighter production.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

I expect B-21 is built the same way.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I should note that I expect the RCS numbers to be broadly comparable to the B2, just easier to maintain. Sorry Raider mechs, no air-conditioned hangars for you!
Click to expand...

I expect some incremental gains over B-21. Why bury the engine inlets and reduce pilot visibility otherwise? But I agree the main advantage will be in maintenance man hours, not further reduction.
 
bring_it_on said:
I have never seen a cost estimate of fielding an ARRW inventory. What was the unit cost predicted at full rate production against what inventory target?
Click to expand...

The low rate production prices were in the tens of millions of dollars, though the estimates varied widely. USAF is being tight lipped about HACM costs as well, but at least one graphic listed $3 million and most OS estimates seem mid single digit millions.
 
bring_it_on said:
What was the unit cost predicted at full rate production against what inventory target?
Click to expand...

The unit cost is however much the contractor and the Air Force think they can squeeze out of Congress
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, I was not expecting any significant improvements in RCS with the baked-in RAM. Maybe a little better, but not orders of magnitude better.
Click to expand...

The RCS improvements come from shaping, not materials. The RCS improvements over the B-2 are dramatic. 30 years of refinement will do that.
 
joshjosh said:
How do you know what the RCS improvements are? Do you have classified information?
Click to expand...

The facilities used in the development of the B-21 were improved several times to support the B-21 program. Other facilities supporting operations and maintenance of the B-21 are also under construction or contract.

The capabilities of these facilities are public records. When a facility is constructed or modified using B-21 funds to have a noise floor of X the math is not difficult to do.

“Math” is not classified or export controlled.
 
quellish said:
The facilities used in the development of the B-21 were improved several times to support the B-21 program. Other facilities supporting operations and maintenance of the B-21 are also under construction or contract.

The capabilities of these facilities are public records. When a facility is constructed or modified using B-21 funds to have a noise floor of X the math is not difficult to do.

“Math” is not classified or export controlled.
Click to expand...
Can you at least tell us what the noise floor is? I'm assuming that the Noise Floor standards were an open part of the contract.
 
Josh_TN said:
The low rate production prices were in the tens of millions of dollars, though the estimates varied widely. USAF is being tight lipped about HACM costs as well, but at least one graphic listed $3 million and most OS estimates seem mid single digit millions.
Click to expand...
Despite spending more than $1.18 billion on the ARRW contract with Lockheed through the end of 2022, the Air Force has dropped plans to move the AGM-183A into production even if further tests are successful. A new Air Force leadership team considers the scramjet-powered HACM more cost-effective than the roughly $10 million-per-round AGM-183A.
Click to expand...

U.S. Hypersonic Testing Shows Mixed Results In Pivotal Year | Aviation Week Network

Scramjet testing has scored several breakthroughs, but the path forward for the Pentagon’s portfolio of hypersonic glide vehicle projects is unclear.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Then there was the CBO cost estimate for an inventory of 100 ARRW's that pushed cost to $15 Million+. But total inventory of 100 is hardly hitting serious rate production.

HACM is also going to be sensitive to production sizes and inventory objectives. You can't produce a few hundred weapons and get a really low unit cost. That said, it should cost substantially lower than the ARRW as long as it is actually produced and not set aside based on a cost estimate for a 100 weapon inventory which is pretty much going to be a death sentence for any new tactical weapon that is pushing performance significantly beyond what's currently in inventory. I truly hope it doesn't get the ARRW treatment given the industry seems to be moving and setting up facilities to produce scramjet and other components for the application.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:

U.S. Hypersonic Testing Shows Mixed Results In Pivotal Year | Aviation Week Network

Scramjet testing has scored several breakthroughs, but the path forward for the Pentagon’s portfolio of hypersonic glide vehicle projects is unclear.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Then there was the CBO cost estimate for an inventory of 100 ARRW's that pushed cost to $15 Million+. But total inventory of 100 is hardly hitting serious rate production.

HACM is also going to be sensitive to production sizes and inventory objectives. You can't produce a few hundred weapons and get a really low unit cost. That said, it should cost substantially lower than the ARRW as long as it is actually produced and not set aside based on a cost estimate for a 100 weapon inventory which is pretty much going to be a death sentence for any new tactical weapon that is pushing performance significantly beyond what's currently in inventory. I truly hope it doesn't get the ARRW treatment given the industry seems to be moving and setting up facilities to produce scramjet and other components for the application.
Click to expand...

We cannot know the full rate production costs of either program until they get to that point, but it seems likely 1) HACM was much cheaper and 2) HACM would scale better due to fewer exotic materials. We do not know what materials go into either exactly, but we do have a breakdown of the components of the X-51.

“ The X-51 was made primarily using standard aerospace materials such as aluminum, steel, inconel, and titanium. Some carbon/carbon composites of the leading edges of fins and cowls are used. For thermal protection, the vehicle utilizes a Boeing designed silica-based thermal protection system as well as Boeing Reusable Insulation tiles, similar to those on board the NASA Space Shuttle Orbiters.”


We also know that the inconel combustor of HAWC is completely 3D printed and stated to be “half” the weight of X-51. So the engine is not particularly skilled labor or time intensive to produce.

While we have no ideal what materials or complexity goes into the DARPA Tactical Boost Glider vehicle, we can surmise it is a lot of extremely heat resistant materials to survive what is almost certainly a double digit Mach burn out speed.

Given that most of X-51 was relatively non exotic materials, it seems likely to me it will be much easier to produce HACM in quantity. USAF just issued a contract to Raytheon to increase production capacity outside the primary contract for the missile itself, with work to be completed by 2028.
 
Josh_TN said:
We cannot know the full rate production costs of either program until they get to that point
Click to expand...

DOD can definitely estimate costs for systems given certain production rates and inventory objectives. I assumed you had seen those estimates when you mentioned "tens of millions" as the unit cost of the ARRW AUR. AvWeek has quoted an AUR cost of about $10 Million for which should come down if it ever made it to higher rate production. CBO estimated a cost of $15 Million for a batch of 100 weapons which seems like an exercise to to just field a few dozen prototypes for active inventory and call it quits. From AF docs, we know that the service estimated spending about $13.5 MM per AUR for a total buy of 12 operational prototypes in FY-2022, and estimated spending about $22 MM per AUR for a total buy of 1 operational prototype in FY-23. Neither of those are what you would call a reasonable production rate for such a type of weapon (3-5 dozen weapons per year at least).

Newer variants of JASSM are already pushing into $2-$3 Million range and beyond so you are unlikely to get 20 JASSM's for the price of an AGM-183 AUR unless you end up spending $30-40 Million per round which is more LRHW territory than ARRW.

Josh_TN said:
While we have no ideal what materials or complexity goes into the DARPA Tactical Boost Glider vehicle, we can surmise it is a lot of extremely heat resistant materials to survive what is almost certainly a double digit Mach burn out speed.

Given that most of X-51 was relatively non exotic materials, it seems likely to me it will be much easier to produce HACM in quantity. USAF just issued a contract to Raytheon to increase production capacity outside the primary contract for the missile itself, with work to be completed by 2028.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lowering performance requirement (speed and range) definitely impacts cost. As does moving towards a more efficient form of propulsion. I assumed the speed, range and lethality requirements for ARRW were there for a reason which is reflected in all AF documents around hypersonic programs that stated that HACM and ARRW are complementary capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom