Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[In_A_Dream]

B-21 Raider Fleet Size Under Review

The Air Force's official plan has been to buy 100 B-21 Raiders, but that could now be set to change, according to Northrop Grumman.

www.twz.com

Up is good.

 

[FighterJock]

I second that In_A_Dream, anything above a hundred would be a good move.

 

[TomS]

Looks like it's game time for Northrop!

Good article, but curiously tries to put a bad image to the B-21 program by mentioning NG's loss on the program so far. Also declining to comment on the fact that the program is rapid and relatively cheap is mysterious

Not curious at all. It's based on a call with stockholders, so the fact that NG is currently running a loss on the B-21 is relevant and in fact required info for the company to disclose.

 

[Forest Green]

B-21 Taking On Some Of NGAD Fighter's Missions On The Table Air Force Says

The Air Force expects a deep reassessment of its plans for a new sixth-generation crewed stealth combat jet to wrap up by year's end.

www.twz.com

 

[FighterJock]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

 

[Josh_TN]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

Presumably the B-21 would have a passive role as sensor/command/communication platform. I doubt the USAF wants to use it as a firing platform, since AAM launch is a road flare marking the launching aircraft’s position. If you assume that the CCAs do all the firing, it seems like a workable concept. Remember all they said was that they were not excluding the possibility, not that this is the direction they are going in. I suspect that there is still going to be a manned aircraft, just something smaller and shorter ranged than previously envisioned.

 

[Titus]

Just yesterday Israel showed that a stealth aircraft can launch missiles over (supposedly) heavily protected enemy territory and return safely to base.

 

[Josh_TN]

Just yesterday Israel showed that a stealth aircraft can launch missiles over (supposedly) heavily protected enemy territory and return safely to base.

We have no idea what aircraft and weapons were involved to what extent. Moreover the operational considerations of the IAF have nothing in common with the USAF.

 

[_Del_]

Presumably the B-21 would have a passive role as sensor/command/communication platform

My money would be on the opposite end. Carrying capacity at range with endurance.
Someone else will be the eyeballs in that hunter-killer scheme. You want sensors in close and your key assets distant.

 

[Manuducati]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

B-21 potential use as a air-to-air platform has been discussed so many times. As the first "6th gen" platform (allegedly), it would be surprising that it wouldn't be used for some of the NGAD missions. At least as a piece of the NGAD puzzle.

The B-21 having air-to-air capabilities (not limited to self-defense) has been discussed for years, and several hints have been made...

“If we were to characterize it [NGAD] as a fighter, we would be… thinking too narrowly about what kind of airplane we need in a highly contested environment,” U.S. Air Force Major General Scott Pleus, who is currently Director of Air and Cyber Operations for Pacific Air Forces, recently told Air Force Magazine. “A B-21 [Raider stealth bomber] that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.”

"B-21s With Air-To-Air Capabilities," Drones, Not 6th Gen Fighters To Dominate Future Air Combat

The Air Force's vision of the future of aerial combat has evolved greatly as of late and has moved away from plans for new, costly manned fighters.

www.thedrive.com

 

[dark sidius]

B-21 potential use as a air-to-air platform has been discussed so many times. As the first "6th gen" platform (allegedly), it would be surprising that it wouldn't be used for some of the NGAD missions. At least as a piece of the NGAD puzzle.

The question about the futur of the NGAD fighter start with the test flights of the B-21 is it a hasard ? B-21 may be, have a lot more of capacity that is publicly known, or Northrop have a version of full air/air B-21 in idea.... I sit possible to little modify the shape of the B-21 to make something very capable in air/air combat ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The question about the futur of the NGAD fighter start with the test flights of the B-21 is it a hasard ? B-21 may be, have a lot more of capacity that is publicly known, or Northrop have a version of full air/air B-21 in idea.... I sit possible to little modify the shape of the B-21 to make something very capable in air/air combat ?

I mean, it's already a ghost in the air, so for BVR work it's extremely capable.

But as soon as you start launching AAMs, you light up like a christmas tree to MAWS/DRICM units. Which probably results in something being sent close enough to get a Sidewinder lock on your B-21. And now you're dead, because the B-21 cannot dogfight.

 

[Ozair]

I mean, it's already a ghost in the air, so for BVR work it's extremely capable.

But as soon as you start launching AAMs, you light up like a christmas tree to MAWS/DRICM units. Which probably results in something being sent close enough to get a Sidewinder lock on your B-21. And now you're dead, because the B-21 cannot dogfight.

I think that is over dramatizing it. A potential flash from a missile engine igniting on an IR system seems very unlikely to give away a B-21. DIRCM won't be an issue and MAWS are not designed for ranging. IRST have too narrow a FoV to be useful.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think that is over dramatizing it. A potential flash from a missile engine igniting on an IR system seems very unlikely to give away a B-21. DIRCM won't be an issue and MAWS are not designed for ranging. IRST have too narrow a FoV to be useful.

UV, actually, but it's enough of an issue that people are developing CCAs to carry the missiles so that your super expensive NGAD etc can avoid being detected while still sweeping enemy air from the skies.

 

[Ozair]

UV, actually, but it's enough of an issue that people are developing CCAs to carry the missiles so that your super expensive NGAD etc can avoid being detected while still sweeping enemy air from the skies.

Almost all manufacturers have moved from UV to IR for MAWS. IR provides longer ranges and less false alarms while also leveraging far more technological advancement than comparable UV detectors.

The reasons and purposes of CCAs have almost nothing to do with IR/UV detection and corresponding threat.

 

[dark sidius]

I mean, it's already a ghost in the air, so for BVR work it's extremely capable.

But as soon as you start launching AAMs, you light up like a christmas tree to MAWS/DRICM units. Which probably results in something being sent close enough to get a Sidewinder lock on your B-21. And now you're dead, because the B-21 cannot dogfight.

B-21 can not dog fight but with is very high altitude , surely a speed near the speed of sound and is stealth it make a very capable platform in the air , with a ucav supersonic escort it could be the very pieces of air dominance for decades in the futur.

 

[bobbymike]

B-21 can not dog fight but with is very high altitude , surely a speed near the speed of sound and is stealth it make a very capable platform in the air , with a ucav supersonic escort it could be the very pieces of air dominance for decades in the futur.

Especially if it can launch recently discussed A2A weapons with considerable range outside of the adversary’s weapons.

 

[Josh_TN]

The reasons and purposes of CCAs have almost nothing to do with IR/UV detection and corresponding threat.

That was not my impression. I had heard the CCAs were primarily off board weapons carriers, though I guess it could be argued the goal is magazine depth not delegating the launch event to something more expendable. But I think it would be rather trivial for an IRST to detect an AAM launch and easy for a pair of networked aircraft to triangulate. That seems like a stumbling block for a stealth aircraft, at least on that does not have high performance.

 

[Ozair]

That was not my impression. I had heard the CCAs were primarily off board weapons carriers, though I guess it could be argued the goal is magazine depth not delegating the launch event to something more expendable.

The CRS has a reasonable description of the intent of CCAs by the USAF.

The Air Force contends that CCA is being created as a so-called “loyal wingman,” a large UAV that could fly alongside new and existing crewed fighter jets. The Air Force describes CCAs, powered by jet engines, as potentially able to fly alone or in small groups, and potentially equipped for a variety of missions, including air-to-air combat; air-to-ground combat; electronic warfare; targeting; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Air Force says CCAs’ AI-driven software would enable collaboration with, and take direction from, human pilots and would serve to expand the fighter fleet and protect human pilots at a lower cost than current fighter jets.

...

According to Commander of Air Combat Command General Kenneth S. Wilsbach, additional aircraft could cause confusion for enemy aircraft and assist the fight for air superiority. “You can create mass, and so many targets out in the battlespace that your adversary will have to worry about, and wonder, is that something that I have to use some munitions on,”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12740#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20is,and%20existing%20crewed%20fighter%20jets.

We also have this definition,

CCA are distinct from earlier generation ISR-oriented UAVs because the Air Force envisions using them in conjunction with other aircraft to employ “a distributed, mission tailorable mix of sensors, weapons, and other mission equipment” in contested environments. According to the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, CCA should be semi-autonomous, capable of “taking high level direction” from a pilot, and then “autonomously implementing this direction.” CCA may also be “significantly less expensive” than crewed aircraft, which would allow warfighters to use them as expendable or recoverable/attritable assets. CCA variants could cost single digit millions to tens of millions of dollars each depending on their designs and mission systems

and from the same Mitchell report based on the wargaming findings,

One of the most important insights is the potential to use CCA as lead forces to help disrupt and suppress China’s advanced integrated air defense system (IADS), improve the lethality and survivability of the Air Force’s counterair forces, and magnify the service’s capacity to project combat mass into highly contested battlespaces.

Another insight is that CCA could increase the Air Force’s capacity to generate lethal mass for counter air operations. Appropriately equipped CCA can perform as force multipliers that increase the number of sensors and weapons the Air Force can project into contested battlespaces. CCA could also extend the sensor and weapon ranges of stealthy crewed aircraft they team with, increasing their lethality and survivability. This will require designing CCA with enough survivability to ensure they can reach their air-to-air weapons launch points in contested environments.

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Need-For-CCAs-for-Disruptive-Air-Warfare-FULL-FINAL.pdf

Yes preventing the loss of manned platforms is an intent of CCAs but so is magazine depth and autonomous operations.

But I think it would be rather trivial for an IRST to detect an AAM launch and easy for a pair of networked aircraft to triangulate. That seems like a stumbling block for a stealth aircraft, at least on that does not have high performance.

When you detect the missiles does the networked aircraft's IRST also have to be looking at the exact same spot at the same time? When the missile is launched are you then tracking the missile or the aircraft? How do you know it is a missile you are tracking and not a flare or reflection or an aircraft or a balloon? Does the missile use a loft profile to expand its range? What is the IRST tracking when the missile is in flight, the missile body or the rocket motor? What is the uncertainly of the launch aircraft once the missile leaves it, how far does it travel before other sensors could be queued onto the target?

 

[sferrin]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

Very doubtful.

 

[Scott Kenny]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

Maybe any ground attack missions that they had been planning on the NGAD doing itself? Or taking over the Strike Eagle replacement?

 

[JoshuaH]

I mean, it's already a ghost in the air, so for BVR work it's extremely capable.

But as soon as you start launching AAMs, you light up like a christmas tree to MAWS/DRICM units. Which probably results in something being sent close enough to get a Sidewinder lock on your B-21. And now you're dead, because the B-21 cannot dogfight.

With the advent of DIRCM and higher power laser self-defense systems (does not need SHIELD level power, since only needs to blind or permanently damage IR seekers), dogfighting with IR missiles might become less effective... (Not trying to say that firing AAMs from B-21 is a good idea, since a cued radar search reduces the power requirement to burn through stealth and jamming by 1-2 orders of magnitude, depending on how specific the cue is)

 

[JoshuaH]

The CRS has a reasonable description of the intent of CCAs by the USAF.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12740#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20is,and%20existing%20crewed%20fighter%20jets.

We also have this definition,


and from the same Mitchell report based on the wargaming findings,

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Need-For-CCAs-for-Disruptive-Air-Warfare-FULL-FINAL.pdf

Yes preventing the loss of manned platforms is an intent of CCAs but so is magazine depth and autonomous operations.


When you detect the missiles does the networked aircraft's IRST also have to be looking at the exact same spot at the same time? When the missile is launched are you then tracking the missile or the aircraft? How do you know it is a missile you are tracking and not a flare or reflection or an aircraft or a balloon? Does the missile use a loft profile to expand its range? What is the IRST tracking when the missile is in flight, the missile body or the rocket motor? What is the uncertainly of the launch aircraft once the missile leaves it, how far does it travel before other sensors could be queued onto the target?

A staring system like the DAS on the F-35 looks at every single spot in the sphere around the aircraft all at once... It only provides limited accuracy (1024 pixels for 90 degrees), but sufficient for a cued radar/EOTS search or dispatch a fighter in that direction.

 

[JoshuaH]

B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?

My personal list of possible NGAD missions B-21 can take over, listing from most likely to least likely:

• Command and Control of CCA: B-21 is likely the only twin-seated aircraft close enough to the CCAs to talk to them using range of line-of-sight LPI datalinks like MADL, besides a twin-seated NGAD.
• Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance: B-21 is likely the largest ISR platform close to the front line, besides the unmanned "RQ-180"/P-ISR, with the benefit of having human on board for on-the-fly analysis like EA-18G.
• Self-escort: During most of the Cold War, strategic bombers are expected to carry out their missions unescorted... There had been multiple attempts to provide air combat capabilities to the bombers for self defense, which may or may not work out this time.
• Long-range missile truck: Firing long-range air-to-air missiles to hit "force multiplier" platforms behind enemy lines, B-21 can be relatively far from the front line to potentially have enough time to escape after being detected through the missile's IR signature...