Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

4decaa said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
FighterJock said:
B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Josh_TN said:
Presumably the B-21 would have a passive role as sensor/command/communication platform
Click to expand...
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.
 
FighterJock said:
B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?
Click to expand...

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.

Manuducati said:
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.”

www.thedrive.com

"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 www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
 
Manuducati said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
dark sidius said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ozair said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dark sidius said:
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.
Click to expand...
Especially if it can launch recently discussed A2A weapons with considerable range outside of the adversary’s weapons.
 
Ozair said:
The reasons and purposes of CCAs have almost nothing to do with IR/UV detection and corresponding threat.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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,”
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Ozair said:
The CRS has a reasonable description of the intent of CCAs by the USAF.


We also have this definition,


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





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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
FighterJock said:
B-21 taking on some of the NGADs missions? Have they really thought this through?
Click to expand...
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...
 
I think the last assumption could fairly be reasonably discarded.
(and already debated)

Regarding the NGAD and CCA definition, I think it is reasonable to call the combo a Disaggregated Air Superiority fighter, where, elements of it are deported to a range of cheap and shorter life cycle drones (more than just attritable, iterate-able, if I may say).

Then it opens a new set of hypothesis on the late assumption that was stated fairly recently on how part of NGAD could be offset to the B-21. I think that it would then be clear to the reader that those are more probably not the kinetic ones, but those around the sensor roles, attributed to the various CCA.

To sense effectively within an IADS, Stealth capabilities are often crucials. They however comes with the burden of high cost and secrecy that negates the relaxed cost equation variable, on various grounds, that is attritability. Hence that where the Raider might compete favorably with a range of CCA program that would probably just re-invent the wheel by discarding scarce funds.

There is also a prior set of art within the USAF, the Sensorcraft program, that may provide a favorable comparison figure for the Raider.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Maybe any ground attack missions that they had been planning on the NGAD doing itself? Or taking over the Strike Eagle replacement?
Click to expand...

NGAD had no ground mission AFAIK. B-21 already is the long range strike platform, and F-15EX will like be the E replacement.
 
JoshuaH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly - tracking a AAM rocket motor in realtime likely is not challenging for DAS and data linking between two aircraft seems to be exactly what the F-35s communications systems were designed for. Yes, you are only tracking the missile, not the aircraft the launched it, and that missile might have a number of different trajectories. But if you know the firing point and bearing of trajectory, that gives you a snap shot of where the firing aircraft was a few seconds ago, including altitude, and which direction it was pointing at the time. That should easily allow for a focused sensor coverage across a a degree of arc or so, depending on range. It might even allow for speculative fire - you could probably pick an aim point just assuming a transonic speed along the observed bearing. It would have little chance of success but it likely would force the launching aircraft to maneuver, further exposing it. Forced changes in observed angle or engine output will increase the signal. But at a minimum, sensor coverage could be focused. There might even be radar modes designed to exploit a known position of a low RCS aircraft.

ETA: I do not think flares will be at all representative of AAMs in intensity, longevity, or movement.
 
flateric said:
What if B-21 will be firing Longshots?
Click to expand...

I personally would assume that is the only way it would ever be used to fire A2A ordnance…LREW type weapons at high value opponent assets like AWACs and tankers. Something like SM-6 could allow for that as well as being an anti ship weapon with a tertiary land attack capability. That might allow for a lot of mission flexibility.
 
Josh_TN said:
I personally would assume that is the only way it would ever be used to fire A2A ordnance…LREW type weapons at high value opponent assets like AWACs and tankers. Something like SM-6 could allow for that as well as being an anti ship weapon with a tertiary land attack capability. That might allow for a lot of mission flexibility.
Click to expand...


LongShot isn't a long-range AAM, but rather a follow-on (conceptually at least) to the DARPA Flying Missile Rail idea. Basically a small UAS carrying a couple of standard AAMs. LongShot is conceived as being a potential bomber internal payload, per DoD/DARPA.


Description: The LongShot program is developing and flight demonstrating an air-launched system capable of engaging multiple adversary targets from standoff ranges using existing air-to-air missiles. LongShot will be deployed either externally from existing fighters or internally from existing bombers.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
I personally would assume that is the only way it would ever be used to fire A2A ordnance…LREW type weapons at high value opponent assets like AWACs and tankers. Something like SM-6 could allow for that as well as being an anti ship weapon with a tertiary land attack capability. That might allow for a lot of mission flexibility.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the B-21 will cruise at very high altitude if it fly 60000 or 70000 ft , few of fighters will be abble to catch him with the stealth capacity , it could have direct energy too for self defense , it could play a battlestar role in A/A combat, it could a day, having a supersonic ucav derivative of the works in NGAD to escort him.
 
Josh_TN said:
I personally would assume that is the only way it would ever be used to fire A2A ordnance…LREW type weapons at high value opponent assets like AWACs and tankers. Something like SM-6 could allow for that as well as being an anti ship weapon with a tertiary land attack capability. That might allow for a lot of mission flexibility.
Click to expand...
@Josh_TN That's almost exactly what I was thinking, except, the larger bays and carriage ability of the CSRL on the Raider would allow carriage of the SM-6 with the booster. That would give it some really nice reach out and touch you, while letting the NGAD's and CCA's be the eyes and ears up front. Any enemy fighter has to fly through that swarm, and the time to fly a few hundred miles gives the Raider plenty of time to clear the datum. It wouldn't be efficient for fighters etc., but HVA's, heck yeah.

Also, the bigger jet has way more room for bigger, more sensitive passive sensors, which if flown high have a much better radar horizon...
 
Last edited:
JoshuaH said:
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)
Click to expand...
Yes, high power DIRCM may (probably will) reduce the threat from IR AAMs.

Still doesn't eliminate the threat.
 
Is there a reason we've only seen the AIM174 with the navy so far? (I ask this because we discuss it being used by the Air Force/B-21, which has yet to be observed)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because it's a Navy missile program?

USAF hasn't operated a Standard since the Standard ARM in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

So might it be possible that we don't see this transfer over to the air force? This is more what I'm curious about - it's a fantastic capability that the Navy has just realized, but is there even a possibility of the air force also receiving the weapon as well? :)
 
Scott Kenny said:
USAF hasn't operated a Standard since the Standard ARM in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

I thought the STARMs were retired either in 1983 when the F-105Gs were retired or when the F-4Gs* were retired.

*IMO an extremely short-sighted decision, the F-4Gs should've been updated including airframe refurbishment AND new engines.
 
mkellytx said:
@Josh_TN That's almost exactly what I was thinking, except, the larger bays and carriage ability of the CSRL on the Raider would allow carriage of the SM-6 with the booster. That would give it some really nice reach out and touch you, while letting the NGAD's and CCA's be the eyes and ears up front. Any enemy fighter has to fly through that swarm, and the time to fly a few hundred miles gives the Raider plenty of time to clear the datum. It wouldn't be efficient for fighters etc., but HVA's, heck yeah.

Also, the bigger jet has way more room for bigger, more sensitive passive sensors, which if flown high have a much better radar horizon...
Click to expand...

Well I was using the SM-6 just as example of the advantages of a multi domain missile with A2A as an option on top of other useful missions. I doubt USAF adopts it. Mk-72 carriage also seems problematic, though there’s always the upcoming 21” wide version.

I suspect that HACM will have a terminal sensor of some kind to allow it to hit moving targets. I wonder if large unmaneuverable aircraft would also be on the menu in that case. A2A might not be a primary mode for either B-21 or HACM but it might be a secondary capability for multi engines targets of opportunity. It would give an extreme range with a very short travel time compared to solid fueled weapons.

launching and then managing a group of LongShot type UAVs, in addition to more persistent CCAs, also seems viable.
 
4decaa said:
So might it be possible that we don't see this transfer over to the air force? This is more what I'm curious about - it's a fantastic capability that the Navy has just realized, but is there even a possibility of the air force also receiving the weapon as well? :)
Click to expand...

I consider it unlikely; I used it just as an example because theoretically it could be multi role, not just A2A. On the other hand I would not have thought the Army would adopt it either…
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom