Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[Josh_TN]

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?

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…

 

[Ozair]

My take is people think the B-21 is going to go all B-1R and lob tens of AIM-120s downrange. I think the more likely scenario is the B-21 will have a self defensive capability, probably four or six AIM-120 on the bomb bay doors similar to F-35. Perhaps they could load a rotary launcher with a host of AIM-174/AIM-120/AIM-260 but likely defeats the object of the aircraft.

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?

Consider how the B-21 will target the AIM-174. Using its own radar would leave it open to interception. Even though the AIM-174 is a high speed missile to exploit it's range the host aircraft will need to provide mid course guidance. If the host aircraft isn't providing that guidance it will have to come from another platform, be it CCA or other off board. It sounds good in theory but when you consider the practicalities of it there are some holes when looking at a VLO platform designed to stand in and stay invisible.

 

[mkellytx]

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.

The 83 date coincides with the introduction of the HARM. Both Phantom and Thud Weasels used the STARM, the -105 left service in 83, plus its electronics really couldn't work with HARM.

 

[Josh_TN]

My take is people think the B-21 is going to go all B-1R and lob tens of AIM-120s downrange. I think the more likely scenario is the B-21 will have a self defensive capability, probably four or six AIM-120 on the bomb bay doors similar to F-35. Perhaps they could load a rotary launcher with a host of AIM-174/AIM-120/AIM-260 but likely defeats the object of the aircraft.

Consider how the B-21 will target the AIM-174. Using its own radar would leave it open to interception. Even though the AIM-174 is a high speed missile to exploit it's range the host aircraft will need to provide mid course guidance. If the host aircraft isn't providing that guidance it will have to come from another platform, be it CCA or other off board. It sounds good in theory but when you consider the practicalities of it there are some holes when looking at a VLO platform designed to stand in and stay invisible.

I doubt B-21 was designed with AA in mind and I doubt if it does get involved, it will be a hands on approach. But it would be a fairly ideal command, communications, and passive sensor platform. It is probably an “RQ-180” platform at least, with a manned decision making capability.

It could also optionally host multi role weapons that might have an anti air capability against slow unmaneuverable targets (Y-8/Y-20 series). This might not be a primary role, but the mere existence of the capability (a bomber you never saw sends a missile to hit your AWACS 300mi/500km inside five minutes and disappears after launch ) might still limit opponent operations.

 

[mkellytx]

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.

Completely agree with you @Josh_TN. Once it's in the network, the ability to carry big heavy fast things dropped from .8-.9 M at 40-50 kft gives the Raider the ability to zap some important things fast from a distance or unexpected direction.

@Ozair That line of thinking feels heavily influenced by our experience with only a handful of B-2's. If there are 100-200 Raiders, they're much less silver bullets and key assets in the network to target enemy pain points quickly.

 

[Ozair]

@Ozair That line of thinking feels heavily influenced by our experience with only a handful of B-2's. If there are 100-200 Raiders, they're much less silver bullets and key assets in the network to target enemy pain points quickly.

But those initial 100 B-21s are also replacing existing aircraft and the targets those aircraft would have prosecuted are not going away and arguably are only increasing in number. There are approx 140 bombers in USAF service today and the aim is approx 175 by the time all 100 B-21s are delivered. I know it has been discussed previously but there is likely a gap in throw weight between the two numbers.

While the USAF talks of larger numbers of B-21s I cannot see it happening. Supplementing those aircraft would be and more to the point should be CCAs of some variety that are attritable in the way a B-21 at nearly 700 million today cannot be.

 

[mkellytx]

But those initial 100 B-21s are also replacing existing aircraft and the targets those aircraft would have prosecuted are not going away and arguably are only increasing in number. There are approx 140 bombers in USAF service today and the aim is approx 175 by the time all 100 B-21s are delivered. I know it has been discussed previously but there is likely a gap in throw weight between the two numbers.

Since 2002 I have worked on all three USAF bombers, mostly on, but some off. When I started there were 90ish B-1's, that within 6 months became 67, 21 B-2's, and 76 B-52's. Today that stands at 44 B-1's, 19 B-2's, 76 B-52's. The B-1's weapons bays really limit it, also, it hasn't been a nuclear asset this millennium. If push comes to shove, the B-1 with all of its "throw weight" is actually the same as the Raider because the 3 bomb bays are all too short to carry what the B-52. B-2 and B-21 can carry in their bays (if we're talking, heavy, hypersonic weapons). The B-1 can move a bulkhead, which allows it to put a tank in the very shortened forward bay and carry the same as a BUFF/Raider in the "long bay" and small stuff/big fuel tank in the aft bay. External changes that, but there are treaties that have neutered that capability. Granted, the Bone carries 24 GBU-31 which gives it a higher "throw weight", but just because it carries that many, doesn't mean that a B-2 or B-52 can't have a single pass salvo that's a higher number.

Anyhow, 67+21 = 88 < 100 and 44+19 = 63 << 100. One hundred is a significant upgrade, anything over that is very, very nice.

In a previous post I actually computed the number of DMPI's current and future force structure. It favors the future, even more so if they buy more than 100.

While the USAF talks of larger numbers of B-21s I cannot see it happening. Supplementing those aircraft would be and more to the point should be CCAs of some variety that are attritable in the way a B-21 at nearly 700 million today cannot be.

I very much get the feel that the leadership really would like more, but it feels very much like they're getting told to tow a certain line, we'll see if that event next week changes anything...

 

[Ozair]

Since 2002 I have worked on all three USAF bombers, mostly on, but some off. When I started there were 90ish B-1's, that within 6 months became 67, 21 B-2's, and 76 B-52's. Today that stands at 44 B-1's, 19 B-2's, 76 B-52's. The B-1's weapons bays really limit it, also, it hasn't been a nuclear asset this millennium. If push comes to shove, the B-1 with all of its "throw weight" is actually the same as the Raider because the 3 bomb bays are all too short to carry what the B-52. B-2 and B-21 can carry in their bays (if we're talking, heavy, hypersonic weapons). The B-1 can move a bulkhead, which allows it to put a tank in the very shortened forward bay and carry the same as a BUFF/Raider in the "long bay" and small stuff/big fuel tank in the aft bay. External changes that, but there are treaties that have neutered that capability. Granted, the Bone carries 24 GBU-31 which gives it a higher "throw weight", but just because it carries that many, doesn't mean that a B-2 or B-52 can't have a single pass salvo that's a higher number.

Anyhow, 67+21 = 88 < 100 and 44+19 = 63 << 100. One hundred is a significant upgrade, anything over that is very, very nice.

In a previous post I actually computed the number of DMPI's current and future force structure. It favors the future, even more so if they buy more than 100.

Cool, good to see the numbers again. Right now I see it less about future hypersonics and more about JASSM carriage which for example the B-1 does very well and when the B-1 and B-2 go away I expect the B-21 will have to continue that role. Perhaps that role is taken by C-17s with Rapid Dragon or by some larger unmanned platform that becomes a cruise missile host but there has to be some consideration of being able to deploy weapons beyond the Chinese coast and sufficiently inland or sufficiently deep into Russian territory. Likely to do that you will need a penetration platform that can stand in with sufficient munitions to make the effort worthwhile.

I very much get the feel that the leadership really would like more, but it feels very much like they're getting told to tow a certain line, we'll see if that event next week changes anything...

I not convinced the election will change much from a budget perspective. A 700 million dollar aircraft is still a lot of money and even if the production rate doubled, and NG and sub suppliers were even capable of that, it would not achieve more than a marginal reduction in acquisition cost.

 

[_Del_]

My take is people think the B-21 is going to go all B-1R and lob tens of AIM-120s downrange...
Perhaps they could load a rotary launcher with a host of AIM-174/AIM-120/AIM-260 but likely defeats the object of the aircraft...
Consider how the B-21 will target the AIM-174

The trend (and money) has been towards an ABMS fielded quickly. You can reasonably construct an argument against that, but right or wrong, that's where they are headed whether its current form or with Maven or something new JADC2 is coming/here.

With that in mind, if they had a long-range, net-centric, T3-style missile close or existing it would start to make anyone rethink NGAD.

Because then one just loads up a few B-21's to the gills with the triple-threat missile and plugs away at whatever the ABMS tells you to whether it's a ship, AD site, aircraft, whatever.
Might not even have to push a button. Pit Boss or IBCS (an NG product just now being delivered by coincidence) or what-have-you just decides on the target and tells the ship when and where to fire.

So if you had those capabilities (or thought it was close), I imagine it's pretty easy to reimagine a future wherein more Raiders bring more range, endurance, flexibility, capability to the table than you can ever cram into a new tactical fighter no matter how large and expensive.

Then if your loyal wingman or flocking UCAV program has "eyes" downtown, and all that gets fed into the ABMS, things get even more intriguing.

Might make more Raiders (near-ready, on-time, not overrunning their budget) and a less ambitious/expensive NGAD combination start to look pretty good.

 

[quellish]

I am confused.

The question that Defense News asked was:

As the NGAD review goes forward, like, is it possible that what that ends up with could be the B-21 taking a larger role?

And the Air Force Chief of Staff answered

We have not taken that off the table

The same question had been asked with "F-35" instead of "B-21" the same answer would have been given. Or "C-5" for that matter. The question was intentionally vague and hypothetical, and the answer was more reflective of the fact that the air dominance review is in its very early stages. Nothing is being taken off the table yet.

There is no plan to make the B-21 into some Dale Brown MegaRaider with a fiber-steel nose extension to carry a fighter radar so it can shoot dozens of AMRAAMs or Standards and single handedly win air superiority over the South China Sea. I don't see how you get there from the question or the answer.

These speculative and sensational "news stories" just drive discussion away from more important questions like what happened to all that money that was spent to get NGAD this far.

Man, I bet there are a few really interesting stories there. Like the one about the (hypothetical) airplane that didn't need AMRAAMs or Standards, but didn't actually work. Or how did they validate the concept of the CCA between when this all started with the DARPA air dominance program and today?

Those would be some interesting stories.

 

[joshjosh]

How much has been spent on NGAD and F/A-XX development so far? I recall a number of $30B or more, based on certain calculations (not official NGAD program of record), but for the life of me I can't figure out where or how I saw this number.

 

[Hanz2k]

There is no plan to make the B-21 into some Dale Brown MegaRaider with a fiber-steel nose extension to carry a fighter radar so it can shoot dozens of AMRAAMs or Standards and single handedly win air superiority over the South China Sea.

Don’t you think B21 already use AN-APG 85? It’s NG product.

 

[FighterJock]

It would not surprise me.