Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[Hydroman]

Can you stop this useless what-if may be perhaps possible designation off-topic?
AF didn't have to redesignate any of B-2 test AVs.

Yes flateric, the USAF rotates a single B-2 (from the various tail numbers) through flight test when need be, primarily when upgrading the aircraft, mainly for systems upgrades, they don't re-designate.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

With cost savings experienced in the program, and potential increased procurement numbers, has there been any new talks of US allies purchasing the B-21?

 

[FighterJock]

Despite the US trying to get the Austrailians to buy some there has been no further attempts at allies buying the B-21, which is a pity as Northrop should be pushing for sales.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With cost savings experienced in the program, and potential increased procurement numbers, has there been any new talks of US allies purchasing the B-21?

I can't see a whole lot of countries wanting to drop some $500mil/plane on a dozen or two airframes.

 

[Josh_TN]

I can't see a whole lot of countries wanting to drop some $500mil/plane on a dozen or two airframes.

…and I cannot see most countries even being allowed to. There is probably a mountain of sensitive technology in that airframe.

 

[NMaude]

I can't see a whole lot of countries wanting to drop some $500mil/plane on a dozen or two airframes.

If the B-21 is produced in large numbers (200+) then I can see Australia or the UK being sold second-hand early-production B-21s as they become available.

…and I cannot see most countries even being allowed to. There is probably a mountain of sensitive technology in that airframe.

This! Perhaps UK, Australia or Canada.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Australia & the UK don't necessarily need the B-21, they can use an unmanned platform that can integrate with the B-21s.

 

[NMaude]

Australia & the UK don't necessarily need the B-21, they can use an unmanned platform that can integrate with the B-21s.

True but IIRC the B-21 is designed to be flown without a crew onboard. Also a piloted aircraft has more flexibility than a UCAV.

 

[sferrin]

True but IIRC the B-21 is designed to be flown without a crew onboard. Also a piloted aircraft has more flexibility than a UCAV.

I sure hope not. We don't need one landing in China.

 

[Foo Fighter]

If the B-21 is produced in large numbers (200+) then I can see Australia or the UK being sold second-hand early-production B-21s as they become available.



This! Perhaps UK, Australia or Canada.

I do not see the price coming down to 50p and a half chewed Everton mint so, not a real starter, for ten or anything else........

 

[bring_it_on]

I can't see a whole lot of countries wanting to drop some $500mil/plane on a dozen or two airframes.

And the cost will never be $500 Million in purchase year dollars. All said, any B-21 FMS for new build airframes will come with a unit cost of $800 Million to $1 Billion or basically the cost of a Frigate that some of those Navies are also buying.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And the cost will never be $500 Million in purchase year dollars. All said, any B-21 FMS for new build airframes will come with a unit cost of $800 Million to $1 Billion or basically the cost of a Frigate that some of those Navies are also buying.

Excellent point.

Especially about the "costing as much as a Frigate" side of the equation.

 

[Kerburettor]

Is the B-21 expected to have an astro-inertial navigation system like the B-2? It would make sense due to the necessity of operating in potentially GPS-denied environments and it being a long-range & high-altitude bomber would make using this technology sensible IMO.

 

[_Del_]

I sure hope not. We don't need one landing in China.

Pretty sure that was nixed early to ease cost and the development timeline, but they did talk about it

 

[Scott Kenny]

True but IIRC the B-21 is designed to be flown without a crew onboard.

They looked at that early on, then decided it didn't save enough money. Once a plane is the size of a B-21, the cockpit is a minimal cost/weight portion of the total aircraft.

 

[NMaude]

Once a plane is the size of a B-21, the cockpit is a minimal cost/weight portion of the total aircraft.

Good point! Now what I'd like to know is will the B-21's cockpit have structural provision for a third aircrew position like the B-2A does?

 

[Hydroman]

Good point! Now what I'd like to know is will the B-21's cockpit have structural provision for a third aircrew position like the B-2A does?

I don't think so, the B-2 3rd man provision was not required plus you had and have a good level of automation and the DMS works well (from experience) and they gained a crew rest area. The B-21 will do just fine with two crew members, much more evolved automation and I am pretty sure a kick-ass DMS (probably evolved ZSR combos) or other new tech. Now for long missions, the USAF may have left room for a crew rest area in the B-21.

 

[flateric]

It's clearly seen by escape hatches markings and UARSSI lead stripes position that it has no provisions for a third crew member.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Good point! Now what I'd like to know is will the B-21's cockpit have structural provision for a third aircrew position like the B-2A does?

I'd expect at least a jump seat for an instructor, but I don't believe it's got an ejection seat spot.

 

[flateric]

B-2 flies without jump seat since the beginning. What all these sims are built for?
(And why do you hate instructor pilots so much?)

 

[FighterJock]

The days of the instructor pilots are well and truly over ever since the simulator took over, indeed the last bomber that featured jump seats was the B-1B.

 

[flateric]

B-1B? Jump seats?

 

[TomS]

B-1B? Jump seats?

Yep, provision for one instructor pilot on a seat between and behind the pilot/copilot and an avionics instructor between and forward of the two aft-facing systems operators.

 

[flateric]

Yep, provision for one instructor pilot on a seat between and behind the pilot/copilot and an avionics instructor between and forward of the two aft-facing systems operators.

"Acklin, Bean and Whitlock weren’t so lucky"(c)

 

[Scott Kenny]

(And why do you hate instructor pilots so much?)

Because they're usually there to fail you in the military...

 

[NMaude]

"Acklin, Bean and Whitlock weren’t so lucky"(c)

I'm not familiar with those individuals.

 

[TomS]

I'm not familiar with those individuals.

Major James Acklin, '68 Sacrifices Life Saving Others

 

[raptor82]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1860157857452425312

View: https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1860157857452425312?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DCXRRA2yLx8/?igsh=cjZseXNxZDg0ajY4

 

[4decaa]

Those are some leaky engine & mech panels

 

[TMA1]

Does anyone know why it looks like there is some kind of wire or tow line behind it?

 

[flateric]

Does anyone know why it looks like there is some kind of wire or tow line behind it?

Trailing cone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[quellish]

Does anyone know why it looks like there is some kind of wire or tow line behind it?

Static air data source.

There is a lot of new information to digest in these photos.

 

[Hydroman]

We used the same type of trailing air data cone on B-2 AV-1 as a reference and calibration source for the flush air data port subsystem. B-21 AV-1 should also be the only one of the flight test birds which uses the trailing cone like the B-2. Lot's of similarities to the B-2 flight test program, why mess with success. All though, the B-21 flight test program seems to be moving at a quicker pace than the B-2. The USAF was more cautious with the B-2 since it was a radical departure from the norm. When I started at Pico in 1986, there were systems on the B-2 which were removed (example; hydraulic de-aeration system to remove as much entrained air as possible to increase FCAS dynamic stiffness but in the end was not required, was heavy and was not reliable) before first flight since the USAF had a little paranoia about being the first service ever to put an LO flying wing bomber into operational service, the B-2 was very different for the time period.

 

[Scott Kenny]

since the USAF had a little paranoia about being the first service ever to put an LO flying wing bomber into operational service, the B-2 was very different for the time period.

Do you blame them?

I mean, just running a flying wing isn't easy. Now you're laying LO rules on top of that, and the aerodynamics don't really like that...

 

[Josh_TN]

Is there really any other flying wings now except cranked kite unmanned designs? Not sure how relevant the first point is but the second at least lowers the stakes in test flights. It makes you wonder how H-20 is faring.

 

[dark sidius]

Static air data source.

There is a lot of new information to digest in these photos.

Give us some little ? This pictures aree beautiful

 

[Whisperstream]

Give us some little ?

Look at the aerodynamic control surfaces. Notice the amount of deflection.

 

[aim9xray]

Look at the aerodynamic control surfaces. Notice the amount of deflection.

Speedbrake mode.

 

[TomS]

Speedbrake mode.

Interesting that rather than having split surfaces they deflect the inner ailerons down and the outer ones up.

 

[TomcatViP]

Aggravating camber increases drag. The differential b/w up and down balance the aircraft around a constant attitude.