Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

TomS said:
Interesting that rather than having split surfaces they deflect the inner ailerons down and the outer ones up.
Click to expand...
Similar to how many European designs control yaw. It's a simpler/lower cost/lighter weight solution to the split aileron design.
 
TomS said:
Interesting that rather than having split surfaces they deflect the inner ailerons down and the outer ones up.
Click to expand...
Flight surface configuration just like the X-47B (minus any upper in-laid surfaces?) including the nose/beak. Notice the lower cylindrical pop-out antennas, that's new. The B-2 the single, lower blade-type pop-out unit.
 
An interesting concept bobbymike, sounds like a modern day equivalent of the mighty North American Mustang World War 2 bomber escort fighter but this time being unmanned.
 
breakingdefense.com

Bomber fleet size target 'probably' needs to be reassessed: Air Force Global Strike chief - Breaking Defense

“We have 141 bombers in the inventory,” said Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere. “The demand signal for the bombers is greater than any time I’ve seen in my career, across the fabric of every geographic combatant command.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

By which he means more B-21s than the 220 bombers figure being kicked around, which would require 145 B-21s.

OTOH he was addressing the Mitchell Institute, where the answer is always going to be "moar bombers!"
 
DWG said:
breakingdefense.com

Bomber fleet size target 'probably' needs to be reassessed: Air Force Global Strike chief - Breaking Defense

“We have 141 bombers in the inventory,” said Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere. “The demand signal for the bombers is greater than any time I’ve seen in my career, across the fabric of every geographic combatant command.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

By which he means more B-21s than the 220 bombers figure being kicked around, which would require 145 B-21s.

OTOH he was addressing the Mitchell Institute, where the answer is always going to be "moar bombers!"
Click to expand...

The final number is something that probably won’t need to be decided on for a decade. The only short-medium term consideration is rate of production. USAF seems unwilling to alter the program while budgets remain flat.
 
DWG said:
breakingdefense.com

Bomber fleet size target 'probably' needs to be reassessed: Air Force Global Strike chief - Breaking Defense

“We have 141 bombers in the inventory,” said Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere. “The demand signal for the bombers is greater than any time I’ve seen in my career, across the fabric of every geographic combatant command.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

By which he means more B-21s than the 220 bombers figure being kicked around, which would require 145 B-21s.

OTOH he was addressing the Mitchell Institute, where the answer is always going to be "moar bombers!"
Click to expand...

I think the confidence is there for a larger B-21 production run, especially given the maturity of the technology and the time it can buy the US while it evaluates its future. However, signaling a larger production run is going to put pressure on US adversaries, and we'll have to see what that results in too.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I somehow think that the only argument about B-21 production is rate, not total numbers.
Click to expand...

Very astute. I would think there is some interesting math on how rapidly you could grow the Raider component of the bomber fleet if NG and the USAF really leaned into expanding the number of production lines. A second production site in the middle of the country might be worth kicking around, I dunno.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Very astute. I would think there is some interesting math on how rapidly you could grow the Raider component of the bomber fleet if NG and the USAF really leaned into expanding the number of production lines. A second production site in the middle of the country might be worth kicking around, I dunno.
Click to expand...
The site of production is not really the issue, it all comes down to the lower tier suppliers being able to ramp to the level required. Some of those lower tier suppliers would need significant investment and time to make that happen. You then also introduce F-35 issues of attempting to expand production while also supporting an in service fleet with the spares they need. F-35 was a special example given the confluence of COVID and such a significant ramp but still I expect B-21 would face some issues going from its current rate to double that.
 
The most recent comments indicated there was some additional unused capacity in the existing line. Outside of that I think it would take an act of Congress to add additional lines. The B-21 program production rate was engineered to be budget proof, and given flat budgets, I do not see it being significantly altered.
 
Ozair said:
The site of production is not really the issue, it all comes down to the lower tier suppliers being able to ramp to the level required. Some of those lower tier suppliers would need significant investment and time to make that happen. You then also introduce F-35 issues of attempting to expand production while also supporting an in service fleet with the spares they need. F-35 was a special example given the confluence of COVID and such a significant ramp but still I expect B-21 would face some issues going from its current rate to double that.
Click to expand...
Not directly - the point about the benefits of a second distinct geographic site to diversify production and core maintenance/ upgrade of the mainstay strike platform speak for itselfand should be considered if there is a way to ramp up the rate of production. I didnt address the supply chain as those challenges and their ilk should be viciously obvious to a thinking reader of this forum.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Not directly - the point about the benefits of a second distinct geographic site to diversify production and core maintenance/ upgrade of the mainstay strike platform speak for itselfand should be considered if there is a way to ramp up the rate of production. I didnt address the supply chain as those challenges and their ilk should be viciously obvious to a thinking reader of this forum.
Click to expand...
Does NG have another large factory outside California? I know Grumman used to have a factory on Long Island, but didn't that get torn down for housing after the F-14 was cancelled?
 
Training_Dummy said:
Not directly - the point about the benefits of a second distinct geographic site to diversify production and core maintenance/ upgrade of the mainstay strike platform speak for itselfand should be considered if there is a way to ramp up the rate of production.
Click to expand...
It really depends on what the intent of a second production line is. If it is just numbers then there likely isn't a need, I expect it would make more sense to expand Palmdale. The USAF does B-2 depot maintenance at Tinkler as well as with NG at Palmdale and with the B-2 to be replaced by the B-21 there should be space freed up to either transition to B-21 depot work, which should be significantly less than the B-2, or expand B-21 production.

Training_Dummy said:
I didnt address the supply chain as those challenges and their ilk should be viciously obvious to a thinking reader of this forum.
Click to expand...
LOL, sure dude.

Scott Kenny said:
Does NG have another large factory outside California? I know Grumman used to have a factory on Long Island, but didn't that get torn down for housing after the F-14 was cancelled?
Click to expand...
Long gone. I visited the site for other reasons a couple of years ago now.
 
The two Grumman aircraft manufacturing sites on Lawng Island were Bethpage and Peconic River, later known as CTO (Calverton Test Operations).
 
Ozair said:
It really depends on what the intent of a second production line is. If it is just numbers then there likely isn't a need, I expect it would make more sense to expand Palmdale. The USAF does B-2 depot maintenance at Tinkler as well as with NG at Palmdale and with the B-2 to be replaced by the B-21 there should be space freed up to either transition to B-21 depot work, which should be significantly less than the B-2, or expand B-21 production.
Click to expand...
The obvious reason to start up a second production line is to increase aircraft delivery rate above what Palmdale can do.

Though during WW2 the US actually had planes completed to one tooling standard, and then flown to another factory location to be updated to the current fighting spec. Because it wasn't worth retooling the production factory with the resulting gap in production.


Ozair said:
Long gone. I visited the site for other reasons a couple of years ago now.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate. Where else does NG have facilities?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom