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.
 
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?
 
bsky.app

TaskForce23 (@taskforce23.bsky.social)

Some shots I took this year that made me famous (infamous?) on the other site 1. Edwards F-22 with LO external tanks and sensor pods 2. The first EMD B-21 flying around Edwards AFB 3. First public catch of Scaled Composites' Model 437 4. German Tornado with a inert B61-12 #2024recap
bsky.app bsky.app
15d25327-c0c9-4df6-bed4-45fb43849bb7.jpg
 
kmrumble said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall: Accelerating B-21 Production Would Make Sense If It’s Affordable

Faster B-21 bomber production "makes sense" if costs can be kept down, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...

Looks like LaPlante and co facilitized to a rate of seven a year which would mean 14 years of production to field 100 and 28 years to field 200. And now we want an 'affordable' way to accelerate / increase scale to undo that and get to something more reasonable (1 a month or so). Kendall must have been joking on his way out.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Looks like LaPlante and co facilitized to a rate of seven a year which would mean 14 years of production to field 100 and 28 years to field 200. And now we want an 'affordable' way to accelerate / increase scale to undo that and get to something more reasonable (1 a month or so). Kendall must have been joking on his way out.
Click to expand...
I don't think facility capacity is the problem. The Palmdale facility was designed to work on 15 airframes at a time, and support a two aircraft per month production rate on the B-2 program. When Kendall talks about not being able to do it in the next five years, I think he's alluding to the way the LRIP options were structured. Every contract option is dependent on a certain set of terms and schedules. If the USAF changed program assumptions or schedules at this point, they would probably lose the fixed prices tied to the first 21 aircraft.
 
I don’t think they can even expand beyond the awarded contract and LRIP phase. This would be post operational production boost to sustain a higher build rate. Like a bomber a month or so or 20 as Mitchell institute has written about. It’s not just about final assembly but also about suppliers. If the system is designed to produce at a steady rate of seven a month then going from that to 12-20’is not going to be cheap
 
They better not turn the B-21 into the B-2. The fall of the Soviet Union was a lame excuse to cap B-2 production at 21. When I was on the program, we were hoping for 75 aircraft at least. Look at the conflicts post SU collapse, it was purely politics, trying to place blame on someone, some part of the USG or Northrop. Everyone new that the B-2 was pricey ($44B for a 132 aircraft program) because everything had to be invented for such an aircraft. We tested the s**t out of that aircraft and it's one hell of a machine. It's maritime and anti-shipping capabilities are rarely talked about. The B-21 will take these capabilities to the next level, hope the USAF and USG don't screw the pooch for the 21.
 
I won't think that they would Hydroman, I would think that they would have learnt there lessons since the issues of the B-2 back when the Cold War ended. The B-2 force should have been much more than the 20 that they eventually got.
 
The low production rate has been described explicitly as a budget proofing measure. The B-21 program was designed with a hostile congress in mind almost as much as hostile airspace. But that also means ramping up production is problematic and quite honestly not happening without their say so.
 
You've built it for 'efficiency' to congress proof and not for effectiveness to field in a reasonable fashion (a feature and not a bug). But the ramp should be 'affordable' said the same system that deliberately underfunded the initial baseline for production rates. :rolleyes:
 
FighterJock said:
I won't think that they would Hydroman, I would think that they would have learnt there lessons since the issues of the B-2 back when the Cold War ended. The B-2 force should have been much more than the 20 that they eventually got.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are correct in regards to lessons learnt, currently B-21 is moving through flight test at a rapid pace, is on schedule and budget. I have a very good USAF engineering acquaintance from another program we worked together on who is the USAF flight controls lead for the 21.
 
Hydroman said:
I'm sure you are correct in regards to lessons learnt, currently B-21 is moving through flight test at a rapid pace, is on schedule and budget. I have a very good USAF engineering acquaintance from another program we worked together on who is the USAF flight controls lead for the 21.
Click to expand...
B-21 seem to be a very game changer for sure , what else in the futur family of system for the strike mission? we saw a lot B-21 but what could be in the family ?
 
dark sidius said:
B-21 seem to be a very game changer for sure , what else in the futur family of system for the strike mission? we saw a lot B-21 but what could be in the family ?
Click to expand...
I'm still expecting a stealthy recon drone in the works. Guess we could call it QUARTZ or AARS.

Same job as TACIT BLUE, but for strategic support, not front line battlefield radar recon.
 
Same idea here Scott Kenny, a successor to TACIT BLUE would be a good idea especially to fly ahead of the B-21s and supply real time reconnaissance to the bombers before they reach the target area via data link.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm still expecting a stealthy recon drone in the works. Guess we could call it QUARTZ or AARS.

Same job as TACIT BLUE, but for strategic support, not front line battlefield radar recon.
Click to expand...

“RQ-180” already exists, though I suspect there are/will be other platforms.
 
I would certainly expect there to be other unanounced platforms that exist either in the design stage or operating in total secrecy in the Black World just as TACIT BLUE once did all those years ago Josh_TN.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom