Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[rooster]

Hmm... not so sure it means the first one is completed. But it may be well along by now and we may indeed see a roll out sometime in 2020. If B-2 programme is something of comparison, then we may have 8 months between a roll out and first flight. So first flight in late 2020 or sometime in 2021?

That has always been a mystery to me. Look at the time between rollout and flight of other aircraft. 8 months makes me wonder if what was rolled out was a complete aircraft. What was the time between rollout and powered taxi tests?

 

[NeilChapman]

At least one hopes that the the RCO we're not going to see 10 Block 10 aircraft with no initial capability to launch conventional guided weapons. Perhaps we'll get more than two test aircraft to move rapidly through flight tests.

Even with mature technologies it has to be a quite an endeavor to integrate it all in a new platform. Wasn't it reported that the coatings plant completion is Christmas 2019? With that, would they get coatings from a development location for test aircraft or would test aircraft come after?

I still think an optimistic date for first flight is 2021.

 

[flateric]

Hmm... not so sure it means the first one is completed. But it may be well along by now and we may indeed see a roll out sometime in 2020. If B-2 programme is something of comparison, then we may have 8 months between a roll out and first flight. So first flight in late 2020 or sometime in 2021?

That has always been a mystery to me. Look at the time between rollout and flight of other aircraft. 8 months makes me wonder if what was rolled out was a complete aircraft. What was the time between rollout and powered taxi tests?

B-2 was rolled out on certain date to comply with a schedule to avoid financial sanctions afair. It was _very_ far from being ready for a first flight. She even doesn't have all avionics and ejection seats installed and windows were masked to conceal this fact. (My memory may serve wrong though).

 

[FighterJock]

Hmm... not so sure it means the first one is completed. But it may be well along by now and we may indeed see a roll out sometime in 2020. If B-2 programme is something of comparison, then we may have 8 months between a roll out and first flight. So first flight in late 2020 or sometime in 2021?

That has always been a mystery to me. Look at the time between rollout and flight of other aircraft. 8 months makes me wonder if what was rolled out was a complete aircraft. What was the time between rollout and powered taxi tests?

B-2 was rolled out on certain date to comply with a schedule to avoid financial sanctions afair. It was _very_ far from being ready for a first flight. She even doesn't have all avionics and ejection seats installed and windows were masked to conceal this fact. (My memory may serve wrong though).

You are right about the first B-2 flateric, it took Northrop a further year or so to get the avionics and other bits that were missing fitted. I hope that they do not do the same thing with the B-21.

 

[sferrin]

Why would anybody think the first aircraft would be ready to go fly missions off the line? When's the last time that happened?

 

[Forest Green]

Why would anybody think the first aircraft would be ready to go fly missions off the line? When's the last time that happened?

WWII?

 

[sferrin]

Why would anybody think the first aircraft would be ready to go fly missions off the line? When's the last time that happened?

WWII?

Specifics. Which type specifically?

 

[Forest Green]

Why would anybody think the first aircraft would be ready to go fly missions off the line? When's the last time that happened?

WWII?

Specifics. Which type specifically?

It was a guess, if it ever happened it probably happened then.

 

[kitnut617]

Even with the desperate situation Germany was in towards the end of the war, their ""new"" designs were going to take a few years before they went into service, I don't think the Allies were in any different situation.

 

[sferrin]

With the B-1B there had been the previous 4 B-1As to do a lot of R&D with so the first B-1B made it into the fleet (though probably wasn't ready right out of the gate). I seem to recall there being one or two "iron" birds in the B-2 program that didn't fly. . . I don't know why the B-21 would be any different.

 

[sferrin]

With the B-1B there had been the previous 4 B-1As to do a lot of R&D with so the first B-1B made it into the fleet (though probably wasn't ready right out of the gate). I seem to recall there being one or two "iron" birds in the B-2 program that didn't fly. . . I don't know why the B-21 would be any different.

A lot of it will be cleared in simulation and minor rigs these days. Big aircraft companies want to minimise the footprint of a development program as much as possible because all that money isn't directly earning them profit. If they're like the company I work for, they're looking for automated assembly of large scale structures that cuts down assembly time to the absolute minimum. Ok, they're not after the build rate that airlines want for the next single aisle, but there will be things that take a lot longer to do (fit and finishing etc...) than on an airliner build line.

Yes, but look at recent things like the F-35, CH-53K, SpaceX, etc. All use development articles.

 

[RavenOne]

And today, Vice Chief Of Staff for the USAF announced that (all begin well going to plan) the first flight of the B-21 should take place in December 2021.

So it could be a very good Xmas bonuses all around for the N-G Raider team
plus promotions for the CTF B-21 team.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features...-2021-More-B-52s-to-Come-Out-of-Boneyard.aspx

View attachment 406097

 

[sferrin]

 

[zebra159357]

The US Air Force's secretive new B-21 stealth bomber will take to the skies soon

The Air Force's new stealth bomber, the B-21, is set for its first flight in December 2021. It won't be ready for combat missions until the mid-2020s.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[NeilChapman]

And today, Vice Chief Of Staff for the USAF announced that (all begin well going to plan) the first flight of the B-21 should take place in December 2021.

...

I'd be astonished if they roll out much sooner than 1st flight. No reason for a sneak peek.

Let's hope NG has more success with software development than LM. To be fair, much has been learned since B-2, F-22 and F-35.

Will they be able to lift much code from B-2? Does anyone know if NG provides any code to LM for F-35?

IIRC, B-2 had 6 developmental aircraft. B-21 docs speak of two or three. Are the systems development environments so sophisticated that only two or three articles will be required to meet the expected testing period?

One would expect IOT&E for B-21 will be accelerated by 30 years of B-2 and all the recent F-35 experience. Can't imagine it will take Spirits 7 1/2 years. Perhaps they will get close to a 2025 IOC.

You knew there had to be an app, right? Wouldn't it be cool if NG put it out for the rest of us? Somebody put a bug in their ear. Nothing like building buzz for the brand.

 

[Sundog]

That picture isn't a Northrop-Grumman picture. I think it's just a photoshopped B-2 for the article, to make it look "new."

 

[flateric]

I saw this picture on a different forum...old?

it's fresh, from AFM, but odd. all wrong inlet shape

B-21 to Fly in December 2021; More B-52s to Come Out of Boneyard | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The B-21 Raider is expected to make its first flight in December 2021. Staff illustration by Mike Tsukamoto. The new B-21 Raider stealth bomber is making good progress and should fly in December 2021, USAF Vice Chief of Staff Gen....

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Ogami musashi]

Daily Report | Air & Space Forces Magazine

CMSgt. Terrence Greene, then-command chief for US Forces Japan and Fifth Air Force, prepares for an interview at Misawa AB, Japan, on Feb. 23, 2018. Greene now serves as command chief for Air Mobility Command. Air Force photo by A1C Collette Brooks.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[kitnut617]

but odd. all wrong inlet shape

If no one has seen it, how do we know the inlet shape is all wrong ?

 

[sferrin]

but odd. all wrong inlet shape

If no one has seen it, how do we know the inlet shape is all wrong ?

Because it doesn't look like a likely inlet.

 

[flateric]

but odd. all wrong inlet shape

If no one has seen it, how do we know the inlet shape is all wrong ?

You haven't seen an official B-21 rendering unveiled 2.5 years ago?

 

[kitnut617]

but odd. all wrong inlet shape

If no one has seen it, how do we know the inlet shape is all wrong ?

You haven't seen an official B-21 rendering unveiled 2.5 years ago?

No, but if this is a super secret new aircraft, why would you believe what has been shown. Nobody expected the F-117 looking like it did after all the ""official"" renderings of that aircraft, now did they ---

 

[flateric]

can you show me "all the ""official"" renderings" of F-117?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

can you show me "all the ""official"" renderings" of F-117?

There was one misleading photo, taken at an angle chosen to disguise the actual layout. The B-2, F-22 and F-23 had paintings that were broadly correct but missing on details. That's really all, there's no precedent for giving a totally misleading drawing. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but it seems unlikely.

 

[flateric]

There was one misleading photo, taken at an angle chosen to disguise the actual layout.

It also had its artistic counterpart by Lockheed's Steve Moore. These two are only official images of F-117 unveiled in a first wave of declassification in '89.

 

[sferrin]

So, as far as we know, this one is the "official" one:



and this one is bogus:

 

[FighterJock]

So, as far as we know, this one is the "official" one:

View attachment 616954

and this one is bogus:

View attachment 616955

The bogus B-21 photo reminds me of the first bogus B-2 pictures before the official unveiling of the B-2 especially concerning the engine exhaust layouts.

 

[sublight_]

There was one misleading photo, taken at an angle chosen to disguise the actual layout.

It also had its artistic counterpart by Lockheed's Steve Moore. These two are only official images of F-117 unveiled in a first wave of declassification in '89.

I dont think that its an accident that the artist impression shown here has an almost Escher like layout so its perspective is deliberately distorted. I think the B21 "artwork" was designed the same way.

 

[Mark S.]

Looking at the official artwork it appears to me that the outer wings are longer with respect to the center section than on the B-2. Also the intakes are in shadows and the exhaust system is none existent. Think there will still be surprises when the first example is rolled out. Would not be surprised to see the roll out mid to late summer 2021 with all the ground testing that would need to be done before the first flight. The big question being has the aircraft been sized to carry hypersonic weapons internally? The B-52 isn't going to last forever and they will need to be carried by something. Think the B-21 will be in production for some time and if costs are held to acceptable limits think we will see well over 100 built. Understand the LRSO will be integrated so it will have the room to carry a cruise missile sized hypersonic weapon if that is achievable.

 

[rooster]

Isn't the B2 the perfect shape for a bomber? I recall seeing rcs plots some years ago of various shapes that basically ruled out cranked kites and other shapes such as pure triangles for having greater rcs's.

Isn't it likely we are getting a B2 v2.0? Perhaps new technologies such as wing warping versus flaps and ailerons?

Isn't the real question the payload and engines? Basically its size, payload, and range? Will it have antimissile missiles? Will it carry a couple mald type decoys?

 

[TomcatViP]

for sure distributed propulsion. Then on the spectacular side of it, we might have a degree of visual stealth, something hinted during the program. Weapon bay might be smaller as the entire bomber itself compared to the previous generation explaining the focus on the 52 for hypersonic missiles (better fuel efficiency means less volume is needed at equal range). Wing warping is unlikely IMOHO. The shape being certainly a flying wing , the large surface of the wing leaves plenty of possibility to actively alter the airflow with the same effect: less complexity, less impact on stealth, easier design. decreased maintenance cost,lower overall cost.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

 

[FighterJock]

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

Quite right too Grey Havoc, especially when the USAF have the 50,000 pound Massive Ordnance Perpetrator bomb getting ready for service on the B-2, I too cannot see the B-21 getting designed with a smaller weapons bay.

 

[TomcatViP]

you might well be correct. My remarks were to emphasize what could the plausible main differences.

 

[sferrin]

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

Quite right too Grey Havoc, especially when the USAF have the 50,000 pound Massive Ordnance Perpetrator bomb getting ready for service on the B-2, I too cannot see the B-21 getting designed with a smaller weapons bay.

What 50,000lb MOP are you talking about?

 

[FighterJock]

The

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

Quite right too Grey Havoc, especially when the USAF have the 50,000 pound Massive Ordnance Perpetrator bomb getting ready for service on the B-2, I too cannot see the B-21 getting designed with a smaller weapons bay.

What 50,000lb MOP are you talking about?

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, it is currently a 30,000 pound prototype bomb but I have seen reports that the USAF are planning to increase the poundage to at least 50,000 pound's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

 

[sferrin]

The

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

Quite right too Grey Havoc, especially when the USAF have the 50,000 pound Massive Ordnance Perpetrator bomb getting ready for service on the B-2, I too cannot see the B-21 getting designed with a smaller weapons bay.

What 50,000lb MOP are you talking about?

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, it is currently a 30,000 pound prototype bomb

Yes, I'm aware of the GBU-57. It's not a prototype, hence the GBU-57 service designation. Could you post evidence of plans of a 50,000lb bomb?

 

[Mat Parry]

Whilst the bomb bay might be the same size, the question is how many bomb bays (i.e. reduction to 1 vs B-2's twins)?

 

[Mat Parry]

for sure distributed propulsion. Then on the spectacular side of it, we might have a degree of visual stealth, something hinted during the program. Weapon bay might be smaller as the entire bomber itself compared to the previous generation explaining the focus on the 52 for hypersonic missiles (better fuel efficiency means less volume is needed at equal range). Wing warping is unlikely IMOHO. The shape being certainly a flying wing , the large surface of the wing leaves plenty of possibility to actively alter the airflow with the same effect: less complexity, less impact on stealth, easier design. decreased maintenance cost,lower overall cost.

"For sure distributed propulsion"? As in a hybrid electric system?

 

[FighterJock]

After having a thorough look through Google it appears that m

The

I doubt they'd would be going with a smaller bomb bay, especially on a subsonic design whose lack of speed (hopefully at it is at least as manoeuvrable as the B-2) will already limit it's utility. The USAF have basically sacrificed quality in favour of quantity in this program. If the program doesn't result in a very large production run, then the entire B-21 concept is a bust, because the B-21 wouldn't then be remotely capable of meeting operational demands in anything approaching a major conflict. A smaller bomb bay would make things even worse, requiring even larger numbers of aircraft to be procured, even before we get to things like allowing for attrition combat or otherwise.

Quite right too Grey Havoc, especially when the USAF have the 50,000 pound Massive Ordnance Perpetrator bomb getting ready for service on the B-2, I too cannot see the B-21 getting designed with a smaller weapons bay.

What 50,000lb MOP are you talking about?

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, it is currently a 30,000 pound prototype bomb

Yes, I'm aware of the GBU-57. It's not a prototype, hence the GBU-57 service designation. Could you post evidence of plans of a 50,000lb bomb?

I cannot find my source online sferrin, I think that it may now be unreliable now sorry.