Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

If the B21 is a smaller aircraft than the B2, does that mean it will be used as an F111 rather than a strategic heavy bomber?
 
The smaller footprint comes from a lighter structure and benefits mainly cost and range (equal or better than the B-2 with all the other gizmo added).

At best we could say that B-21 is strategic bomber with a tactical footprint. It's a noticeable difference that won't be missed by pear opponents.
 
Lc89 said:
If the B21 is a smaller aircraft than the B2, does that mean it will be used as an F111 rather than a strategic heavy bomber?
Click to expand...
Doubtful. F111 had ferry range of over 5000 km. And combat radius of roughly 2000 km on a simple bombing mission with internal bomb load.
B-2 allegedly has ferry range of 11 000 km. (though of course that may be a fake figure) Combat radius is unknown but I wouldn't be surprised it can do 4000+ km with a decent bomb load.

With the landing gear depicted, IF we take it for granted, we're looking at 100-120 tons MTOW. Almost 2.5 to 3 times the F111 figure. And roughly 40 to 30% less than B-2.

But would that mean similar range drawback? likely not.
B-2 is a 4 engine plane, while B-21's two engines should be somewhat more fuel efficient solution. Airliners of similar generation usually benefit from 5-10% lower fuel consumption per seat per mile when using 2 engines compared to 4. B-2's engines are basically 80s tech. B-21's engines have 30+ years of tech development. New variants of F135 engine have projected 6% better fuel efficiency compared to engines from 10 years ago.

B-21 may enjoy fairly low construction weight compared to B-2. And enjoy lighter RAM materials. F-35 to F-22 comparison is a pretty good sign there.

So, even if B-21 ends up 35% lighter, MTOW wise, than B-2, I don't think the range and payload will also be 35% less. It might be as little as 10 or 20% less. I think USAF would be willing to sacrifice a bit of payload compared to B-2 to get B-1B range. (9400 km ferry) Which is perfectly doable for this "little" package. Which isn't that little anyway.
 
I also think they went with a smaller aircraft for the following reasons;
(1) A smaller aircraft has a smaller signature. Given the signature performance the USAF was looking for, that might not have been possible with a B-2 sized aircraft.
(2) The big thing in the military now is networking. Having a greater quantity of smaller aircraft, versus a lower quantity of big aircraft means more nodes in the network that can have a greater distribution, which most likely shortens the time delta in the kill chain.
 
Last edited:
Probably that they went smaller because they had enough range first with the B-2 and secondly, new tech gave them a similar range in a more nimble design.
There is no way that they would have relinquished range to rely today on non-stealthy tanker support.
 
Sundog said:
I also think they went with a smaller aircraft for the following reasons;
(1) A smaller aircraft has a smaller signature. Given the signature performance the USAF was looking for, that might not have been possible with a B-2 sized aircraft.
(2) The big think in the military now is networking. Having a greater quantity of smaller aircraft, versus a lower quantity of big aircraft means more nodes in the network that can have a greater distribution, which most likely shortens the time delta in the kill chain.
Click to expand...

Think it has more to do with the SDB II or another similar smaller munitions being dropped out of it. You also don't need a 40k lbs payload to launch a couple of AARGM-ERs.
 
Sundog said:
I also think they went with a smaller aircraft for the following reasons;
(1) A smaller aircraft has a smaller signature. Given the signature performance the USAF was looking for, that might not have been possible with a B-2 sized aircraft.
(2) The big thing in the military now is networking. Having a greater quantity of smaller aircraft, versus a lower quantity of big aircraft means more nodes in the network that can have a greater distribution, which most likely shortens the time delta in the kill chain.
Click to expand...

Having a Unit cost as a KPP probably also played a role in this. Being able to field it in the 100-200 range probably also played a role. If I were to guess, I'd guess the bomber program that was terminated prior to restructuring as the LRS-B probably created designs that were unaffordable to acquire in such high numbers.
 
bring_it_on said:
If I were to guess, I'd guess the bomber program that was terminated prior to restructuring as the LRS-B probably created designs that were unaffordable to acquire in such high numbers.
Click to expand...

You don't need to guess, that is exactly why it was cancelled. At least that was what was noted in Aviation Week at the time.
 
Sundog said:
bring_it_on said:
If I were to guess, I'd guess the bomber program that was terminated prior to restructuring as the LRS-B probably created designs that were unaffordable to acquire in such high numbers.
Click to expand...

You don't need to guess, that is exactly why it was cancelled. At least that was what was noted in Aviation Week at the time.
Click to expand...

And industrial automation supposedly played a large role in NG winning the contract, while Boeing focused on digital design tools with Black Diamond. I'm surprised Black Diamond hasn't come up more with the 737 Max problems.
 
NeilChapman said:
slight mods to production budget requests.


about.bgov.com

All-in-one public affairs and government news platform - Bloomberg Government

Federal and state government public affairs software. Get breaking policy news, legislative updates, bill and regulation tracking, and directories.
about.bgov.com about.bgov.com
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I'm assuming that the $10.28 Billion represents 3 out of the 5 initial lots that collectively would result in an order for the 21 LRIP aircraft. The other 2 would be outside the FYDP. I just hope they can get production rate close to 10 at Full-Rate Production and hold that for at least a decade. At some point we need to transition all these RDT&E efforts into scaled production and this includes buying 80-100 F-35A's and close to 10 B-21's a year. Otherwise the size of the AF will continue to shrink, and the average fleet age will continue to rise.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
This is interesting. I'm assuming that the $10.28 Billion represents 3 out of the 5 initial lots that collectively would result in an order for the 21 LRIP aircraft. The other 2 would be outside the FYDP. I just hope they can get production rate close to 10 at Full-Rate Production and hold that for at least a decade. At some point we need to transition all these RDT&E efforts into scaled production and this includes buying 80-100 F-35A's and close to 10 B-21's a year. Otherwise the size of the AF will continue to shrink, and the average fleet age will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

Do you feel 10/yr is hard to attain? Why not more? The US has no choice at this point, bombers are aging and China is rising.
 
In_A_Dream said:
bring_it_on said:
This is interesting. I'm assuming that the $10.28 Billion represents 3 out of the 5 initial lots that collectively would result in an order for the 21 LRIP aircraft. The other 2 would be outside the FYDP. I just hope they can get production rate close to 10 at Full-Rate Production and hold that for at least a decade. At some point we need to transition all these RDT&E efforts into scaled production and this includes buying 80-100 F-35A's and close to 10 B-21's a year. Otherwise the size of the AF will continue to shrink, and the average fleet age will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

Do you feel 10/yr is hard to attain? Why not more? The US has no choice at this point, bombers are aging and China is rising.
Click to expand...

It would be a substantial investment and allocation of annual procurement dollars. The best the USAF will likely spend (with congressional additions) on the F-35A per year between now and 2025 is likely to be in the $6-6.5 Billion range. 10 B-21's a year would definitely require an ever higher annual spend. Also, since the USAF is requesting 48 F-35A's through 2025 (though they may receive anywhere from 55-62 given Congress adds them back based on Air Force unfunded priorities) these two buy rate increases may coincide.

From a USAF leadership and political perspective the temptation is always there to add to the program (say increase the requirement from "at least 100" to "at least 140") but not really alter the production rates. Both the Obama and the Trump administration have been doing that under the Budget Control Act with most of the higher "increases" in production rates being pushed to the right leading to a point where all these major ramp ups in investment are going to run into each other (F-35 ramp rate, B-21 FRP, and GBSD investments) and cause a lot of friction.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
It would be a substantial investment and allocation of annual procurement dollars. The best the USAF will likely spend (with congressional additions) on the F-35A per year between now and 2025 is likely to be in the $6-6.5 Billion range. 10 B-21's a year would definitely require an ever higher annual spend. Also, since the USAF is requesting 48 F-35A's through 2025 (though they may receive anywhere from 55-62 given Congress adds them back based on Air Force unfunded priorities) these two buy rate increases may coincide.

From a USAF leadership and political perspective the temptation is always there to add to the program (say increase the requirement from "at least 100" to "at least 140") but not really alter the production rates. Both the Obama and the Trump administration have been doing that under the Budget Control Act with most of the higher "increases" in production rates being pushed to the right leading to a point where all these major ramp ups in investment are going to run into each other (F-35 ramp rate, B-21 FRP, and GBSD investments) and cause a lot of friction.
Click to expand...

We have to see if Congress is willing to push military spending back to Cold War % of GDP levels, especially with the world in an economic slump.
 
Please keep in mind the title of this thread !
It's the B-21 and NOT the defence spending of the US ...
PLEASE REGARD THIS AS A WARNING !
 
Does this article confirm the raider is indeed smaller with a smaller load than the spirit? Why only plan on 100 then to replace all of the spirits, buffs, and bones? Would it make sense then to build a decontented and cheaper variant for purely conventional missions to take over for the strike eagles or is that just not a feasible option?
 
rooster said:
Does this article confirm the raider is indeed smaller with a smaller load than the spirit?
Click to expand...

The general concensus, and what little details have been published, point to an aircraft about half the capability of the B-2.
 
rooster said:
Does this article confirm the raider is indeed smaller with a smaller load than the spirit? Why only plan on 100 then to replace all of the spirits, buffs, and bones? Would it make sense then to build a decontented and cheaper variant for purely conventional missions to take over for the strike eagles or is that just not a feasible option?
Click to expand...
Raider is not going to replace buffs. No one saying there will be built only 100 of them. You can downsize weapon load and weapon bay size for price of more efficient and cheaper airframe when you have latest generation of pgms.
 
The important thing that goes down from the previous generation of Stealth intercontinental bomber is the Weight. With a reduced T.O mass, you have less drag, hence more range. Then Planner will come to you with a mission range satisfying mission criteria and you can downsize the airframe to match that. Less size means even more weight & drag reduction. It then comes that you have a direct trade b/w payload and range where every pounds removed augments weight reduction, hence diminish airframe minimal size, reducing drag, leading to even more weight removed... hence the apparent penalty in range of downsizing.

The great inherent benefice with downsizing aside of acquisition cost (as discussed above) is also in the system design and CPFH. For example, the reduction on the number of engines will cut mass and a lot of complexity out of the design (especially with stealth), hence... (yes again) increases range.

Regarding what's the right size for the weapon bay, we have also to acknowledge that most weapon see mass and size reduction and that stealth is all about being in-range, reducing the need for bulky weapons fitted with range extensions (glide kit, rocket booster, sensor kit...).

It's then not surprising that the B-21 will be smaller. It would be however foolish to think that capability will go down.
 
Last edited:
The B-21’s capability will not go down, rather it will probably be better than the B-2’s, carrying new weapons that the B-2 can only dream about in the future.
 
FighterJock said:
The B-21’s capability will not go down, rather it will probably be better than the B-2’s, carrying new weapons that the B-2 can only dream about in the future.
Click to expand...
But it will carry less, right? Suppose you're talking about the new alcm, then it will carry half what the spirit could carry, correct? Conventional bombs which its bound to carry into combat sooner or later, it will carry half. 100 seems like a smallish number. And that's if congress doesn't step in and truncate the buy.
Also being so small, is it even going to have extra room to carry aams as we all seemed to think it would for self escort and protection? And then there was the NG patent for anti missile missiles. Where would room for those go, plus bombs plus aams?
 
rooster said:
FighterJock said:
The B-21’s capability will not go down, rather it will probably be better than the B-2’s, carrying new weapons that the B-2 can only dream about in the future.
Click to expand...
But it will carry less, right? Suppose you're talking about the new alcm, then it will carry half what the spirit could carry, correct? Conventional bombs which its bound to carry into combat sooner or later, it will carry half. 100 seems like a smallish number. And that's if congress doesn't step in and truncate the buy.
Also being so small, is it even going to have extra room to carry aams as we all seemed to think it would for self escort and protection? And then there was the NG patent for anti missile missiles. Where would room for those go, plus bombs plus aams?
Click to expand...

Less is a relative term. Perhaps the question should be whether B-21 will be less effective than B-2.

One hundred has (IIRC) always been a minimum.
 
The problem "capability" is running into in this conversation is everyone has their idea of what that means without defining it. Does it mean how many bombs it can carry per sortie? Does it mean how many targets it can find and take out per sortie in contested airspace?
 
It does matter how tech brings down te size of PGMs Msles. Tere will be no where near enough to engage the tgts specified in studies. Someone is selling steealth and airplanes w/ no replacement for BUFF on the horizon.. Disfunction.
 
TomcatViP said:
It's then not surprising that the B-21 will be smaller. It would be however foolish to think that capability will go down.
Click to expand...
I've not heard that it would have the B-2's capability of carrying a pair of 30,000lb GBU-57s or 80 500lb JDAMS. Did that change?
 
Probably not. But B-21 will be able to take out ADS opening the way for B-2 or even C-130 replacement to drop it. The cost equation will be sustainable that way for the USAF, meaning IMOHO that the capability to drop GBU-57 on real target will be on overall increased in the system.

I am with @Sundog that we are failing semantically.
 
TomcatViP said:
Probably not. But B-21 will be able to take out ADS opening the way for B-2 or even C-130 replacement to drop it. The cost equation will be sustainable that way for the USAF, meaning IMOHO that the capability to drop GBU-57 on real target will be on overall increased in the system.

I am with @Sundog that we are failing semantically.
Click to expand...

So you need to keep the B-2 around to do the job that a B-21 cannot? That doesn't support the assertion that "it would be however foolish to think that capability will go down".
 
@sferrin :
No,in the future it could be a C-130, or the its replacement platform. Why keep the burden of having a bigger more expensive to sustain Bomber when the capability needed dictating the size could be offset on another cheaper platform (here the ADS is down leaving a non-stealthy bomber doing the mission)?

In parallel, the need for high energetic weapon to be delivered in critical strategic situation has now focused on HGV, the ones that can be embarked inside the wb of a Raider...

There is no loss in capability but a notable increase.
 
Last edited:
It seems likely that total ordnance carried compared to the B-2 will go down, at least in terms of weight. It seems to me so long as range and penetration ability is preserved, multiple aircraft could be used on a target were it necessary. There are few things that require 80 PGMs to engage, and presumably if such a mission were required two aircraft could cover it. In actual usage, the B-2s seem to travel in pairs. There also will be far more B-21s than there are B-2s, even if the minimum purchase is made. B-2s will likely be the first aircraft retired when B-21s come on line, as it is expensive to maintain and savings is maximized by retiring an entire aircraft type, and the B-2 is operated in the smallest numbers.
 
The "capability" is the ability to engaged large numbers of MTI tgts but more importantly huge numbers of hardened DMPIs amoungest a distributed and increasing deadly (at longer ranges (up to 1000miles)) IADS and within a short time period . That these numbers of tgts both moving and as well as hardened stationary tgts across the Asian landmass are going to be engaged in some sort detering manner is like the furher promising wonder weapons winning WWII. .am a great fan of energetics miniaturizing muntions is great but way too few tgts will be effectively engaged.

 

Attachments

  • Small Med Lrg.png
    Small Med Lrg.png
    606.5 KB · Views: 88
Last edited:
I am not a ex military guy, just a fan. That said what am I missing? If spirits typically travel in pairs, the logically you need 3 to 4 raiders if they travel in pairs in case more munitions are required, correct? I am not seeing how the USAF arrived at 100 smallish bombers to replace 80 spirits and bones. And the production rate is very low from all reports, so its going to take a very long time to buy 100; it will take a long time to reach the point where the bones and spirits can be retired and the bones are worn out by all accounts. Thus is our 5th stealth aircraft so with all that industrial know how, shouldn't we be able to build more rapidly a stealthy aircraft?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom