Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

I think 30,000lbs + is firmly in the medium range but I agree it probably wouldn’t qualify as heavy given its three predecessors. Hopefully the range is still roughly equivalent to a strategic bomber; I’m fine with a lighter load considering how small PGMs are now a days.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think 30,000lbs + is firmly in the medium range but I agree it probably wouldn’t qualify as heavy given its three predecessors. Hopefully the range is still roughly equivalent to a strategic bomber; I’m fine with a lighter load considering how small PGMs are now a days.
Click to expand...
B-58: 19,500lbs
B-47: 25,000lbs
Tu-16: 20,000lbs
Tu-22 Blinder: 26,500lbs
Tu-22M Backfire: 53,000lbs
H-6: 26,000lbs.
Victor: 35,000lbs.
Vulcan: 21,000lb.
 
Last edited:
Once again, you guys are failing to understand the mission defines the aircraft, not the other way around. I have no idea what this imaginary "strike" mission is that can't be handled by the B-21, UCAV's, and/or missiles.
 
www.airforcemag.com

Q&A: Interview with Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Interview with Gen. Timothy M. Ray, commander Air Force Global Strike Command.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

Q. What does that suggest for the B-21 buy? That is still several years into the future, but what are your thoughts in that regard?

A. The B-21 program is incredibly healthy. There’s something I want to highlight that’s unique. Randy Walden and the RCO [Rapid Capabilities Office] and Jason Voorhees—Col. Jason Voorhees is the program manager—that unique relationship with RCO and a major command to go do things is actually incredibly effective. And then we start thinking about Randy Walden, and [him] leading the Air Battle Management System [ABMS program] … the connection with the B-21 to ABMS, is total. It’s not an add-on or afterthought, It’s part and parcel [of ABMS]. … Since we have a modular design on the airplane, because it is very mature technology compared to what you might think—far more mature technology—it’s open mission systems and we … were able to be very, very steady on the requirements. … We can very rapidly bring new radios, new emitters, new weapons—those kinds of things—very quickly to the airplane. It took me many years to get a [joint air-to-surface missile] onto a B-2; I’m going to be able to do that in a year. So, when I say it’s the B-21, it’s not the “B two point one.” Right? It is a fundamentally different plane. We briefed Congress on the process, … how we’ll keep requirements stable, and how we’ll keep adding really fresh tech and sustaining the plane in a way no one’s thinking about. And when we start talking about, you know, how we’re doing stuff with bombers around the globe, then the power of that becomes pretty obvious. … So, I’m pretty optimistic about the future of the B-21.

Q. What are some of the attributes you’re looking forward to seeing in the B-21, and what are the things on the table that are going to be most important?

A. We talked about my ability to design in a data-driven sustainment game plan that’s not exquisite and unique like other programs, but that we can be really purposeful about monetizing. That’s going to be one of the key pieces: the fact that you are data driven, and your digital [insight] is going to be a real key piece of how you can do … developmental and operational tests—a synthetic training environment, right? So, we’ve started to work with some of the experts outside the Air Force who’ve been helpful to the Air Force on the Defense Science Board and the Scientific Advisory Board, on how best to create training systems of the future. … We are bringing in some more folks from the outside who are great at the human-machine interface, … we’re going to build that from the beginning. We know that we’re going to reduce the number of specialty codes inside the maintenance world. … We have our maintenance guys right now embedded with the RCO to make sure we design in sustainability and simplicity and to really limit the number of things we have to do uniquely. You take an opportunity to be a different kind of team, with these kinds of capabilities, and it’s really a match made in heaven, with us and RCO.
Click to expand...
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I think 30,000lbs + is firmly in the medium range but I agree it probably wouldn’t qualify as heavy given its three predecessors. Hopefully the range is still roughly equivalent to a strategic bomber; I’m fine with a lighter load considering how small PGMs are now a days.
Click to expand...
B-58: 19,500lbs
B-47: 25,000lbs
Tu-16: 20,000lbs
Tu-22 Blinder: 26,500lbs
Tu-22M Backfire: 53,000lbs
H-6: 26,000lbs.
Victor: 35,000lbs.
Vulcan: 21,000lb.
Click to expand...
Internal carriage only
 
Foo Fighter said:
If the NGAD program is a success, could this lead to a rolling strike aircraft to follow on from the B-21?
Click to expand...

Were you thinking something like a F-111 class bomber? Smaller - so it can operate out of more airfields, while carrying a decent stand-off payload a long range.
 
I am not thinking size at all, merely a rolling program of updates within a set airframe that is able to accept new engines and electronic components
 
I don't think I've seen a bird drop a deuce that massive since Operation Dominic.
 
Once again, nobody has answered the question I asked; What is the mission you're talking about that would need something that can't be executed by the B-21, a UCAV, a missile, and I will add, the NGAD itself? The mission SFerrin is showing is one they're already replacing with a new rocket boosted weapon, IIRC.
 
Sundog said:
Once again, nobody has answered the question I asked; What is the mission you're talking about that would need something that can't be executed by the B-21, a UCAV, a missile, and I will add, the NGAD itself? The mission SFerrin is showing is one they're already replacing with a new rocket boosted weapon, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Mach 2, 2k miles of unrefuelled combat radius, 15k lbs payload, capability to protect itself against DCA, basically a fighter-bomber.(a 2x larger rehash of FB22/23)
 
Last edited:
Why fight with only a moderate chance of survival when you can hide unseen from all and pick only the nasty to be plinked as a bonus?

The amount of sorties that would have to be generated with a dispersed, diluted combat force precludes going forefront in a fight. Bomber will evade and air dominance will be restricted to a time and a place.
There is nothing better for that fight that an aircraft that can generate dozen of sorties without being stuck in hangar for repairs or strikeout by an enemy missile.

That Bomber must be smaller and less complex (less parts, less complexity, more impact on maintenance with a single system change on the contrary of massive Bomber that need multiple systems) and have the best stealth attribute you can get.
 
Love that 80 JDAM drop. 10 B-2s X 80 = 800 aim points awesome capability. Can’t they also carry like 156 SDBs each?
 
Sundog said:
Once again, nobody has answered the question I asked; What is the mission you're talking about that would need something that can't be executed by the B-21, a UCAV, a missile, and I will add, the NGAD itself? The mission SFerrin is showing is one they're already replacing with a new rocket boosted weapon, IIRC.
Click to expand...
What is the name of this weapon they're, "already using"? Which one carries 80 JDAMS?
 
I suspect B-21 will be capable of dropping 80 SDBs, which is probably good enough and also will provide stand-off capability. The B-2 is not publicly known to have SBD integrated, though someone on this site posted a pic of a four round rack with orange weapons (test ordnance color scheme I believe) being loaded onto a B-2s rotary launcher. In that configuration, 64 could be carried. A dedicated SDB rack system (like the 80 bomb racks for mk82 JDAM) would increase that substantially but I’m not aware of such a system in service.
 
Looking into the future, and the INDOPACOM theater, it would seem that the B-21's added range and persistence would enable it to be a lot more than just a bomb hauler. It could very well be playing a more broader role there in the EW or the command and control side of things given its unique attributes of avionics, signature and range. For that theater, I'm more interested in knowing how many JASSM's or SiAW's it can carry as opposed to JDAM's and SDB's just given the challenges associated with the SAM systems and other offensive capability in the region.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect B-21 will be capable of dropping 80 SDBs, which is probably good enough and also will provide stand-off capability. The B-2 is not publicly known to have SBD integrated, though someone on this site posted a pic of a four round rack with orange weapons (test ordnance color scheme I believe) being loaded onto a B-2s rotary launcher. In that configuration, 64 could be carried. A dedicated SDB rack system (like the 80 bomb racks for mk82 JDAM) would increase that substantially but I’m not aware of such a system in service.
Click to expand...
An SDB is not a JDAM. Also a B-2 would be able to carry much more than 80 SDBs.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Also a B-2 would be able to carry much more than 80 SDBs.
Click to expand...

Only if there is a dedicated SDB rack like that specialize rack for 80 500-lb JDAMs.

Otherwise, as Josh_TN was saying, you can probably only hang one BRU-61 with four SDB on each station on the B-2 rotary launcher. That's 8 stations times 4 SDB per station times two rotary launchers for a total of 64 SDB. Each loaded BRU-61 is just under 1500 pounds and roughly similar in dimensions to a 2000-pound JDAM.
 
For most target sets, an SDB will work as well as a mk82. Actually the SDB has a greater ability to penetrate hardened targets.

There is no doubt that the B-21 won’t carry the B-2s warload. I don’t fine that concerning so long as a large number of B-21s are purchased and they have a similar combatant radius. I think there are very few targets sets that require more than 30,000 lbs of ordnance, and in those cases just send additional aircraft. In actual practice the B-2s seem to operate in pairs anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
For most target sets, an SDB will work as well as a mk82. Actually the SDB has a greater ability to penetrate hardened targets.
Click to expand...
For some targets blast is preferred in which case a 500lb bomb is much better than an SDB. For others nothing is stopping the B-2 from carrying SDB.
 
Josh_TN said:
For most target sets, an SDB will work as well as a mk82. Actually the SDB has a greater ability to penetrate hardened targets.

There is no doubt that the B-21 won’t carry the B-2s warload. I don’t fine that concerning so long as a large number of B-21s are purchased and they have a similar combatant radius. I think there are very few targets sets that require more than 30,000 lbs of ordnance, and in those cases just send additional aircraft. In actual practice the B-2s seem to operate in pairs anyway.
Click to expand...
But is the B-21s range comparable to a B-2's with payload? (And don't say "tankers". If the B-21 requires more than the B-2 then that cost needs to be rolled in.)
 
I don’t have that information. I hope that the B-21 has roughly equivalent range and if it is significantly less, then I agree that is a major concern. The WestPac theater demands more, not less, endurance.
 
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

B-21 Speeds To IOC; ARRW Test Slated For Next Month: Ray - Breaking Defense

The B-21 program will not undertake traditional "block upgrades" to beef up future performance, says Air Force Global Strike Command head Gen. Timothy Ray. Instead, it will incrementally add new capabilities as they become available.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

So the B-21 won’t go through block upgrades like the B-2 did but instead go through increment updates, I hope that it works out better than going through block updates because it took to the Block 30 variant for the B-2 to be fully nuclear capable.
 
fightingirish said:
New CGI.
Look at the port side window. So IMHO I wouldn't take too much about the accuracy of this image.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1412481998086709248
View: https://twitter.com/rachelkaras/status/1412481998086709248?s=19
Click to expand...
I'm willing to accept that side window. Windows are vulnerable points for lasers and nuclear flash (fun fact: Vulcan crews wore eyepatches. If blinded by a flash, they were to switch them over to the blind eye). The windows seem to be angled for mid air refuelling and landing and takeoff - the last holdouts when you increasingly rely on synthetic vision. For example, have a look at this Boeing NGAD concept, and as a parallel, this Peugeot racing car. The side window is taken up by some graphics, but it is nonetheless a rigorously functional vehicle. The driver doesn't look out the side because they'd stop looking ahead if they did. Instead, a strip of LCD screens is over the windscreen.
 

Attachments

  • CwMjta7WYAAXELh_.jpg
    CwMjta7WYAAXELh_.jpg
    210.3 KB · Views: 194
  • Peugeot-9X8-15.jpg
    Peugeot-9X8-15.jpg
    463.7 KB · Views: 192
Last edited:
Side window shape provides standard minimum left-down view sector for a pilot, as well as leading edge and inlet observation, minimizing wetted area and weight. Shape also may be dictated by flow from a deicing system exhaust.
 
Tyler Rogoway's thoughts on completely windowless designs:

threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @Aviation_Intel on Thread Reader App

Thread by @Aviation_Intel: On the B-21's windows, for years I have had numerous discussions with people about the possibility that there would be no windows at all. Next-generation display or HMD/AR tech used inste...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
 
Let's admit that formation flying would be difficult without side up sector view (bank turn).
 
I have to admit that it is an interesting design for the B-21 windows, they look rather small when compared to the B-2 windows.
 
Very interesting and if tied with the headsets used in 3d gaming possibly more realistic than ever so, why have the screens at all? Only more 'things' to go wrong. I do wonder what would happen when the crew of a damage aircraft cannot see where they are going. Eject?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom