Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[In_A_Dream]

How soon do you think they'd forward deploy the B-21 to the Pacific to help counter the <2030 Taiwan concern?

 

[sferrin]

@Josh_TN the supersonic advocates were pushing for a supercruise bomber, able to fly its mission at say Mach 1.8 without using afterburner. The real radicals wanted hypersonic. Either would definitely decrease reaction time.

Yeah, but it would radically increase the amount of time it would take for the representatives to sign in to such exorbitantly priced projects. A supersonic/hypersonic analog to B-21 wouldn't cost just $600M a piece.

Indeed - it would be complex and expensive. But a supercruise bomber is technically feasible, if you were willing to pay the money.

B-58, XB-70, etc.

 

[Hydroman]

An FB-23 would have been a good supercruise theater platform.

 

[trose213]

@Josh_TN the supersonic advocates were pushing for a supercruise bomber, able to fly its mission at say Mach 1.8 without using afterburner. The real radicals wanted hypersonic. Either would definitely decrease reaction time.

Supercruise is still done at or near full military power. There would be range reduction even without reheat. That could be offset by more fuel, but there wouldn't be a free lunch.

Sure - it would be easier in a Tu-22M style "theatre bomber" than a strategic bomber. My point was it wasn't a B-1 analog, able to fly supersonically for a short penetration phase only.

Not really worth it given how much the US has developed its standoff munitions. The theater bomber role IMO has almost been taken over by cargo planes using palletized munitions.

 

[Josh_TN]

@Josh_TN the supersonic advocates were pushing for a supercruise bomber, able to fly its mission at say Mach 1.8 without using afterburner. The real radicals wanted hypersonic. Either would definitely decrease reaction time.

Yeah, but it would radically increase the amount of time it would take for the representatives to sign in to such exorbitantly priced projects. A supersonic/hypersonic analog to B-21 wouldn't cost just $600M a piece.

Indeed - it would be complex and expensive. But a supercruise bomber is technically feasible, if you were willing to pay the money.

B-58, XB-70, etc.

There's a list of successful platforms. Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate for less than a third of the range and a third of payload? And and XB-70...that would definitely not generate an IR signature you can see from orbit with even commercial satellites.

The B-21 program is a reasonably thing that can get done that is one of the first that is within budget and time. If you think the new ICBM is threatened by congress, can you imagine what a program failure a supersonic bomber that attempted to be stealth at the same time would be? I think the B-21 is a reasonable compromise. If you need quick response, go hypersonic or redeploy IRBMs. Trying to make a penetrating bomber that is super sonic is just beyond any reasonable budget.

EDIT: Or honestly technology. Go fast, or not be detected. I don't think there is a realistic way of both.

 

[AGS-1787]

are the rumors of the b-2 active drag reduction well-founded of fairytales?

 

[sferrin]

@Josh_TN the supersonic advocates were pushing for a supercruise bomber, able to fly its mission at say Mach 1.8 without using afterburner. The real radicals wanted hypersonic. Either would definitely decrease reaction time.

Yeah, but it would radically increase the amount of time it would take for the representatives to sign in to such exorbitantly priced projects. A supersonic/hypersonic analog to B-21 wouldn't cost just $600M a piece.

Indeed - it would be complex and expensive. But a supercruise bomber is technically feasible, if you were willing to pay the money.

B-58, XB-70, etc.

There's a list of successful platforms. Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate for less than a third of the range and a third of payload? And and XB-70...that would definitely not generate an IR signature you can see from orbit with even commercial satellites.

Wow. I guess you didn't realize the B-58 and B-52 filled completely different missions. A bit like whining that the F-16 can't carry as many bombs as an F-15E. As for the XB-70 it did everything it was designed to do. You can't say it was a failure just because the suits failed at reading the tea leaves. The complaint was a supercruise bomber was unpossible. I just gave two examples that showed that was incorrect. Complaining about it isn't going to change the facts. Neither is moving the goalposts.

 

[Josh_TN]

I never said it was impossible. Reread my original post. I said it would cost range and stealth. It also would cost a lot of money.

Again, if response time is the goal, then I think hypersonic missiles are a better investment than supersonic bombers.

 

[djfawcett]

are the rumors of the b-2 active drag reduction well-founded of fairytales?

The latter is correct, fairytales.

 

[TomcatViP]

Interview with Steve Sullivan, vice president, Strike Division, discussing how Northrop Grumman has applied new innovations in supportability to the program:

Recently the Air Force released an image of one B-21 environmental protection shelter that the Air Force is testing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, and I was surprised it didn’t get more attention – not for what it is, but for what it’s not. It is a simple, low-cost shelter that’s really there to protect the maintainers who will work on the aircraft. That is a testament to the progress that government and industry have made together over the past three decades on the durability of LO materials.
[...]
The team’s use of the HIVE has additionally spawned new uses for the technology used to develop it. We now also have augmented reality (AR) goggles on the manufacturing floor that our skilled technicians use to drive efficiency into the manufacturing process. No longer does a technician have to rely solely on drawings and planning instructions on how to build our B-21; they can simply put on AR goggles and see a complete aircraft that is rendered by the thousands of released engineering drawings that make up the build. Through the goggles, a technician can see exactly how the subsystems, brackets, electrical cables, hydraulic lines and other equipment are supposed to be installed before they even pick up a tool to do their work.
[...]
Air Force maintainers could have the capability to see single or multiple layers of the aircraft when it’s in depot, so if they only want to see where all the hydraulic lines go, it’s as simple as downloading that file and walking out to the aircraft. If the maintainer is interested in understanding the separation requirements between those hydraulic lines and adjacent fuel lines or electrical harnesses, they can load those layers as well.

The B-21 Raider: A Bomber That Is Both Low Observable And Easier to Maintain - Breaking Defense

Supportability issues that affected the availability and performance of early, stealthy aircraft are being addressed by Northrop Grumman on this new program.

breakingdefense.com

 

[NeilChapman]

Well, I hope they're doing a better job securing those files this time around.

 

[publiusr]

Those windows look a *lot* like some windows I've gotten by projecting plan-view windows onto a fuselage that's modeled slightly "off."

It gives it the look of a hummingbird’s face:

“I know I got caught in a vise and covered in primer…stiff upper lip—-just fly it off…”

 

[RavenOne]

d) refer to some LRSA or LRS-A bomber program, as mentioned a few times in the 'US Next generation bomber studies'-thread ?

Indeed, the B-21 was to be a supersonic bomber, back before the rather ill-advised decision to switch to a sub-sonic design. At least one testbed was even reportedly flown by NG.

thought that was the L-M SR-72 as sightings of scaled down unmanned. Oder being escorted by a T-38 into Palmdale or Edwards, few years back?

cheers

 

[rooster]

d) refer to some LRSA or LRS-A bomber program, as mentioned a few times in the 'US Next generation bomber studies'-thread ?

Indeed, the B-21 was to be a supersonic bomber, back before the rather ill-advised decision to switch to a sub-sonic design. At least one testbed was even reportedly flown by NG.

thought that was the L-M SR-72 as sightings of scaled down unmanned. Oder being escorted by a T-38 into Palmdale or Edwards, few years back?

cheers

There is a rumor that program has been delayed because of issues with the engines.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1431252256792453130

 

[flateric]

'News' from February

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-b-21-raider-lrs-b.25915/post-439869

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1431252256792453130

Has anyone noticed that Twitter have done some kind of patch where it is impossible to post any link from there unless you actually have an account now.

 

[TomcatViP]

I don't have any twitter account and it doesn't seem I am affected.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I am not effected yet either.

 

[dark sidius]

Saddly this is the B2 nose on the picture

 

[Flyaway]

I don't have any twitter account and it doesn't seem I am affected.

Apparently it’s still being tried out so everyone is not impacted at the same time.
See this link below for more about this.

Login

Login

forum.nasaspaceflight.com

 

[F-14D]

Admittedly far out speculation on my part, but look at this:

Mystery Flying Wing Aircraft Photographed Over The Philippines (Updated)

The aircraft resembles the one seen in an image taken in California a year ago that is thought to be of the elusive RQ-180 stealth spy aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

Is it possible, unbeknownst to we common rabble, that this puppy has already been in the air for a while? From what we can see in this limited view, it does bear a resemblance to what artists' illustrations have been officially released.

 

[flateric]

It's not

 

[F-14D]

Like I said, wild speculation on my part, but interesting, huh? I'm sure there's only one man who knows for sure, but we haven't heard from him in a while...

.

 

[flateric]

Even speculations must be based on knowledge.
What knowledge of official current state of B-21 program or examples of past programs and 'assets' implement scenarios makes you think this is 'B-21'? Air Force and contractor lie to Senate and public and first Raiders already built, tested, and covertly deployed? Nah...

 

[_Del_]

Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate

No, not at all. A Hustler was slightly cheaper to operate, but some "creative accounting" made a powerful talking point that survives to this day.

I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but the talking point was created by saying the two Hustler wings were as expensive as six BUFF-equipped SAC wings. This ignored the fact that the Hustler wings had three times as many aircraft.
A BUFF wing was typically one bombardment squadron (BS) of 12-15 aircraft, frequently, but not always with an aerial refueling squadron. All 100+ Hustlers produced (minus operational losses) belonged to just two wings. The 63rd, 64th, 65th BS all belonged to one wing (43rd) in Little Rock, for example, as did the KC-135 squadron there.

Acquisition costs for the Hustler were roughly three times as much as a Buff, but that was sunk cost by the time the decision to retire them came about. SAC wanted to keep them, but the decision came down from on high.

 

[Flyaway]

Admittedly far out speculation on my part, but look at this:

Mystery Flying Wing Aircraft Photographed Over The Philippines (Updated)

The aircraft resembles the one seen in an image taken in California a year ago that is thought to be of the elusive RQ-180 stealth spy aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

Is it possible, unbeknownst to we common rabble, that this puppy has already been in the air for a while? From what we can see in this limited view, it does bear a resemblance to what artists' illustrations have been officially released.

I just posted about people online mistaking the RQ-180 for the B-21.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Admittedly far out speculation on my part, but look at this:

Mystery Flying Wing Aircraft Photographed Over The Philippines (Updated)

The aircraft resembles the one seen in an image taken in California a year ago that is thought to be of the elusive RQ-180 stealth spy aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

Is it possible, unbeknownst to we common rabble, that this puppy has already been in the air for a while? From what we can see in this limited view, it does bear a resemblance to what artists' illustrations have been officially released.

I just posted about people online mistaking the RQ-180 for the B-21.

I don't believe it's the B-21 either. And if it's some sort of B-21 demonstrator, I doubt it'd be flown that close to SCS. Similar to the Amarillo sighting, sometimes individuals or groups are tipped off about something for various reasons. This may have been one of those cases, obviously directed at China.

As to what this bird is, operationally speaking, probably something that's going to stay obscure for the time being.

 

[TomcatViP]

I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing.

Either this is unintentional or this is something else.

 

[Hydroman]

Just another black program playing around (or on a mission) and more than likely the Govt wants to see what kind of response they get then they will deny, common place. Early on in the F-117 days, they showed some Govt individuals a solid black top view of the aircraft and most thought it was a very high speed design, nobody knew what it could be or if it was real.

 

[FighterJock]

Just another black program playing around (or on a mission) and more than likely the Govt wants to see what kind of response they get then they will deny, common place. Early on in the F-117 days, they showed some Govt individuals a solid black top view of the aircraft and most thought it was a very high speed design, nobody knew what it could be or if it was real.

Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight? Unless said program is going to be revealed at some point during the next year or so. And another thing, it may well have been that aircraft that was caught out in the open at Groom Lake.

 

[dark sidius]

Enemy must know you have Black program instead it serve nothing for deterence, you must show it at a time, we can see a bulky underneath like a weapon bay, it can be something else of a ISR may be attack mission too, and we don't know if this a UAV it could be piloted. This is the same planform of the futur B-21.

 

[CJGibson]

Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?

That's the question I kept asking 32 years ago.

Chris

 

[Fluff]

Someone mentioned a 40 hour flight? Is it possible to stay in the dark for 40 hours, and actually go somewhere? Maybe this was the least detectable option. Possibly also maybe it tells someone, that we have been, and you didnt detect us. Where else have we been?

 

[Flyaway]

Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?

That's the question I kept asking 32 years ago.

Chris

Because they want it to be seen. Anyway the RQ-180 has had a lot of column inches over the years for a truly black program so it’s more grey. Otherwise it would be rather odd the way it keeps being flown at relatively low level for a HALE also with no contrail suppression. Also if it lets itself be known it will get all the air defences in the area scrambling and the data collection can begin by its sensor packages. It’s also sending a message to both adversary and ally.

 

[Flyaway]

Someone mentioned a 40 hour flight? Is it possible to stay in the dark for 40 hours, and actually go somewhere? Maybe this was the least detectable option. Possibly also maybe it tells someone, that we have been, and you didnt detect us. Where else have we been?

I mentioned a 40hr flight time in the RQ180 thread, it was a guess, probably at the low end of the scale. I figure its probably in its operational area for around 24 hours and the rest in transit.

The photo was taken early morning in a fairly benign environment. Probably trying for as much night time as possible in the operational area. And if that operational area is the middle of an expanse of sea, its not likely to be seen by much at all, if anything.

Anyway, to make this relevant: would it be likely that the RQ180 and the B21 would be teamed a bit like the assault breaker concept?

I thought the RQ-180 was rumoured to be designed to operate with the B-21. I am guessing there is also the rumours that the RQ-180 is armed so I don’t know if that means they have a secondary rule to take out defences for the B-21. Hence maybe the RQ designation is inaccurate?

 

[In_A_Dream]

Someone mentioned a 40 hour flight? Is it possible to stay in the dark for 40 hours, and actually go somewhere? Maybe this was the least detectable option. Possibly also maybe it tells someone, that we have been, and you didnt detect us. Where else have we been?

I mentioned a 40hr flight time in the RQ180 thread, it was a guess, probably at the low end of the scale. I figure its probably in its operational area for around 24 hours and the rest in transit.

The photo was taken early morning in a fairly benign environment. Probably trying for as much night time as possible in the operational area. And if that operational area is the middle of an expanse of sea, its not likely to be seen by much at all, if anything.

Anyway, to make this relevant: would it be likely that the RQ180 and the B21 would be teamed a bit like the assault breaker concept?

I thought the RQ-180 was rumoured to be designed to operate with the B-21. I am guessing there is also the rumours that the RQ-180 is armed so I don’t know if that means they have a secondary rule to take out defences for the B-21. Hence maybe the RQ designation is inaccurate?

Remember there's a family of systems approach that's been in development. The B-21 plays a role, and other aircraft play specific roles as well. Maybe there's an EQ- designation out there.

 

[Nigelhg]

Someone mentioned a 40 hour flight? Is it possible to stay in the dark for 40 hours, and actually go somewhere? Maybe this was the least detectable option. Possibly also maybe it tells someone, that we have been, and you didnt detect us. Where else have we been?

I mentioned a 40hr flight time in the RQ180 thread, it was a guess, probably at the low end of the scale. I figure its probably in its operational area for around 24 hours and the rest in transit.

The photo was taken early morning in a fairly benign environment. Probably trying for as much night time as possible in the operational area. And if that operational area is the middle of an expanse of sea, its not likely to be seen by much at all, if anything.

Anyway, to make this relevant: would it be likely that the RQ180 and the B21 would be teamed a bit like the assault breaker concept?

It may have been a transit flight from Guam to Diego Garcia.

 

[F-14D]

Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate

No, not at all. A Hustler was slightly cheaper to operate, but some "creative accounting" made a powerful talking point that survives to this day.

I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but the talking point was created by saying the two Hustler wings were as expensive as six BUFF-equipped SAC wings. This ignored the fact that the Hustler wings had three times as many aircraft.
A BUFF wing was typically one bombardment squadron (BS) of 12-15 aircraft, frequently, but not always with an aerial refueling squadron. All 100+ Hustlers produced (minus operational losses) belonged to just two wings. The 63rd, 64th, 65th BS all belonged to one wing (43rd) in Little Rock, for example, as did the KC-135 squadron there.

Acquisition costs for the Hustler were roughly three times as much as a Buff, but that was sunk cost by the time the decision to retire them came about. SAC wanted to keep them, but the decision came down from on high.

Sorry for the delay on this and for a couple of other things I may post on this topic. I've got some input on the topic of B-52 vs. B-58 costs.

Each B-52 wing had 15 "Unit Equipped" (Air Force jargon, I don't know what it means), while each B-58 wing had 39 UE aircraft. One time acquisition cost of a B-58 was 2.46 times that of a B-52 in constant dollars. If you threw in planned tanker support for both but didn't count the four GAM-72 decoys usually acquired with each B-52, the ratio was still 2.28 in the B-52's favor. But those were one-time costs and that money had already been spent. However, the Annual O&M and personnel costs for each B-52 was 17% higher than the B-58 and those were recurring costs. Put another way, for the cost of operating 66 B-52s you could operate 78 B-58s.

Regarding why the B-58 went away, originally Robert McNamara wanted it gone by mid 1970 (extended by him in 1966 to mid 1971) partly to create a need to be filled by his beloved F-111 (the FB-111 variant). Once, he was gone, though, for operational reasons in early 1969 the date moved out to at least 1974 by DoD. However, in the latter part of 1969 the head of SAC, apparently without input from his B-58 experts, briefed the Air Force Chief of Staff that 78 B-58s should be phased out in order to preserve about 60 older B-52s. General Ryan took this recommendation of his SAC Chief to SECDEF. Having earlier in the year extended the B-58 in service per AF input, OSD was now being told it wasn't wanted after all. SECDEF Laird then directed that the B-58 was to be gone by Jan 31, 1970

 

[F-14D]

Like I said, I was purposely doing wild speculation. I'm wasn't definitely promulgating that the whatever-it-is was the B-21, just tossing out an idea for discussion.

That said, a couple of thoughts on a the thoughtful questions raised:

"Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?" Sooner or later you've got to. Can't test everything at night. Happened with previous Black programs that later turned White.

"I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing". There were no big roll outs for the SR-71 and the F-117, and in the latter case it had already been announced that the aircraft was being built (remember the "F-19"?). Anyway, you can always have a public rollout any time you want. Doesn't mean it actually has to be before first flight... AF has already acknowledged that they've already assembled the first two test aircraft.

Remember, just strrin' the pot