Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

sferrin said:
rooster said:
NCQ said:
paralay said:
:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't really get the point of this when we still know extremely little about the B-21. We don't even know how many weapons bays it has, let along what its bays can carry (beyond presumably the LRSO in some fashion). Hell, we still haven't even nailed down wingspan with estimates ranging from less than 130ft up to 150ft.
Click to expand...
I think my kid can even tell its big enough for two weapons bays. Wingspan is totally utterly irrelevant. The volume of the aircraft is what matters. No we don't know that but its not as small an aircraft as was imagined. The gear are a good barometer.
Click to expand...
Based on that AvWeek says about 220,000lbs.
Click to expand...

Presumably a gross weight? About 2/3s of B-2. If the engines are around 40% less thirsty than the 119s, which either PW9000 or unaugmented F135 would be in the ballpark of, you could get most of the weight savings just in fuel ( Wiki says max fuel is 167,000 lbs).
 
rooster said:
NCQ said:
paralay said:
:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't really get the point of this when we still know extremely little about the B-21. We don't even know how many weapons bays it has, let along what its bays can carry (beyond presumably the LRSO in some fashion). Hell, we still haven't even nailed down wingspan with estimates ranging from less than 130ft up to 150ft.
Click to expand...
I think my kid can even tell its big enough for two weapons bays. Wingspan is totally utterly irrelevant. The volume of the aircraft is what matters. No we don't know that but its not as small an aircraft as was imagined. The gear are a good barometer. They're not going to put 1 bay in the centerline and leave all that real estate alone. The aircraft would be much smaller and not so much girth underneath. Knowledge people there said it was not significantly smaller than a b2. Clearly 2 bays and clearly also room enough for defensive\offensive aams.

Also the windows have nothing to do with laser protection. My office has windows that turn opaque with the push of a button.... That's been around a long time. The windows are the minimum necessary for the human biology dynamic of needing to look outside when flying... From time to time. Flying isn't like being in a submarine.
Click to expand...
Yes, two bays large enough for regular rotary launchers is my guess. Even if the B-21 isn't able to carry two MOPs like the B-2 I think it'll still be able to carry 16 JASSM/LRSO equivalents. If the B-21 carries any less the current plan of basically a 1-to-1 replacement of the B-1 and B-2 doesn't make much sense. It would result too much of a reduction in capability.
 
The weight will be somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 the weight of the B-2 which is in the range of 220,000 - 250,000lb. B-47 MTOW was around 220,000lb, YB-49 about 194,000 lb.
 
NeilChapman said:
Archibald said:
NeilChapman said:
steelpillow said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
NeilChapman said:
.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But for the life of me they can auto-dock in space at 17,500 mph, and a Tesla can drive me to work. I don't see why automation is not tackled for this procedure. (Just not wBoeing)
Click to expand...

A car on earth solid ground is evolving in only two dimensions. No turbulence, at least in the vertical plane. And in space - no turbulence either. It is not a matter of 17500 mph, not between a Soyuz and ISS relative speed at zero or close.
Atmospheric turbulences are a huge PITA.
Click to expand...

That's not a reason, that's an excuse.

;-)
Click to expand...

Reason or excuse, whatever you call it, it is still potentially lethal... Palomares, cough, cough.
 
NCQ said:
rooster said:
NCQ said:
paralay said:
:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't really get the point of this when we still know extremely little about the B-21. We don't even know how many weapons bays it has, let along what its bays can carry (beyond presumably the LRSO in some fashion). Hell, we still haven't even nailed down wingspan with estimates ranging from less than 130ft up to 150ft.
Click to expand...
I think my kid can even tell its big enough for two weapons bays. Wingspan is totally utterly irrelevant. The volume of the aircraft is what matters. No we don't know that but its not as small an aircraft as was imagined. The gear are a good barometer. They're not going to put 1 bay in the centerline and leave all that real estate alone. The aircraft would be much smaller and not so much girth underneath. Knowledge people there said it was not significantly smaller than a b2. Clearly 2 bays and clearly also room enough for defensive\offensive aams.

Also the windows have nothing to do with laser protection. My office has windows that turn opaque with the push of a button.... That's been around a long time. The windows are the minimum necessary for the human biology dynamic of needing to look outside when flying... From time to time. Flying isn't like being in a submarine.
Click to expand...
Yes, two bays large enough for regular rotary launchers is my guess. Even if the B-21 isn't able to carry two MOPs like the B-2 I think it'll still be able to carry 16 JASSM/LRSO equivalents. If the B-21 carries any less the current plan of basically a 1-to-1 replacement of the B-1 and B-2 doesn't make much sense. It would result too much of a reduction in capability.
Click to expand...

Another option might be a single bay of greater length that could carry AGM-158 nose to tail (30 feet ish). LRSO is probably going to be too long and too heavy to be doubled up like that, but the extension of the tail structure (and the whole fuselage) in length might make a single stretched bay more attractive. The 20’ B-2 bays are really volume inefficient for their payload; a lot of it ends up as dead space, particularly with Mk84 length weapons. I assume they were sized to accommodate AGM-86 as a future proofing measure but this was never integrated.
 
Last edited:
Isn't there a 2020 CBO report which estimates the cost of the B-21 along with its payload (10 LRSO, 8 carrying nuclear warheads)? If this is accurate we'd be looking at something in the vicinity of ~14000kg / 32000lb. So, that is closer to one rotary launcher (possibly enlarged to carry ten weapons or with two weapons in auxiliary bays).

P.S. With the rumours of possible export ...I can't help but wonder if a stripped-down version, without as advanced avionics and with less comprehensive stealth might also be in the cards. Basically re-using the airframe and engine to produce a B-52 replacement that wouldn't rely on its own advanced sensors and would only use stand-off weapons (where a cheaper, and more export-friendly, level of stealth would still be useful).
 
Avimimus said:
Isn't there a 2020 CBO report which estimates the cost of the B-21 along with its payload (10 LRSO, 8 carrying nuclear warheads)? If this is accurate we'd be looking at something in the vicinity of ~14000kg / 32000lb. So, that is closer to one rotary launcher (possibly enlarged to carry ten weapons or with two weapons in auxiliary bays).
Click to expand...

Public CBO reports like that are written without classified insight into the aircraft. So they were just guessing along with the rest of us.
 
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. Really getting 21st century Canberra vibes now for the bomber, with alot of volume, flexibility, and capability.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. There are alot of possibilities in the airframe.
Click to expand...
I’m going to bet that it’s things that are unknown in a groundbreaking, never before seen technology and things we may never fully know about or it will be a generation or two before we do.
 
AeroEng2002 said:
...
Click to expand...
That’s a RCS model of Senior Peg. How do I know? It’s filmed vertically (VVS), so it’s filmed with a phone, so it must have been filmed relatively recently.

Secondly, we see the aircraft heading in two directions. Bombers tend to fly in long straight lines, with a very large turning radius (we’re talking km’s). The fact that we see it flying in two directions in almost the same spot implies that it’s very small.
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlQTPXhkNU

A short video about the B-21 Raider, from PilotPhotog

(Was supposedly posted for this thread, but got moved to the Fusion Powered Aircraft thread with the other messages, so that one's deleted, and this one reposted back where it rightfully belongs)
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. Really getting 21st century Canberra vibes now for the bomber, with alot of volume, flexibility, and capability.
Click to expand...
You're not going to use a heavy bomber for jamming missions of which only 8 are built each year.
 
rooster said:
NUSNA_Moebius said:
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. Really getting 21st century Canberra vibes now for the bomber, with alot of volume, flexibility, and capability.
Click to expand...
You're not going to use a heavy bomber for jamming missions of which only 8 are built each year.
Click to expand...
But it may be optionally given that role. Multirole is now the new trend of the game, and it seems like the future of Military Aviation (At least for the US) is to give more multirole capabilities to aircraft that normally don't do any of those roles
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. Really getting 21st century Canberra vibes now for the bomber, with alot of volume, flexibility, and capability.
Click to expand...

We won't know for decades what the ECM suite is like - I don't think the B-2's defensive systems have ever been discussed, at least with any details. But it seems pretty certain the B-21 wouldn't be used in a supporting jammer role when the plane itself is a primary long range attack platform. It likely has a beefy AESA radar with A2A mode as an option, but it seems exceeding unlikely it would be used for AEW purposes either - constantly emitting would rather defeat the purpose of a stealth platform. The big advantage for the RAAF would be long range unescorted/unsupported strikes against land and sea targets. It seems likely the combat radius is significantly greater than the B-2, which puts a lot of China and a vast amount of ocean inside its unrefueled radius.
 
Josh_TN said:
NUSNA_Moebius said:
How sophisticated a jamming suite will the B-21 likely have? B-21 could effectively replace the Growler in the RAAF jammer role, and even augment the E-7 as a deep penetration AWACS if equipped with extra AESA arrays for full coverage. Really getting 21st century Canberra vibes now for the bomber, with alot of volume, flexibility, and capability.
Click to expand...

We won't know for decades what the ECM suite is like - I don't think the B-2's defensive systems have ever been discussed, at least with any details. But it seems pretty certain the B-21 wouldn't be used in a supporting jammer role when the plane itself is a primary long range attack platform. It likely has a beefy AESA radar with A2A mode as an option, but it seems exceeding unlikely it would be used for AEW purposes either - constantly emitting would rather defeat the purpose of a stealth platform. The big advantage for the RAAF would be long range unescorted/unsupported strikes against land and sea targets. It seems likely the combat radius is significantly greater than the B-2, which puts a lot of China and a vast amount of ocean inside its unrefueled radius.
Click to expand...
Given what we know about the F-35s electronics guessing the B-21 will act as an incredible mostly passive EW/radar/electronic vacuum cleaner.
 
bobbymike said:
Given what we know about the F-35s electronics guessing the B-21 will act as an incredible mostly passive EW/radar/electronic vacuum cleaner.
Click to expand...

Given that BAE is a major contractor for the program and that Northrop also is supposed to be the integrator of the "RQ-180", I think it is a given it will have a huge, though largely passive ISR role both for finding its own targets and for disseminating that information across domains. I suspect given its size and a likely similar operating altitude that it will have all the capabilities of RQ-180, whatever they are.
 
Don't forget that ECM, jamming today involves a lot of cyber.
Stealth brings you superior signal collection, higher power ratio and better penetration at cyber level. Hence, just like the F-35, Raider have all the suitable attributes to be the EF-111 of tomorrow.
 
paralay said:
:cool:
Click to expand...
One can only hope. I still think that is the most likely weapons arrangement - keeping a standard B-2 sized bay compatible with all current rack/rotary systems (for which there is already established ground loading infrastructure and procedures) and two auxiliary bays for self defense weapons than can be released without using the main bay doors or interfering with the primary payload loadout.
 
What are the chances there is one very wide bomb bay in b21? where two rotary launchers with fewer missiles than in b2 are side by side, and where a single mop sized bomb can fit in the middle?

Such arrangement would require a complex folding door system though. So not sure how much of a drawback might that be.
 
I do think the bb is centrally located. If they went after a distributed exhaust on the wing trailing edge, the inherent complexity in routing the exhaust might not leave much room for another architecture.
Then, given available ground clearance, the bb door opening geometry might be complex as you guessed.
Or the bombs are ejected differently to prevent an increase in RCS given the needs for multiple targets hits per mission.
So we might have something quite large in surface, with a hollowed section for large ordinances but less depth on overall, fitted with a mean of translating bombs and missile to their launching position. Something like a an automated weapon loader.
 
Last edited:
totoro said:
What are the chances there is one very wide bomb bay in b21? where two rotary launchers with fewer missiles than in b2 are side by side, and where a single mop sized bomb can fit in the middle?

Such arrangement would require a complex folding door system though. So not sure how much of a drawback might that be.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a structural pain in the butt.
 
Structural as in load bearing? Actually not necessarily, as b21 seems to be able to place its weapons below the wing plane. That protrusion on its belly is quite deep.
As opposed to b2 which seems to have its bomb bays cut into the wing plane.

Structural as in structure of the bay doors? Agreed. That'd be complex. Probably more so than f-22's (also somewhat complex) doors.
 
Seems like the vertical space would extend above the wing spar line and longitudinally it would widely space the beams. And yes, it would require a complex door.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom