Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Random thought again that will sound fanboi-ish (sounds fanboi to me just writing it). It seems likely the B-21 is going to have a sensor suite that can detect a fair amount of stuff passively and likely actively interrogate a target at long distance with a number of radar modes over a very tight azimuth/bearing if it feels like it. F-22's are rumored to be able to actively only emit across a 2 degree arc against a passive target. So for a B-21, perhaps I see a missile plumb from land...SAR strip search in the local area. ESM target in the air, active target track. Passive ship ESM/IR targe? ISAR identification. Given the ISR it brings to the table, and how limited glide bombs are and how slow cruise missiles are (and redundant with the B-1/52s), will the USAF equip it with a missile that is cross domain and fast? Hear me out.

AGM-158 doesn't bring much to the table to a B-21. Other aircraft can deliver it. Same LRASM. If a B-21 is attacking a wide area land target, presumably it could carry SBD-I/II and that would account for like 99% of all land targets, hardened, moving, or otherwise. But what about naval/air in the Pacific theater which is the primary area of concern?

Would it be weird for the USAF to integrate SM-6/SM-2 blk3C? The USN prizes it because it is a swiss army knife of anti air, ABM, anti surface, and apparently even land (US Army apparently is adopting it unmodified for MRC just to dig a hole in the ground with that AIM-120 based seeker). Expensive missile, but since it can be used on almost anything it saves Mk41 cells. If the USAF adopted a modified SM-6 (sans Mk72 booster) or SM-2 Blk3C upgrade kit, it would easily fit internally in a B-2 rotary launcher (15 feet, 14 inches, 1800 lbs). And if you did that, you'd probably be able to reach out to air targets at 300km as an anti AWACs/MPA/ELINT/etc weapon, and also hit surface targets with a supersonic aeroballistic missile at those ranges, and still be able to pop high priority static land targets with simple INS/GPS. And you'd be able to do any of these things all at once, because the USN and US Army has already paid for the development. It is a little expensive and antiquated in seeker tech, but big advantage: SM-6 has a hot line already and SM-2 blk3C is a modification kit about to enter production. Lots of missiles available. Every large slow air target (tanker/HALE/AEW/bomber), ship, and land target within 300km or so it could reach out to and kill in minutes.

Crazy thought?
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
AGM-158 doesn't bring much to the table to a B-21. Other aircraft can deliver it. Same LRASM. If a B-21 is attacking a wide area land target, presumably it could carry SBD-I/II and that would account for like 99% of all land targets, hardened, moving, or otherwise. But what about naval/air in the Pacific theater which is the primary area of concern?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it means it doesn't have to fly all the way to the target if it can launch an AGM-158. That gives it a larger effective radius without having to rely on more overworked tankers.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
AGM-158 doesn't bring much to the table to a B-21. Other aircraft can deliver it. Same LRASM. If a B-21 is attacking a wide area land target, presumably it could carry SBD-I/II and that would account for like 99% of all land targets, hardened, moving, or otherwise. But what about naval/air in the Pacific theater which is the primary area of concern?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it means it doesn't have to fly all the way to the target if it can launch an AGM-158. That gives it a larger effective radius without having to rely on more overworked tankers.
Click to expand...

A B-21 will likely carry an order of magnitude more SDBs than AGM-158s. Seems a waste to use it to carry those when that would be about the only viable weapon for B-1/52, and now even C-17s can fling cruise missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
AGM-158 doesn't bring much to the table to a B-21. Other aircraft can deliver it. Same LRASM. If a B-21 is attacking a wide area land target, presumably it could carry SBD-I/II and that would account for like 99% of all land targets, hardened, moving, or otherwise. But what about naval/air in the Pacific theater which is the primary area of concern?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it means it doesn't have to fly all the way to the target if it can launch an AGM-158. That gives it a larger effective radius without having to rely on more overworked tankers.
Click to expand...

A B-21 will likely carry an order of magnitude more SDBs than AGM-158s. Seems a waste to use it to carry those when that would be about the only viable weapon for B-1/52, and now even C-17s can fling cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
None of that changes the fact it will have increased reach (and hitting power) when using JASSM. And SDBs against a warship is a non-starter.
 
If they could get a single mode seeker version of the SiAW (it will probably have multiple variants) to come in at or below $1 MM a pop then that becomes a very impressive weapon whether coming out of the bays of a F-35, B-21 or NGAD. The Raider SiAW loadout should be impressive.
 
bring_it_on said:
If they could get a single mode seeker version of the SiAW (it will probably have multiple variants) to come in at or below $1 MM a pop then that becomes a very impressive weapon whether coming out of the bays of a F-35, B-21 or NGAD. The Raider SiAW loadout should be impressive.
Click to expand...
Any idea how big of a warhead it has?
 
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
If they could get a single mode seeker version of the SiAW (it will probably have multiple variants) to come in at or below $1 MM a pop then that becomes a very impressive weapon whether coming out of the bays of a F-35, B-21 or NGAD. The Raider SiAW loadout should be impressive.
Click to expand...
Any idea how big of a warhead it has?
Click to expand...

Depends on what they actually select for SiAW. The original plan was that SiAW would be AARGM-ER with a different seeker, in which case the warhead is probably ~150 lbs (though apparently not the same warhead as HARM/AARGM). With SiAW now in competition, it could be anything that fits inside the F-35 internal bay footprint and a fast missile.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
AGM-158 doesn't bring much to the table to a B-21. Other aircraft can deliver it. Same LRASM. If a B-21 is attacking a wide area land target, presumably it could carry SBD-I/II and that would account for like 99% of all land targets, hardened, moving, or otherwise. But what about naval/air in the Pacific theater which is the primary area of concern?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it means it doesn't have to fly all the way to the target if it can launch an AGM-158. That gives it a larger effective radius without having to rely on more overworked tankers.
Click to expand...

A B-21 will likely carry an order of magnitude more SDBs than AGM-158s. Seems a waste to use it to carry those when that would be about the only viable weapon for B-1/52, and now even C-17s can fling cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
None of that changes the fact it will have increased reach (and hitting power) when using JASSM. And SDBs against a warship is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying AGM-158 shouldn't be integrated; I'm just saying taking a nearly invisible platform and then just loading it with the same ordnance you'd use on a B-52 seems wasteful when it heavily limits the number of weapons carried. As for SDB on ships, I don't see any reason why the Stormbreaker version couldn't be used that way. Dropped from 50,000 feet/15,000 meters, which seems to be the likely cruise altitude, you might get a 100km range even against a moving target. It would be easy to shoot down, and it wouldn't sink a ship, but if you have to shoot down a hundred of them (which seems like a perfectly plausible bomb load for B-21) you are at a minimum going to expend an unreasonable number of SAMs. A few hits probably missions kills the ship for a follow on strike.

But to your point, something that hit harder and had more stand off (and IMO is much faster) is desirable. LRASM is still a subsonic, easy to detect target for its end run. It's strength seems to be more in being fired in the general direction of the enemy and being able to find targets without ISR. On a B-21 I think it much more effective to attack a target it identified with something with a much faster flight time. SiAM might work if it ultimately has a terminal seeker capable of hitting ship targets, though I personally prefer the idea of a weapon that could also be used against long range air targets for flexibility.
 
You might need the B-52s and the B-21s launching them. Or it might save an IFR if the bomber doesn't have to fly all the way. Or it might serve to keep the aircraft safe of areas where an optical sighting is more likely.
 
Forest Green said:
You might need the B-52s and the B-21s launching them. Or it might save an IFR if the bomber doesn't have to fly all the way. Or it might serve to keep the aircraft safe of areas where an optical sighting is more likely.
Click to expand...

No doubt there are advantages, and I'm sure it will be integrated. But it seems like a sub optimal solution that doesn't play to the platform's strengths. I'd either want something smaller and cheaper that I could carry a lot more of or something with a much higher engagement speed (SiAM might potentially be both of these). The B-21 probably doesn't need a weapon that can search for its own targets; it likely will be its own best ISR asset.
 
Don't forget that there are fairly large countries out there. Raider offers the luxury to engage from inside the heart of those countries by defeating their border defenses. Then, a cruise missile launched from inside the fence has more chance of success. Having range, the latter also offers a rapid multi-targets capability without exposing the bomber to a counter-response by that country's aviation.
 
Last edited:
Revisiting old threads i just realized is not the first time the odd four-piece windscreen arrangement has been seen here in SPF.. it was carried over from NG STAV. (Correct me if i'm wrong)
 

Attachments

  • 34519-207e1c3dc99373b52ca7b8304323944e.jpg
    34519-207e1c3dc99373b52ca7b8304323944e.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 240
  • Y4TCWLCFCZFXPC5KPYAWYLUMOU.JPG
    Y4TCWLCFCZFXPC5KPYAWYLUMOU.JPG
    19 KB · Views: 207
X-39 said:
Revisiting old threads i just realized is not the first time the odd four-piece windscreen arrangement has been seen here in SPF.. it was carried over from NG STAV. (Correct me if i'm wrong)
Click to expand...
I would say No. That is more like the 2 small windows in the bone
 
rooster said:
X-39 said:
Revisiting old threads i just realized is not the first time the odd four-piece windscreen arrangement has been seen here in SPF.. it was carried over from NG STAV. (Correct me if i'm wrong)
Click to expand...
I would say No. That is more like the 2 small windows in the bone
Click to expand...
Which ones?
 

Attachments

  • b1.jpg
    b1.jpg
    246.5 KB · Views: 118
Lol.... history repeats itself. This would mark the #2 time in a row NG birds retain features derived from their high speed ancestors. In other words, it could be said that maybe the B-2/B-21 were/are an evolution of their predecessors certain aspects of the B-21 development mirrored/are mirroring that of the B-2, with both vehicles evolving from a high speed penetrator to a subsonic vehicle? Let's not forget that there was a similar timelapse between LAP and ATB(1979-1989) and STAV vs B-21(2007-2018(LRSB CDR)) Any members here have knowledge if there were plans to submit STAV as NGB entry, different from the late 70's LAP, which was more or less the first iteration of the design for the future bomber fleet before the supersonic requirement was dropped?
 

Attachments

  • 27423-b51698f98b3c59c51e904aaa495ff8c0.jpg
    27423-b51698f98b3c59c51e904aaa495ff8c0.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 105
  • NORTHROP-GRUMMAN-B-2-SPIRIT-03.jpg
    NORTHROP-GRUMMAN-B-2-SPIRIT-03.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 110
Last edited:
Hanz2k said:
F118 is 85kN engine while F135 is 125kN engine. B2 has 340kN thrust vs. B21 250kN thrust - basically only 35% less, but with at least 45% lower fuel consumption. If they use some technologies from Adaptive Engine then they could have even more thrust. And of course lower fuel consumption mean less weight. Basically it could be B2 resized - benefiting from lower fuel consumption plus smaller airframe mean lower drag. B2 has 75 tons of fuel on board, B21 with lower fuel consumption could require around 40 tons for same range. Last thought - maybe resize around fuel doesn’t require to cut weapons capacity?
Click to expand...
I agree, we've come so far since the 80's on efficiency that engine tech + construction methods (weight reductions) + aerodynamics alone could give more than enough range without sacrificing payloads
 
sferrin said:
The closest Australia will ever get to owning B-21s would be if they allowed US B-21s to have permanent forward basing there.
Click to expand...
it would be a win for everybody, especially if australia pays for the basing and the fact USAF is short on cash
 
sferrin said:
The closest Australia will ever get to owning B-21s would be if they allowed US B-21s to have permanent forward basing there.
Click to expand...
Let's see what is decided under the soon to be released Defence Strategic Review and then if AUKUS allows for.
 
New Patches according to DLR:
www.ebay.com

**NEW** B-21 3 Stealth Bomber Northrop Grumman 4" Patch Military 2022 USAF OPS | eBay

The quarter in the photo is for size reference and it is not included. Ace/Jack = Black Jack(21). This is 100% Authentic. High quality. Bleeding Heart = Enemies. CDXX = 420. 4 = Unlucky Chinese Number.
www.ebay.com

Hidden Meanings:
  • Tell No Tales = Secret Program
  • 3 red marks pointing down = Death From Above
  • Skull = Harbinger of Death
  • 7 = Lucky Number in America
  • 4 = Unlucky Chinese Number
  • CDXX = 420
  • No Jaw = Silence
  • Hourglass = Impending Doom
  • Bleeding Heart = Enemies
  • Falcon Skull = Harbinger of Death/F-16
  • Crown Jewels = B-21
We then have this Smythers guy BSing again:

He is only seeing what he wants to see, IMHO. It is true that in the past, silhouettes of classified aircraft were cleverly hidden in patches(McDD BoP), but mirroring an image can create all kinds of illusions. While it would be nice if indeed the Raider turns out to be built around AFC instead of moving control surfaces, there is nothing in this wight patch that suggests this is the case when the thing supposed to validate this technology hasn't even flown yet, and someone needs to tell Smythers the unveiling happened almost 2 months ago ,after watching he will begrudgingly accept that the B-21 DOES NOT look like a Batwing or certain even more obscure concept belonging to a different company.
 

Attachments

  • lockheed_martin_fsw_bomber.jpg
    lockheed_martin_fsw_bomber.jpg
    78.3 KB · Views: 119
  • wings.jpg
    wings.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l16004.jpg
    s-l16004.jpg
    397.2 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l16001.jpg
    s-l16001.jpg
    553.7 KB · Views: 57
  • s-l1602.jpg
    s-l1602.jpg
    450 KB · Views: 98
Many government customers “now understand that shifting too much risk to industry doesn’t support that investment, nor does it deliver the capability they need in a timely fashion,” Warden said. “I expect we’re going to see less fixed-price development going forward.”
Click to expand...

Good!
 
I thought that it was widely known the whole point of the B-2s visit was to demonstrate it working.
 
Say what you will about ATS but this comment from someone who caused quite a commotion and a lot to back it, said this in 2014 and a lot of other stuff. Almost 10 years ago.
 

Attachments

  • D47F82C2-BF2D-4C9B-86A2-F751B974ABB5.jpeg
    D47F82C2-BF2D-4C9B-86A2-F751B974ABB5.jpeg
    91.5 KB · Views: 380
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom