Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

bobbymike said:

Report Advocates for Air Force to Buy at Least 20 B-21s Per Year

Report Advocates for Air Force to Buy at Least 20 B-21s Per Year
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that, though I don't know how realistic it is. The USAF does seem to be moving as fast as it can on production. I suspect if testing goes well and NG can increase capacity, Congress would be willing to fund additional tooling for the line. It is a little early to discuss full rate production though, seeing as how it hasn't flown.
 
That seems a reasonable amount of B-21s to build per year. I would suspect that at that rate the first to be retired would be the early B-1Bs
 
FighterJock said:
That seems a reasonable amount of B-21s to build per year. I would suspect that at that rate the first to be retired would be the early B-1Bs
Click to expand...

I had thought that the B-1 was to be retired first, though I think the current B-1 timeline stretches out to the 2030s now, with the aircraft year limited to 300 hours. I don't know how realistic that is. But one has to wonder if the B-2 wouldn't be retired first since it represents fewer airframes, duplication of capability, and is its own maintenance problem. The B-1s have the advantage of carrying the largest number of cruise missiles in the bomber fleet.

It is possible USAF simply doesn't retire bombers for awhile and just builds up some inventory, given that it is operating at a historical post war low.
 
I did not know that the B-1Bs were now to be retired in the 2030s, thanks Josh_TN. I had previously thought that the USAF were to retire the B-1Bs first then the B-2s as more B-21s joined active service squadrons.
 
I’m not quite getting the apparent clamour here for bidding up higher and higher annual production rates for the B-21.

I understand higher rates would allow more rapid replacement and retirement of the B-1B and the B-2.

But there needs to be realism around the ball-park total buy/ production run (no one is getting 200 plus, very likely to be closer to 100 than 200).

Likely the politically most effective and realistic strategy is to keep total annual costs below a certain level and look for annual incremental relatively small number of top-ups once the official number of record is reached (as was done for the C-17, F/A-18E/F/G etc.), while demonstrating the efficiency/ cost effectiveness of these additional top-up orders.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
I did not know that the B-1Bs were now to be retired in the 2030s, thanks Josh_TN. I had previously thought that the USAF were to retire the B-1Bs first then the B-2s as more B-21s joined active service squadrons.
Click to expand...

My information could be out of date; this is the article that wiki references from 2018:

USAF to Retire B-1, B-2 in Early 2030s as B-21 Comes On-Line | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The new B-21 must replace—and not be additive to—much of the existing bomber fleet. |
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

I am pretty sure about the 300hr/yr limit though; I read that very recently. I had also thought that B-1s were to be retired first...I'm not sure where that stands now.
 
flateric said:
Josh_TN said:
bobbymike said:

Report Advocates for Air Force to Buy at Least 20 B-21s Per Year

Report Advocates for Air Force to Buy at Least 20 B-21s Per Year
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that, though I don't know how realistic it is.
Click to expand...
B-2 production rate was planned 24 per year AFAIR. And technologies somewhat progressed for the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

I would think it was less about technology and more about how much NG has invested into its production line. Presumably NG would expand its production capacity if given enough money to do so.
 
Modern assembly line is all about technology.
 
flateric said:
Modern assembly line is all about technology.
Click to expand...

The NG B-21 line is supposed to be highly automated, but I assume it was designed with a slower rate of production in mind given that only a hundred aircraft are envisioned and there is basically no hope of foreign customers. It may be much more efficient that other lines but it still might have less capacity. Has NG put out any statements regarding their projected full production rate?
 
X-39 said:

The Weekly Debrief: Will The B-21 Reach First Flight Faster Than Stealth Peers? No. | Aviation Week Network

U.S. Air Force officials have not backed off predictions of a first flight coming later this year, but certain conditions and a note of doubt have creeped in.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
Interesting read.
"
By contrast, the Air Force set a goal to not start B-21 flight testing until the mission systems, such as the radar and electronic warfare suites, were ready to be evaluated on board the aircraft.
"
 
Josh_TN said:
I am pretty sure about the 300hr/yr limit though; I read that very recently. I had also thought that B-1s were to be retired first...I'm not sure where that stands now.
Click to expand...

The announced B-21 basing plan so far is:
- Ellsworth
- Dyess
- Whiteman

These bases are not going to be massively expanded. The B-21 will be replacing existing aircraft. It would be safe to assume this means B-1s will be phased out as B-21s come in, and then (eventually) the B-2s will be replaced by B-21s, if they get the number of B-21s they want. If they can't get them, they keep the B-2s as long as they can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
quellish said:
The announced B-21 basing plan so far is:
- Ellsworth
- Dyess
- Whiteman

These bases are not going to be massively expanded. The B-21 will be replacing existing aircraft. It would be safe to assume this means B-1s will be phased out as B-21s come in, and then (eventually) the B-2s will be replaced by B-21s, if they get the number of B-21s they want. If they can't get them, they keep the B-2s as long as they can.
Click to expand...
Of the 3 mentioned, Dyess has lots of ramp space, especially if they move the C-130’s to another base. If they go with a larger number Grand Forks comes to mind as a former bomber base without bombers presently that would offer more ramp space.

Edit:
There are 44 spots now on the B-1 ramp at Dyess and the old alert facility north of the C-130 ramp is empty.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, the report mentions the availability of quick drying concrete for runway repairs: as soon as 3 hours after pouring, a C-17 can land.
 
TomcatViP said:
Interestingly, the report mentions the availability of quick drying concrete for runway repairs: as soon as 3 hours after pouring, a C-17 can land.
Click to expand...
That would be a good idea for any Military Air Base should their runways be cratered or damaged by storms or earthquakes.
 
listen.sdpb.org

Rounds signals purpose of B-21 bomber: 'China deterrence weapon'

Defense and congressional officials are hinting at the role the incoming B-21 bomber may have. This week’s remarks during a military symposium in the Black Hills mark some of the first times an American adversary is mentioned in relation to the next-generation stealth bomber.
listen.sdpb.org listen.sdpb.org
 
X-39 said:
listen.sdpb.org

Rounds signals purpose of B-21 bomber: 'China deterrence weapon'

Defense and congressional officials are hinting at the role the incoming B-21 bomber may have. This week’s remarks during a military symposium in the Black Hills mark some of the first times an American adversary is mentioned in relation to the next-generation stealth bomber.
listen.sdpb.org listen.sdpb.org
Click to expand...

The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
 
Josh_TN said:
The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
Click to expand...
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
 
In_A_Dream said:
Josh_TN said:
The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
Click to expand...
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
Click to expand...
This is not the problem of B-21, it is the security problem of the military base itself.

Keeping security of weapons assets is the responsibility of military bases.
 
None the less, CONUS basing removes basically every conventional threat. It seems likely to me that the B-21 has a truly intercontinental range close to or even exceeding the B-52. The fuel savings of adopting twin engines with PW geared turbofans (unconfirmed but seems likely), combined with advances in composites and superior aerodynamic efficiency of a diamond tail vs saw tooth (presumed from renders but unconfirmed) probably went a long way towards increasing endurance. I’m also still of the belief that it only employs one primary common strategic rotary launcher sized bomb bay, which would indicate payload was traded for additional fuel even given the overall smaller airframe (roughly 2/3 - 3/4 size and mass).
 
In_A_Dream said:
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
Click to expand...
That‘s mitigated to a large degree by a combat departure where you crank it into a turning climb over the base. So long as the base perimeter is secure it’s a bit harder to use manpads during this vulnerable phase of flight.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Josh_TN said:
The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
Click to expand...
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
Click to expand...
Which is why we have a triad...
 
That is why we need a supersonic or even hypersonic bomber to succeed the B-52 and compliment the B-21, I could see such bomber appearing when the B-52 finally retires.
 
mkellytx said:
That‘s mitigated to a large degree by a combat departure where you crank it into a turning climb over the base. So long as the base perimeter is secure it’s a bit harder to use manpads during this vulnerable phase of flight.
Click to expand...

How aggressive of a climb do you think the B-21 could execute?

What would stop a swarm of UAVs from loitering just outside the runway perimeter and distributing clouds of chaff to target its intakes?
Cheap and unconventional.
 
In_A_Dream said:
How aggressive of a climb do you think the B-21 could execute?
Click to expand...

Tough to say since it hasn’t yet flown and we know nothing about it’s gross weight, engine thrust, etc. That said, other bombers do it today (I’ve seen it myself) so it’s resonable to expect the Raider to do it as well.

What would stop a swarm of UAVs from loitering just outside the runway perimeter and distributing clouds of chaff to target its intakes?
Cheap and unconventional.
Click to expand...

The assumption here is a CONUS base, right? So answer your own question as to how easy you think it is to fly swarms of drones up to Dyess, Ellsworth or Whiteman an when drones in controlled airspace is already a known issue.
 
Word that B-2 rate of climb & speed thanks for her clean design and low drag was limited in flight manuals to prevent cracking in windshield panels that are constant pain in the ass for maintainers. So go figure.
 
rainyZzone said:
In_A_Dream said:
Josh_TN said:
The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
Click to expand...
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
Click to expand...
This is not the problem of B-21, it is the security problem of the military base itself.

Keeping security of weapons assets is the responsibility of military bases.
Click to expand...
We seem to not be able to keep presumedly Chinese/Russian UAPs from snooping around military bases. I bet there are already dormant assets, maybe layers of them patiently waiting for their day to be activated.
 
skyblue said:
rainyZzone said:
In_A_Dream said:
Josh_TN said:
The recent dissertation on bomber development discussed the program’s requirements (and the cancelled program before that) which made it unambiguously clear the B-21 program’s requirements were explicitly set around a war with China. Range was practically the number one requirement.
Click to expand...
Those planes can do a lot of magic when up in the air, but they are vulnerable on the ground and upon take off.

Do you ever wonder how easy it would be for foreign actors within the US to set something up to target the B-21s upon taxi/takeoff?
Maybe something unconventional but effective. Can you think of any countries that purchase land around US military bases?
Click to expand...
This is not the problem of B-21, it is the security problem of the military base itself.

Keeping security of weapons assets is the responsibility of military bases.
Click to expand...
We seem to not be able to keep presumedly Chinese/Russian UAPs from snooping around military bases. I bet there are already dormant assets, maybe layers of them patiently waiting for their day to be activated.
Click to expand...
The most important thing is to destroy their kill chain and the transmission ability of the intelligence network to turn those UAVs into fire sticks.
Deploying UAVs is easy but keeping them operational for long periods of time is difficult and their range is limited.
A suitable exclusion zone for a military base is sufficient to deter most UAV invasions and greatly limit their ability to perform their missions.
We can also track these UAVs to find their bases and destroy them.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom