Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[CiTrus90]

Notice no visible air data ports on the aircraft.

They may be taped over like AINS window during B-2 rollout. Or it may be lasers (those require apertures too though).

The port holes may be like the YF-23, built into the skin, just cannot see them (or taped over for the rollout) with the sensors mounted to the back of the skin/panel or maybe laser air data? I wonder if the B-21 will use an AINS? AINS was a very pricey piece of equipment but worked very, very well and very reliable.

See attached, possibly relevant to the discussion (back from 2008).

Also, I was under the impression the black dots seen in the B-21 intakes from the pics of the rollout were air data sensors? But I might remember wrong...

 

[Josh_TN]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

And that isn’t guaranteed. Moreover no WestPac base is safe. The USAF consciously decided it needed the range to operate from Alaska and Hawaii, or ideally just to tank over those areas, and the B-21 is the result. I think it is fair to call it a medium bomber with intercontinental range given the relatively light payload compared to B-1/2/52, but that was likely the trade off for endurance.

 

[Josh_TN]

The astronavigation system on the B-2 is a visible circular port to the left of the cockpit. Presumably B-21 will still have one somewhere.

Let's Have Another Look At The B-2's Air Data Ports And Astroinertial Navigation System

The U.S. Air Force has just published some new close up shots of the B-2 during aerial refueling that show some of the bomber's characteristic nose

www.google.com

 

[In_A_Dream]

The most concerning thing versus US stealth, is that China can create an array (multi-stage, multi-location) along its eastern coast that can effectively blast enough EM energy, across a wide variety of spectrums, into the sky to detect, track, and target anything heading towards the mainland. And that's independent of any supplementary low orbit sensor data feeds. The B-21 (nor "RQ-180" as it stands) has no defense against this due to the limited power output.

Yet the Chinese haven't (publicly) established this kind of array yet. They may very well be allowing US reconnaissance overflights as a means to study and understand US tactics for whatever purpose they are pursuing.

Complacency kills.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The most concerning thing versus US stealth, is that China can create an array (multi-stage, multi-location) along its eastern coast that can effectively blast enough EM energy, across a wide variety of spectrums, into the sky to detect, track, and target anything heading towards the mainland. And that's independent of any supplementary low orbit sensor data feeds. The B-21 (nor "RQ-180" as it stands) has no defense against this due to the limited power output.

Yet the Chinese haven't (publicly) established this kind of array yet. They may very well be allowing US reconnaissance overflights as a means to study and understand US tactics for whatever purpose they are pursuing.

Complacency kills.

The point of stealth isn't to be undetectable.

The point of stealth is to be unkillable. So all you need to do is make it so that the fire control radars can't track the object, or cannot guide a weapon close enough to get an IR lock on you.

To use some video gaming terms: you're not a stealth-build Rogue, you're an evasion-tank!

 

[FighterJock]

The powers that be should have made the NGB a Black program from the start and then it would have entered service.

 

[DrRansom]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

And that isn’t guaranteed. Moreover no WestPac base is safe. The USAF consciously decided it needed the range to operate from Alaska and Hawaii, or ideally just to tank over those areas, and the B-21 is the result. I think it is fair to call it a medium bomber with intercontinental range given the relatively light payload compared to B-1/2/52, but that was likely the trade off for endurance.

I get that decision - future proofing to a degree - but I fear the impact on sortie rate will be substantial.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

And that isn’t guaranteed. Moreover no WestPac base is safe. The USAF consciously decided it needed the range to operate from Alaska and Hawaii, or ideally just to tank over those areas, and the B-21 is the result. I think it is fair to call it a medium bomber with intercontinental range given the relatively light payload compared to B-1/2/52, but that was likely the trade off for endurance.

I get that decision - future proofing to a degree - but I fear the impact on sortie rate will be substantial.

Depends entirely on what the assumed bombs/sortie rate is.

IIRC, the B-21 is packing one bay that can carry up to 30,000lbs (same bay size as a B-2, just one bay instead of two).

That's potentially 24x 1000lb bombs, or 48x SDBs. Or 8x B61s, if the sewage has well and truly hit the turbofan.

 

[Josh_TN]

Depends entirely on what the assumed bombs/sortie rate is.

IIRC, the B-21 is packing one bay that can carry up to 30,000lbs (same bay size as a B-2, just one bay instead of two).

That's potentially 24x 1000lb bombs, or 48x SDBs. Or 8x B61s, if the sewage has well and truly hit the turbofan.

Where does the 48 SDB number come from? Or the 24 for that matter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Depends entirely on what the assumed bombs/sortie rate is.

IIRC, the B-21 is packing one bay that can carry up to 30,000lbs (same bay size as a B-2, just one bay instead of two).

That's potentially 24x 1000lb bombs, or 48x SDBs. Or 8x B61s, if the sewage has well and truly hit the turbofan.

Where does the 48 SDB number come from? Or the 24 for that matter?

8-sided rotary launcher with triple ejector racks on each face for 24x 1000lb. Though the packing may not work out for SDB, I think the quad packs don't stack right on a TER..

 

[Josh_TN]

Ah, ok. I doubt that arrangement would work, but I also assume some kind of dedicated rack would be used/developed to maximize munitions. Perhaps a modified Smart Bomb Assembly. There’s no reason ~100 SDB couldn’t be carried weight and volume wise. They are a full 20 inches shorter than a mk82; you could fit three rows nose to tail and still have three feet of bomb bay left for spacing in a B-2. And they are less than half the diameter as well.

I don’t believe the USAF has used mk83 in decades so that probably isn’t a consideration, though I believe the SBAR can carry up to thousand pound stores. So I think 20 would be more likely. Maybe SiAW ultimately gets carried this way? Also weight wise no reason B-61 couldn’t, but that rack was never nuclearized previously.

But 40 mk82s would be the more likely load outside SDBs (two SBARs nose to back as B2). The question I would have in that case is can wing kits be incorporated? There would be a big stand off advantage to making the JDAMs glide from 40-50.000 feet for little cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ah, ok. I doubt that arrangement would work, but I also assume some kind of dedicated rack would be used/developed to maximize munitions. Perhaps a modified Smart Bomb Assembly.

I believe that's the setup the USAF uses for the B-2, when they do the "absurd number of dumb bombs" loads. Though it may be a 6-rack on each face of the 8 sided rotary launcher and 500lbers.

But I'm expecting any new USAF bomber to use the standardized bomb bay size and internals.

There’s no reason ~100 SDB couldn’t be carried weight and volume wise. They are a full 20 inches shorter than a mk82; you could fit three rows nose to tail and still have three feet of bomb bay left for spacing in a B-2. And they are less than half the diameter as well.

I don’t believe the USAF has used mk83 in decades so that probably isn’t a consideration, though I believe the SBAR can carry up to thousand pound stores. So I think 20 would be more likely. Maybe SiAW ultimately gets carried this way? Also weight wise no reason B-61 couldn’t, but that rack was never nuclearized previously.

There's a different rotary launcher for those. And nukes you need to keep a certain distance away from each other, lest they start a neutron flux and kill everyone around them.

But 40 mk82s would be the more likely load outside SDBs (two SBARs nose to back as B2). The question I would have in that case is can wing kits be incorporated? There would be a big stand off advantage to making the JDAMs glide from 40-50.000 feet for little cost.

That I don't know. Is anyone on the forum an Air Force Ordnance type, that could say if there's physically enough space for a wing kit?

 

[Hanz2k]

There's a different rotary launcher for those. And nukes you need to keep a certain distance away from each other, lest they start a neutron flux and kill everyone around them.

Nope. Never going to happen. Otherwise any MIRV rocket is not possible. Current designs are very efficient with minimum material and high compression. To reach Hiroshima energy level pit require tritium boosting. Two naked pits side to side maybe but not assembled bomb.

 

[Josh_TN]

I believe that's the setup the USAF uses for the B-2, when they do the "absurd number of dumb bombs" loads. Though it may be a 6-rack on each face of the 8 sided rotary launcher and 500lbers.

But I'm expecting any new USAF bomber to use the standardized bomb bay size and internals.

The 80 mk82 JDAMs dropped all at once is the Smart Bomb Assembly Rack, two per bay, 54 purchased for the fleet in total. I've only see it used with the GBU-38s in photos and videos, but I've heard (I think on this thread?) that it is a flexible system that can take multiple types of stores. Unclear what else besides the smaller JDAMs that includes. For the JDAMs, they carry four stacks of five each (4x5) in two sets. Presumably a modified version might carry SDBs; or perhaps some adaptor/sabot could fitted to them. You should be able to stack them nearly twice as deep with ~7" vs 18" diameter difference, and like I mentioned they are short enough they could fit three racks of them vice two if there were no separation issues with that arrangement.

Agree that B-21 will almost certainly have a single B-2 type bomb bay; they wouldn't want to have to create a brand new serious of racks and launchers along with all the supporting training and infrastructure. I'm hoping there will be secondary bays for self defense weapons/targets of opportunity as well - something like the F-35 bay but perhaps sized big enough for the AGM-158 series. Or even full sized for LRSO. The idea would be to carry different quick reaction weapon types that didn't require opening the main bay to release (and preserved the payload for the primary target). It would also allow for a greater mix of weapons, since I think most rack/launcher arrangements are limited to a single weapon type at one time.

There's a different rotary launcher for those. And nukes you need to keep a certain distance away from each other, lest they start a neutron flux and kill everyone around them.

I'm pretty sure the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher is the only rotary launcher used in the B-2/B-52 and that it accommodates all 2000lb + conventional and nuclear stores. I think the B-1 has some kind of shorter rotary that is its primary launcher. SRAM length vs AGM-86 length. Fair point about stacking too many physics packages together; no idea when that gets dangerous.

 

[BlackBat242]

Well, 10 "devices" packed together atop one missile for months (or years) at a time caused no problems (MX Peacekeeper missile), neither did 14 (Trident II).
Therefore, no problem putting a few "devices" (that are enclosed in a bomb casing) inside an aircraft weapons bay for a few hours or days.

• LGM-30 Minuteman III (active, 1-3 warheads, currently carries one warhead)
• UGM-73 Poseidon (retired, 10 or 14 warheads)
• UGM-96 Trident I (retired, 8 warheads)
• LGM-118 Peacekeeper (retired, 10 warheads)
• UGM-133 Trident II (active 8-14 warheads)

In US service Trident II can be loaded with up to eight Mk-5 RVs with 475-kt W88 warheads, up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 90-kt W76-1 warheads, and up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 5–7-kt W76-2 warheads. In practice, each missile on average carries four warheads due to the warhead limitations placed by the New START treaty.

LGM-118A Peacekeeper MIRV (Wiki)



Trident D5 components
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm



Trident D5 payload bus with 3rd stage motor
from Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1164646188756492304

View: https://twitter.com/AtomicAnalyst/status/1164646188756492304


Minuteman III weapons bus with outer nosecone
from Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567519325421985794

View: https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1567519325421985794

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's a different rotary launcher for those. And nukes you need to keep a certain distance away from each other, lest they start a neutron flux and kill everyone around them.

Nope. Never going to happen. Otherwise any MIRV rocket is not possible. Current designs are very efficient with minimum material and high compression. To reach Hiroshima energy level pit require tritium boosting. Two naked pits side to side maybe but not assembled bomb.

Warheads on a Trident are a pretty good distance apart, remember that the outer moldline of a Trident 2 is 83". Wider than the bomb bay of a B-52.

 

[Hanz2k]

There's a different rotary launcher for those. And nukes you need to keep a certain distance away from each other, lest they start a neutron flux and kill everyone around them.

Nope. Never going to happen. Otherwise any MIRV rocket is not possible. Current designs are very efficient with minimum material and high compression. To reach Hiroshima energy level pit require tritium boosting. Two naked pits side to side maybe but not assembled bomb.

Warheads on a Trident are a pretty good distance apart, remember that the outer moldline of a Trident 2 is 83". Wider than the bomb bay of a B-52.

Look at Peacekeeper or Minuteman bus picture above (thx BlackBat242). Think how B2 is certified for 16 B61 or B83. Don’t pick something that fits your thesis. Again - no chance for any meaningful nuclear reaction on bomb rack.

 

[Airplane]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

So how fast then? Can you quantify?

 

[Calphor]

Whoever is quoting that image in the tweet from @AtmoicAnalyst above as being a D5 third stage surrounded by RVs is mistaken. The D5 motors are carbon composite and are left black during integration. The motor cases shown are either glass or Kevlar fiber composite. Also, the D5 third stage is longer and narrower than shown in that picture. Maybe they are using that picture as a representation of the RV arrangement.

 

[TomS]

Whoever is quoting that image in the tweet from @AtmoicAnalyst above as being a D5 third stage surrounded by RVs is mistaken. The D5 motors are carbon composite and are left black during integration. The motor cases shown are either glass or Kevlar fiber composite. Also, the D5 third stage is longer and narrower than shown in that picture. Maybe they are using that picture as a representation of the RV arrangement.

It's a mockup at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History in New Mexico. They admit that the RVs are actually somewhat undersized but otherwise should be representative.

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History | Photographs | Media Gallery

www.atomicarchive.com

 

[DrRansom]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

So how fast then? Can you quantify?

Mach 2 cruise to launch point cuts travel time in half. The benefits appear either in sortie rate (assuming comparable turnaround time) or response time to a time-limited target, e.g. target an invasion fleet when it is exposed between coastal AD bastion to disembarkment point AD bastion.

 

[Josh_TN]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

So how fast then? Can you quantify?

Mach 2 cruise to launch point cuts travel time in half. The benefits appear either in sortie rate (assuming comparable turnaround time) or response time to a time-limited target, e.g. target an invasion fleet when it is exposed between coastal AD bastion to disembarkment point AD bastion.

It seems to me sortie rate would mostly be driven by other factors unless basing was right in the first or second island chain, in which case perhaps tactical aircraft are a cheaper option anyway. Or even dispersed cargo aircraft carrying palletized stand off weapons.

That said it is hard to imagine that the manned NGAD platform wouldn't have some capability as a medium bomber or heavy fighter bomber. All it would need is a relatively large internal bay for weapons and sufficient integration/separation testing. It seems likely it will have a large bay for its primary role, IMO. They would want to future proof the design and I think they would also want it to be able to internally carry very long ranged BVR weapons for high priority multi engined targets (AEW, MPA, KC, etc).

 

[DrRansom]

A supersonic medium or heavy bomber would be excellent for the Pacific Theater - gets more missile sorties during the decisive initial period. Would have to be based out of Japan, though.

So how fast then? Can you quantify?

Mach 2 cruise to launch point cuts travel time in half. The benefits appear either in sortie rate (assuming comparable turnaround time) or response time to a time-limited target, e.g. target an invasion fleet when it is exposed between coastal AD bastion to disembarkment point AD bastion.

It seems to me sortie rate would mostly be driven by other factors unless basing was right in the first or second island chain, in which case perhaps tactical aircraft are a cheaper option anyway. Or even dispersed cargo aircraft carrying palletized stand off weapons.

That said it is hard to imagine that the manned NGAD platform wouldn't have some capability as a medium bomber or heavy fighter bomber. All it would need is a relatively large internal bay for weapons and sufficient integration/separation testing. It seems likely it will have a large bay for its primary role, IMO. They would want to future proof the design and I think they would also want it to be able to internally carry very long ranged BVR weapons for high priority multi engined targets (AEW, MPA, KC, etc).

A reasonable sized supersonic bomber would have to be based out of Japan.

For the second half of the comment, the issue becomes internal / external carriage of reasonable sized anti-ship missiles. Sizing NGAD for ASM internal carriage has significant cost. And there simply aren't enough NGADs to take on that role.

I don't know if there's a really good aircraft solution here. A swing-wing supersized FB-111 has basing flexibility, potentially lower costs than a VLO design, but lack of LO will cause combat mission issues. Contrariwise, LO designs have reduced basing flexibility, higher cost, and have to be sized to carry designs, but more mission flexibility.

 

[Josh_TN]

A reasonable sized supersonic bomber would have to be based out of Japan.

For the second half of the comment, the issue becomes internal / external carriage of reasonable sized anti-ship missiles. Sizing NGAD for ASM internal carriage has significant cost. And there simply aren't enough NGADs to take on that role.

I don't know if there's a really good aircraft solution here. A swing-wing supersized FB-111 has basing flexibility, potentially lower costs than a VLO design, but lack of LO will cause combat mission issues. Contrariwise, LO designs have reduced basing flexibility, higher cost, and have to be sized to carry designs, but more mission flexibility.

I think local basing is a non starter, as is creating a new aircraft in general. Certainly both combined are right out.

It seems likely to me that the future SiAW* will be cable of hitting moving targets and as such have a very good AShM capability due to high speed/short flight time and ability to be stored internally. Presumably NGAD could carry the same at a minimum, given that F-35 will be able to. But no one is making a new type of short ranged aircraft just so it die on the ground like the tactical aircraft around it.

*The future version of it, not the interim AARGM-ER

 

[uk 75]

A strategic bomber needs to be able to operate from the US rather than deploy to bases overseas. At the same time there are likely to always be airbases in allies closer to an opponent.
As with the present B52, B1 and B2 force some operations will start from US and others from overseas bases.
In general war against a sophisticated opponent bombers will tend to be used to deliver missiles rather than bombs.
But once air superiority is available and air defences are neutralised or non-existent a bomb truck like the B52D becomes an option.
Given progress in surface to air weapons and the high cost of suppressing them I am not sure how often the option will exist.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In terms of supersonic bomb trucks, the B-1 crews flying missions over Afghanistan reported using their Mach 1.2 speed quite a bit, they were often able to get to a unit in trouble before physically closer but subsonic aircraft were.

 

[DrRansom]

A reasonable sized supersonic bomber would have to be based out of Japan.

For the second half of the comment, the issue becomes internal / external carriage of reasonable sized anti-ship missiles. Sizing NGAD for ASM internal carriage has significant cost. And there simply aren't enough NGADs to take on that role.

I don't know if there's a really good aircraft solution here. A swing-wing supersized FB-111 has basing flexibility, potentially lower costs than a VLO design, but lack of LO will cause combat mission issues. Contrariwise, LO designs have reduced basing flexibility, higher cost, and have to be sized to carry designs, but more mission flexibility.

I think local basing is a non starter, as is creating a new aircraft in general. Certainly both combined are right out.

Why would local-basing be a non-starter? USAF based out of European bases during the Cold War and we're in a parallel situation. There's no reason for USAF to not have a hardened base network in Japan.

Agreed on the no-new aircraft for the next decade, but after B-21 gets under production, a medium bomber for local basing /may/ be a good idea for Pacific Theater. NGAD-B?

 

[FighterJock]

That is what I want to see DrRansom, a medium bomber that is an enlarged NGAD somewhat like the FB-23/FB-22 designs. That would be a good idea for the USAF to follow.

 

[Josh_TN]

Why would local-basing be a non-starter? USAF based out of European bases during the Cold War and we're in a parallel situation. There's no reason for USAF to not have a hardened base network in Japan.

Modern PGMs make every conceivable air base vulnerable. Penetration of a HAS is simple for a $50,000 weapon. And the PRC specifically has invested heavily in a mix of cluster and penetration warheads on TBMs to shut down airbases. That is nothing like the Cold War. The USAF is quite practically getting out of the large local airbase paradigm in the WestPac. It is withdrawing permanent fighter squadrons from Kadena and attempting to disperse its tactical aircraft in time of conflict. The USAF isn’t ever building a major strike platform with less than intercontinental range ever again; even the new air superiority airframe will probably have several thousand miles radius.

 

[DrRansom]

Why would local-basing be a non-starter? USAF based out of European bases during the Cold War and we're in a parallel situation. There's no reason for USAF to not have a hardened base network in Japan.

Modern PGMs make every conceivable air base vulnerable. Penetration of a HAS is simple for a $50,000 weapon. And the PRC specifically has invested heavily in a mix of cluster and penetration warheads on TBMs to shut down airbases. That is nothing like the Cold War. The USAF is quite practically getting out of the large local airbase paradigm in the WestPac. It is withdrawing permanent fighter squadrons from Kadena and attempting to disperse its tactical aircraft in time of conflict. The USAF isn’t ever building a major strike platform with less than intercontinental range ever again; even the new air superiority airframe will probably have several thousand miles radius.

There's a difference between operating from a single airbase (Kadena) and operating between the approximately 98 airfields in Japan - plus improved highway strips where possible. It seems the AF has decided to swing completely from in-theater major airbases to out-of-theater airbases and has skipped disperse and selectively harden entirely.

However, this approach has definite downsides, it requires the aircraft be 'rougher field' capable and probably variable geometry. Also, LO may be impossible, because of reduced maintenance ability.

Making the whole AF operate from out-of-theater airbases, though, will drop sortie rate to a uselessly low value. It simply gives up half the Pacific.

 

[Josh_TN]

There's a difference between operating from a single airbase (Kadena) and operating between the approximately 98 airfields in Japan - plus improved highway strips where possible. It seems the AF has decided to swing completely from in-theater major airbases to out-of-theater airbases and has skipped disperse and selectively harden entirely.

However, this approach has definite downsides, it requires the aircraft be 'rougher field' capable and probably variable geometry. Also, LO may be impossible, because of reduced maintenance ability.

Making the whole AF operate from out-of-theater airbases, though, will drop sortie rate to a uselessly low value. It simply gives up half the Pacific.

The USAF isn’t giving up on operations in theater but it isn’t going to build a major strike platform around local basing either. You aren’t flying a medium bomber from a highway. All of the bombers are being pulled back to CONUS for basing, with perhaps some refueling and rearmament happening at forward bases to up sortie rates. But I suspect that USAF will never have more than a pair of bombers on the ground for a couple hours at any single airfield. Ultimately CONUS will be home, even if a mission involves a couple pit stops for rearming.

 

[DrRansom]

There's a difference between operating from a single airbase (Kadena) and operating between the approximately 98 airfields in Japan - plus improved highway strips where possible. It seems the AF has decided to swing completely from in-theater major airbases to out-of-theater airbases and has skipped disperse and selectively harden entirely.

However, this approach has definite downsides, it requires the aircraft be 'rougher field' capable and probably variable geometry. Also, LO may be impossible, because of reduced maintenance ability.

Making the whole AF operate from out-of-theater airbases, though, will drop sortie rate to a uselessly low value. It simply gives up half the Pacific.

The USAF isn’t giving up on operations in theater but it isn’t going to build a major strike platform around local basing either. You aren’t flying a medium bomber from a highway. All of the bombers are being pulled back to CONUS for basing, with perhaps some refueling and rearmament happening at forward bases to up sortie rates. But I suspect that USAF will never have more than a pair of bombers on the ground for a couple hours at any single airfield. Ultimately CONUS will be home, even if a mission involves a couple pit stops for rearming.

If B-21 is medium at estimated 200klb takeoff weight, what about a 100-120klb takeoff weight F-111 copy?

If the USAF will only base out of CONUS, we might as well shift money from them to more SSGNs.

 

[Sundog]

The B-21s aren't going to just be CONUS. There's Diego Garcia and I wouldn't be surprised if some are based out of Australia. Besides, they'll most likely have the range of the B-2 and they can refuel in the air, so it's much ado about nothing.

 

[Josh_TN]

If B-21 is medium at estimated 200klb takeoff weight, what about a 100-120klb takeoff weight F-111 copy?

If the USAF will only base out of CONUS, we might as well shift money from them to more SSGNs.

I suspect the manned component of NGAD will be in that weight range.

The USAF isn’t only operating from CONUS; it just looks like it is largely keeping its bombers there for security reasons. Most estimates indicate a couple dozen sorties+ per day on average could still be completed, which should translate to several hundred PGMs. So more than the entire one time load of an SSGN.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[mkellytx]

8-sided rotary launcher with triple ejector racks on each face for 24x 1000lb. Though the packing may not work out for SDB, I think the quad packs don't stack right on a TER..

No, rotaries don't do TER's. The Bones did do an adapter which replaced a 2,000 lb. station with two 500 lb. JDAM's. Keep in mind, weapons up to 1,000 lbs. use 14 in. lugs, everything heavier up to 5,000 lbs. uses 30 in. lugs (nukes use the 30's as well). TER's are 3 x14 in., which doesn't work for the SDB rack which is I believe a 30 in. Suppose if you really wanted the dual rack rotaries could get modified to 30 in. racks to carry two SDB racks, but so far as I know that never was funded.

 

[mkellytx]

I don’t believe the USAF has used mk83 in decades so that probably isn’t a consideration, though I believe the SBAR can carry up to thousand pound stores. So I think 20 would be more likely. Maybe SiAW ultimately gets carried this way? Also weight wise no reason B-61 couldn’t, but that rack was never nuclearized previously.

Generally speaking, you're right since the Vipers had some flutter issues with 83's they fell a bit out of favor. That said, the Raptor's bays could not fit GBU-31 so they went with the 1,000 lb. GBU-32 which they did use in Syria. Otherwise, the 1,000 lb. weapons are mostly clusters.

 

[Scott Kenny]

8-sided rotary launcher with triple ejector racks on each face for 24x 1000lb. Though the packing may not work out for SDB, I think the quad packs don't stack right on a TER..

No, rotaries don't do TER's. The Bones did do an adapter which replaced a 2,000 lb. station with two 500 lb. JDAM's. Keep in mind, weapons up to 1,000 lbs. use 14 in. lugs, everything heavier up to 5,000 lbs. uses 30 in. lugs (nukes use the 30's as well). TER's are 3 x14 in., which doesn't work for the SDB rack which is I believe a 30 in. Suppose if you really wanted the dual rack rotaries could get modified to 30 in. racks to carry two SDB racks, but so far as I know that never was funded.

I swear that I've seen a rotary launcher with some kind of multiple rack on each face... it may have been an experiment.

How does the B-2 carry 24x 1000lb weapons?

 

[TomS]

How does the B-2 carry 24x 1000lb weapons?

It doesn't seem to. The publicly discussed loads are either sixteen (16) 2,000-lb class weapons on two (2) eight-station Rotary Launchers or eighty (80) 500-lb JDAMs on the Smart Bomb Rack. Or a pair of really large weapons like MOP.

 

[Josh_TN]

I swear that I've seen a rotary launcher with some kind of multiple rack on each face... it may have been an experiment.

How does the B-2 carry 24x 1000lb weapons?

I've seen a picture of a B-2 wearing a four round SDB rack in its CSRL. Not sure if that is a capability standardized across the fleet. I sincerely doubt any other kind of MER is possible given separation and clearance issues. Also having the weapons that far off the center of the rotating body probably produces leverage issues. At some point you just need a dedicated rack for smaller weapons, either the SBAR or something like it.