Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

LowObservable said:
"It's a Snark!" was the sound that first came to their ears,
And seemed almost too good to be true.
Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:
Then the ominous words "It's a Boo—"
Click to expand...

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

;)

A
 
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/powder-river-training-complex-expanding-upward-will-allow-for-stealth/article_c1c21fe8-05c6-5ee1-a7ff-efcca0ec1109.html

The higher maximum altitudes will be necessary, he said, once the U.S. Air Force and Ellsworth Air Force Base begin the expected transition to a new strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider, beginning in 2023.
Click to expand...
 
Pretty impressive schedule for an aircraft that hasn't flown yet. Five years to the beginning of transition at Ellsworth. Even if that's when they start the infrastructure improvements it implies first flight, and testing being complete in a short period of time.
 
Mark S. said:
Pretty impressive schedule for an aircraft that hasn't flown yet. Five years to the beginning of transition at Ellsworth. Even if that's when they start the infrastructure improvements it implies first flight, and testing being complete in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Initial flight testing will have to be completed, but I'm sure a lot of the testing will be concurrent. Such as approving the various weapons loads, etc.
 
Mark S. said:
Pretty impressive schedule for an aircraft that hasn't flown yet. Five years to the beginning of transition at Ellsworth. Even if that's when they start the infrastructure improvements it implies first flight, and testing being complete in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

They aren’t called the RCO for nothing!
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/21/report-air-force-must-buy-more-b-21s-postpone-legacy-bomber-retirements

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The United States is facing threats from advanced adversaries that will require an expanded fleet of bombers, a new report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies found.

The Air Force should plan to procure B-21 Raiders — which are being developed by Northrop Grumman — at a faster rate and consider retaining and modernizing its legacy force of B-1 Lancers and B-2 Spirits, said the report, “Building the Future Bomber Force America Needs: The Bomber Re-Vector,” by retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula and Douglas A. Birkey, both analysts with the Mitchell Institute.

“The current force of 157 bombers is not enough to meet America’s defense strategy,” Deptula said Sept. 18 during a panel discussion at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Click to expand...

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_191a9ed1e436461a96247e17049dbdae.pdf

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/09/must-haves-next-strategic-nuclear-bomber/151467/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

Almost nothing is known about the new bomber in development, the B-21 Raider, the most important Air Force project of the new century. But it will differ from previous bombers in one critical feature: rapid upgradability, according to Air Force Gen. Tim Ray, who leads the service’s Global Strike Command. In essence, there will be no single bomber but an ever-evolving platform that will change as technology and circumstances change as well.

So the B-21 will be modifiable in four key areas: sensors, communications, electromagnetic signature, and defensive capability, Ray said during the recent Air Force Association conference, just outside of Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...
 
F135s for the B-1C. Remove the bulkhead between the forward two bays, and reenable external hardpoints. APG-81 variant upfront. ;)
 
The B-1B recently got an AESA upgrade so there is less need for an APG-81 variant.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR-GS/Documents/SABR-GS_Northrop_Grumman.pdf
 
SpudmanWP said:
The B-1B recently got an AESA upgrade so there is less need for an APG-81 variant.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR-GS/Documents/SABR-GS_Northrop_Grumman.pdf
Click to expand...

Completely forgot about that. :-[
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
B-1C? I'm intrigued.
Click to expand...
I still think the Bone would make the best arsenal plane. Launch about 200 AMRAAMS and while the enemy is completely defensive F-22s loaded with CUDAs clean up any survivors.
 
bobbymike said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
B-1C? I'm intrigued.
Click to expand...
I still think the Bone would make the best arsenal plane. Launch about 200 AMRAAMS and while the enemy is completely defensive F-22s loaded with CUDAs clean up any survivors.
Click to expand...

That's what I used to do way back when (In the '90s) with, I think Janes ATF sim. I would take a B-1 up loaded only with AMRAAMs and completely saturate the skies with them when encountering enemy squadrons. Yes, it was only a 'game' sim, but it was the most lethal combination in the game. I was never shot down in that B-1!
 
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C. Remove the bulkhead between the forward two bays, and reenable external hardpoints. APG-81 variant upfront. ;)
Click to expand...
If the intakes were rearranged without the pronounced S-duct could such a variant reach higher speeds like the B-1A did or is it not structurally rated for that?

I personally would love to see such a B-1C, just throw in a new ECM suite while they're at it.

About using it as an AMRAAM truck, I'd think a longer ranged missile would be better if you were going to use it in such a role.
 
Looking at the Mitchell Institute report, there is definitely room for a FB-XX class bomber in the future. Something which brings payload at range but has numbers.
 
DrRansom said:
Looking at the Mitchell Institute report, there is definitely room for a FB-XX class bomber in the future. Something which brings payload at range but has numbers.
Click to expand...
What is this Mitchell Institute report? Hopefully such an FB-XX would have speed too. A robust supercruise capability and maybe the ability to dash at Mach 2 at high altitudes.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
DrRansom said:
Looking at the Mitchell Institute report, there is definitely room for a FB-XX class bomber in the future. Something which brings payload at range but has numbers.
Click to expand...
What is this Mitchell Institute report? Hopefully such an FB-XX would have speed too. A robust supercruise capability and maybe the ability to dash at Mach 2 at high altitudes.
Click to expand...

www.mitchellaerospacepower.org

Bombers for Maritime Strike: an Asymmetric Counter to China's Navy - Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies

ARLINGTON, VA | February 27, 2019 — The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies is pleased to announce the newest installment in its Mitchell Institute Policy Papers series, Bombers for Maritime Strike: An Asymmetric Counter to China’s Navy, by Mitchell’s Dean, Lt Gen David A. Deptula, USAF...
www.mitchellaerospacepower.org www.mitchellaerospacepower.org
 
quote from the Mitchell Instit report. Ouch for the Army but thought there were some downed/crashed Apache(s) on or near a combat zone though.

"The challenges associated with rapid combat deployments are effectively illustrated by the US Army’s efforts to deploy 24 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to a base in Albania during the 1999 Kosovo campaign, Operation Allied Force. Setting up the base took 667,000 square meters of rock for 58 landing pads; 26,000 tons of support equipment including 24 support vans, 12 M-1 tanks, 42 Bradley Fighting Vehicles; 24 rocket defense systems; 37 utility helicopters, and 6,200 troops. Some 2,200 airlift sorties were also required to get this infrastructure into theater. In the end, the helicopters were never used because the conflict was over by the time they became available for operational employment."
 
quote from the Mitchell Instit report. Ouch for the Army but thought there were some downed/crashed Apache(s) on or near a combat zone though.

"The challenges associated with rapid combat deployments are effectively illustrated by the US Army’s efforts to deploy 24 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to a base in Albania during the 1999 Kosovo campaign, Operation Allied Force. Setting up the base took 667,000 square meters of rock for 58 landing pads; 26,000 tons of support equipment including 24 support vans, 12 M-1 tanks, 42 Bradley Fighting Vehicles; 24 rocket defense systems; 37 utility helicopters, and 6,200 troops. Some 2,200 airlift sorties were also required to get this infrastructure into theater. In the end, the helicopters were never used because the conflict was over by the time they became available for operational employment."
 
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C.
Click to expand...

...
That would have nearly as much thrust dry as the B-1B has with afterburners, and +50% when running wet. Could the airframe even take that?
 
Tuna said:
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C.
Click to expand...

...
That would have nearly as much thrust dry as the B-1B has with afterburners, and +50% when running wet. Could the airframe even take that?
Click to expand...

Are we in that era where engines are powerful enough that "heavy" strategic bombers need only two?
 
GWrecks said:
Tuna said:
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C.
Click to expand...

...
That would have nearly as much thrust dry as the B-1B has with afterburners, and +50% when running wet. Could the airframe even take that?
Click to expand...

Are we in that era where engines are powerful enough that "heavy" strategic bombers need only two?
Click to expand...

There have been powerful engines for ages. The GE4 produced almost 70,000lbs thrust in max afterburner. The NK-32 that powers the Blackjack produces 55k. It's not much more than a matter of what do you want.
 
I doubt, seriously so, that the new bomber will have 2 engines. Lose one engine and you lose a national asset. That's fine with aircraft produced in the thousands, but considering the US may get capped at 100 units by congress, 2 engines is unlikely. I suspect we will see a three-or-four -engined aircraft. Nuclear warheads people. This is not a scaled up F-111 or YF-23 whose primarily going to drop conventional munitions. Its a nuclear bomber first and foremost. They are not going to risk losing 16 nuclear weapons to one glowing hole going dark. As with everything nuclear, there needs to be multiple levels of redundancy as well, including the launch platform.

I can't imagine controlling a tailless flying wing with an engine out when the engines are VERY widely spaced apart. The offcenter thrust... Good night!
 
Airplane said:
I doubt, seriously so, that the new bomber will have 2 engines. Lose one engine and you lose a national asset. That's fine with aircraft produced in the thousands, but considering the US may get capped at 100 units by congress, 2 engines is unlikely. I suspect we will see a three-or-four -engined aircraft. Nuclear warheads people. This is not a scaled up F-111 or YF-23 whose primarily going to drop conventional munitions. Its a nuclear bomber first and foremost. They are not going to risk losing 16 nuclear weapons to one glowing hole going dark. As with everything nuclear, there needs to be multiple levels of redundancy as well, including the launch platform.

I can't imagine controlling a tailless flying wing with an engine out when the engines are VERY widely spaced apart. The offcenter thrust... Good night!
Click to expand...

I remember hearing somewhere that if you've got 3 out of 4 engines working your bomber still isn't going to make it home from a mission to Russia/China/whatever.

But I may be wrong.
 
Airplane said:
I doubt, seriously so, that the new bomber will have 2 engines. Lose one engine and you lose a national asset. That's fine with aircraft produced in the thousands, but considering the US may get capped at 100 units by congress, 2 engines is unlikely. I suspect we will see a three-or-four -engined aircraft. Nuclear warheads people. This is not a scaled up F-111 or YF-23 whose primarily going to drop conventional munitions. Its a nuclear bomber first and foremost. They are not going to risk losing 16 nuclear weapons to one glowing hole going dark. As with everything nuclear, there needs to be multiple levels of redundancy as well, including the launch platform.

I can't imagine controlling a tailless flying wing with an engine out when the engines are VERY widely spaced apart. The offcenter thrust... Good night!
Click to expand...

If it's a twin engine design they can control it. In fact, the yaw rudders at the wingtips of a flying wing are more efficient than the standard vertical tail/rudder combination. However, whichever method they use to control the aircraft will be able to stabilize the aircraft if they lose thrust on one side of the vehicle.
 
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C. Remove the bulkhead between the forward two bays, and reenable external hardpoints. APG-81 variant upfront. ;)
Click to expand...

smells like a B-1R rehash, which in light of the recent deployable belly gatling gun patent and the electric solid state laser demo on schedule, would make a B-1 a very interesting beast if modernized.
 
Seems that I live in parallel universe where AF gonna get rid of Bones in the mid of 30s...
 
Tuna said:
sferrin said:
F135s for the B-1C.
Click to expand...

...
That would have nearly as much thrust dry as the B-1B has with afterburners, and +50% when running wet. Could the airframe even take that?
Click to expand...

It does beg the question if it could supercruise with F135s. B)
 
If they make it fit the F135 then it can use the new3-stream engines when they are built.
 
I'm a bit confused, is this talk of a re-engined and modernized "B-1C" as an A2A missile truck something that the Mitchell report proposed, or is it just from sferrin's suggestion at the bottom of page 97? :eek:
 
SpudmanWP said:
If they make it fit the F135 then it can use the new3-stream engines when they are built.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Might be a non-starter. The F101 is quite a bit larger in diameter than the F135 but it's also about 3 feet shorter. :p
 
Blitzo said:
I'm a bit confused, is this talk of a re-engined and modernized "B-1C" as an A2A missile truck something that the Mitchell report proposed, or is it just from sferrin's suggestion at the bottom of page 97? :eek:
Click to expand...

No, sorry. The report recommends modernizing the B-1B so I was speculating. I don't know that the F135 would fit though on further examination.
 
sferrin said:
SpudmanWP said:
If they make it fit the F135 then it can use the new3-stream engines when they are built.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Might be a non-starter. The F101 is quite a bit larger in diameter than the F135 but it's also about 3 feet shorter. :p
Click to expand...

The engine nacelles would need to be rebuilt anyway to fix center of mass issues with the new, much lighter engines, and there is plenty of room for lengthening them.

Blitzo said:
I'm a bit confused, is this talk of a re-engined and modernized "B-1C" as an A2A missile truck something that the Mitchell report proposed, or is it just from sferrin's suggestion at the bottom of page 97? :eek:
Click to expand...

Just daydreaming, I'm afraid. B-1 is a bit of a fan darling of a plane, would love to see them continue to be used in some capacity, and re-engining them with what the fighter fleet will use would not just greatly increase power, but also make them cheaper to maintain.

sferrin said:
The report recommends modernizing the B-1B so I was speculating.
Click to expand...

Sadly, when looking at it objectively, I see very little sense in modernizing the bones further. The airframes are starting to get quite old, and as a supersonic plane they get worn in use worse than slower planes. What should happen instead is that the airforce should pay for the same kind of line production tooling for the B-21 that the B-2 got, and then instead of building twenty they should just keep cranking them out to replace everything other bomber that flies until something new and better comes out.
 
Tuna said:
Sadly, when looking at it objectively, I see very little sense in modernizing the bones further. The airframes are starting to get quite old, and as a supersonic plane they get worn in use worse than slower planes. What should happen instead is that the airforce should pay for the same kind of line production tooling for the B-21 that the B-2 got, and then instead of building twenty they should just keep cranking them out to replace everything other bomber that flies until something new and better comes out.
Click to expand...

I remember someone saying that the B-21 was an interim until something supercruise-capable came along (High-low maybe?)...but that was on 4chan, and worse yet it was on /m/.

I still wonder if the USAF is already planning said "new and better" though.
 
Before the B-21 was the LRS-B it was the Next Generation Bomber aka the "2018 Bomber" (IOC was originally intended for 2018). The 2018 Bomber would be the interim until the "2037 Bomber" came around. which would be a supercruising, stealthy heavy bomber. With the NGB's evolution into the LRS-B however the 2018 / 2037 bomber plans have changed. A supersonic stealth bomber is likely still being considered for the future (2040s perhaps), but AFAIK there are no longer any written conceptual plans for one.
 
sferrin said:
Blitzo said:
I'm a bit confused, is this talk of a re-engined and modernized "B-1C" as an A2A missile truck something that the Mitchell report proposed, or is it just from sferrin's suggestion at the bottom of page 97? :eek:
Click to expand...

No, sorry. The report recommends modernizing the B-1B so I was speculating. I don't know that the F135 would fit though on further examination.
Click to expand...

Ah okay, I see thanks. I thought I'd missed something big there for a moment.

A modernized B-1B like the B-1R that was proposed back in yesterdecade would of course be quite capable but considering how many programmes the USAF already has going on I feel like such an aircraft would be a relative luxury.
I remember watching a show called dogfights of the future that showed a number of fantastical "future" air combat scenarios one of which involved a B-1R missile truck. Good times.
 
GWrecks said:
I still wonder if the USAF is already planning said "new and better" though.
Click to expand...
There's a number of ESAV studies funded by AF were done not so long ago.
 
www.af.mil

Air Force announces bases to support B-21 Raider mission

The Air Force has selected Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, to coordinate maintenance and sustainment of the B-21 Raider and Edwards AFB, California, to lead testing and evaluation of the next
www.af.mil

ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) -- The Air Force has selected Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, to coordinate maintenance and sustainment of the B-21 Raider and Edwards AFB, California, to lead testing and evaluation of the next generation long-range strike bomber.

The decision to use these bases marks the next milestone in the development and eventual deployment of the B-21, a long-range and highly-survivable aircraft capable of penetrating air defenses and conducting a range of critical missions. The plane is expected to be delivered in the mid-2020s.

The Air Force Sustainment Center at Tinker AFB has an Air Logistics Complex with a deep and accomplished history. In selecting Tinker AFB, Air Force leaders acknowledged that the organization has the right knowledge and expertise to support planning for the bomber's depot maintenance.

"With a talented workforce and decades of experience in aircraft maintenance, Tinker AFB is the right place for this critical mission," said Secretary of the Air Force Heather A. Wilson.

Robins AFB, Georgia, and Hill AFB, Utah, will support Tinker AFB to ensure the advanced B-21 is maintained and, when necessary, overhauled and upgraded. The workforce at the bases will also be equipped to rebuild parts, assemblies or subassemblies of the plane as well as testing and reclaiming equipment as necessary for depot activations.

Edwards AFB was selected as the location of the B-21's Combined Test Force. The base is home to the Air Force Test Center, which leads testing and evaluation for the Air Force to ensure aircraft and other equipment meet rigorous standards.

The testing program at Edwards AFB is also designed to provide timely, objective and accurate information to decision makers.

"From flight testing the X-15 to the F-117, Edwards AFB in the Mohave Desert has been at the forefront of keeping our Air Force on the cutting edge," said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David L. Goldfein. "Now, testing the B-21 Raider will begin another historic chapter in the base's history."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The highly-secretive program to develop the B-21 Raider, a futuristic bomber aircraft, passed a review this week.

“Our most recent review was last week, and the B-21 is on schedule and performance,” US Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California, over the weekend, Military.com reported.

“We are pleased with how that program is moving forward,” said Wilson, noting that “it’s a helpful example of how to hurry a major acquisition program well and why delegation of authority back to the services… works to accumulate high quality and to accomplish so quickly.”
Click to expand...
 
flateric said:
Martin Baker is bidding with Mk16E as ejection seat for LRS-B, and UTC Aerospace Systems with ACES 5
Click to expand...

Martin Baker was recently claiming that there was no competition for B-21 and it was sole-sourced to UTAS.

http://martin-baker.com/2018/11/29/letter-editor-forbes/

Though they did predict the future with their loss in the T-X competition.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom