Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

EmoBirb said:
Most allies don't have the need for such an aircraft though, and even less so in the numbers required to make opening the production line again worthwhile.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with you except numerous counties have apparently reached out about the matter recently. And don’t make me dig up the references, I’m in Puglia.
 
So the USAF is still undesided on whether to by more than 100 B-21s or not. I personally think that they should just get on with it and buy 200 B-21s and be done with it, this whole thing about will they or won't they is starting to get rather boring. :rolleyes:
 
FighterJock said:
So the USAF is still undesided on whether to by more than 100 B-21s or not. I personally think that they should just get on with it and buy 200 B-21s and be done with it, this whole thing about will they or won't they is starting to get rather boring. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
More like same-old-same-old. Has the familiar feeling of the first phase of "death by a thousand cuts" so many US programs have suffered. We never learn.
 
FighterJock said:
So the USAF is still undesided on whether to by more than 100 B-21s or not. I personally think that they should just get on with it and buy 200 B-21s and be done with it, this whole thing about will they or won't they is starting to get rather boring. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The final number is yet to be determined - the program will run for a decade at the low end, so decisions can be postponed or even reversed. What they do seem to acknowledge is that production rate should increase as much as physically and financially practical, and IMO this is far more relevant that throwing total buy numbers around when there is not even a finished production aircraft yet.
 
Sferrin said:
More like same-old-same-old. Has the familiar feeling of the first phase of "death by a thousand cuts" so many US programs have suffered. We never learn.
Click to expand...

We have Block V Virginia-class coming. Perhaps we should do B-21 the same way.
 
At least 100 minimum or more. If I know NG and if USAF ordered 200+, NG would give them probably very good price breaks. Plus as the sole prime, NG has all of the lifecycle sustainment and logistics that is a huge cash cow onto itself. Remember, NG last year or early this year got $7B for B-2 sustainment and logistics out to the 2030's. I also think USAF/NG is fast-tracking the 21 since it is really needed. As an example, look at how quickly South Korea developed and flight tested/testing the KF-21 and I guess they are close to IOC as well, again, great need.
 
Have all five of the development B-21s rolled off the production line yet?
 
NMaude said:
Have all five of the development B-21s rolled off the production line yet?
Click to expand...
@NMaude I don’t think there has been a peep since the last time I asked, which for me is genuinely thought provoking. And months before that there was some discussion in this thread about the logic of standing up a geographically distinct Raider facility from Palmdale, to increase throughput and redistribute risk. I do agree it’s great business for NG to put as many B-21s into the USAFs hands as quickly as possible, given the downstream economics, just to be vulgar.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Raiders likely only fly at night, and likely with loud ass chase/ decoy planes that help create chaos on that end of the Spectrum.
 
joshjosh said:
21 per year would thus be a nice round 3x. Is there anything that supports this production rate as being attainable?
Click to expand...
B-2 production rate was to be 20+ per year - a much more complicated design with steeper learning curve. But now half of Building 401 is busy with F-35.
I doubt any AVs were flown except Cerberus as preflight checks, engine runs, taxi tests etc would not be hidden from praying eyes of local spotter community.
 
FighterJock said:
So the USAF is still undesided on whether to by more than 100 B-21s or not. I personally think that they should just get on with it and buy 200 B-21s and be done with it, this whole thing about will they or won't they is starting to get rather boring. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What I'm sure the USAF would like to have is a couple hundred strategic-role B-21s, replacing all the other bomber types entirely. All 70-whatever B-52s, all 40-whatever B-1s, all the B-2s. And that'd be replacing B-52s 2-for-1, B-2s 2-for-1, and maybe B-1s 3-for-1. Call it ~300 airframes to match the payload capacity.

Then we can talk about what to replace Strike Eagles with. Strike Eagles do actually have roughly the same payload as a B-21. This one is arguable, I think it'd be better to have a "Strike NGAD" than using a 6000nmi range, subsonic strategic bomber for the role, but the argument is there for as many as another 200 airframes for the deep interdiction role.

That'd be 500 airframes all told to match payload capacity, between Strategic and Tactical bombers.

But I suspect that we're looking at more like 150 or so B-21s to replace all the older airframes 1-for-1. There's just too much competing budget involved right now!
 
That is what I was thinking about Scott Kenny the number of B-21s being 150 that would be the sweet spot for me although I would on a good day have 200 B-21s, but as you rightly say there is the budget to consider with all the different programs having to compete for funds right now.
 
flateric said:
B-2 production rate was to be 20+ per year - a much more complicated design with steeper learning curve. But now half of Building 401 is busy with F-35.
I doubt any AVs were flown except Cerberus as preflight checks, engine runs, taxi tests etc would not be hidden from praying eyes of local spotter community.
Click to expand...
The goal prior to the program cuts was 30 per year. Northrop said they could do 29 once the plant started operating. I don't think they ever did more than 5.
 
Utterly naive question from a resident tax paying alien (BTW whatever happened to "no taxation without representation") - doesn't the United States Congress have to be eventually informed on and divulge what exactly all that taxpayer money (and yours truly included!) is being spent on???
 
martinbayer said:
Utterly naive question from a resident tax paying alien (BTW whatever happened to "no taxation without representation") - doesn't the United States Congress have to be eventually informed on and divulge what exactly all that taxpayer money (and yours truly included!) is being spent on???
Click to expand...

It has to be informed, but not necessarily divulge. That's what the "black budget" means.
 
It looks like if the USAF urgently needs the B-21A for combat this option may be available next year, from Sandbox:


A new article published by Air and Space Forces Magazine suggests the first test-article B-21 Raider stealth bombers could be ready to fight as soon as next year if they're needed.
Click to expand...
You can read their original reporting here: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air...
Click to expand...
 
You are painstakingly reposting every Sandboxx video that are literally is a Donald Duck voice expressive narration of articles published in other sources. I wonder what the fun?
 
Last edited:
And *I* wonder where the actual hard core old school simple *text* information is???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd even go as far as to state on the record that *every* single weapon system has a *limited* combat capability.
 
I think the B-21 had been thought out and proceeded in more of a non-traditional manner. And I think USAF and NG are working very closely to really ensure the aircraft does what its supposed to do, including schedule and budget. The 21 may already have some limited fighting capabilities. The B-21 is an evolved B-2 so using it for emergency, clandestine missions may be be possible. The B-21 program has a tight lid on it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom