USAF Contemplating B-21-Like Aircraft for Air-to-Air Combat (2025)

R

raptor82

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
13 July 2008
Messages
722
Reaction score
4,581
Wow！

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-contemplating-b-21-like-aircraft-air-to-air/
The Air Force is studying whether a large flying wing-type stealth aircraft armed with dozens of air-to-air missiles could be an element of its future air superiority force, sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The aircraft could be based on the Northrop Grumman B-21, but the concept is at an early stage and other contractors could potentially have a shot at the work due to Northrop’s limited B-21 production capacity.

The concept would involve crewed fighters like the stealthy F-22, F-35, and F-47—as well as, potentially, uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft—detecting and designating airborne targets, which the ultra-stealthy large missileer would then shoot.
Click to expand...
 
raptor82 said:
Wow！

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-contemplating-b-21-like-aircraft-air-to-air/
Click to expand...
No surprise at all if you assume that beyond visual range combat is increasingly the norm for manned aircraft, missiles have longer range and CCAs are being accommodated by doctrine. I seem to recall that this idea has been floated already for the B-21.

The B-1R reborn?

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the...powered-by-f-22s-f119-engines-that-never-was/
I also remember a graphic from the early stages of what became the F-47 with a subsonic stealthy aircraft loaded to the gills and accompanied by what are now called CCAs as an option. Sorry, I can't provide any link.
 
Last edited:
Only issue is see with this concept is that the missiles would be launched by a subsonic aircraft and thus with less energy. Perhaps a booster stage could compensate for that problem alongside increasing the range further?

It just seems to me that subsonic launch isn't getting the maximum out of a given missile, compared to a high altitude, supersonic launch.
 
Bigger problem I see is that individual airframes will be carrying a large proportion of the available firepower. Additionally, they will be giving away their position every time they fire. That seems like flawed concept to me, and the very antithesis of CCA and affordable mass.
 
Josh_TN said:
Bigger problem I see is that individual airframes will be carrying a large proportion of the available firepower. Additionally, they will be giving away their position every time they fire. That seems like flawed concept to me, and the very antithesis of CCA and affordable mass.
Click to expand...
I think flateric mentioned/proposed launching missiles via longshot drones dropped out of the bomb bay, which can be a solution to the revealing position problem…
 
raptor82 said:
Wow！

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-contemplating-b-21-like-aircraft-air-to-air/
Click to expand...
Some of the relative merits of this approach I can see compared with using ground-launched CCAs are that having ultra long range CCAs are expensive, while using longshot simply matches the range of the carrying bomber. And CCAs probably will not have stealth performances similar to a B-21, having longshot drone dropping out of the bomb bay when needed also potentially gives less early warning to the adversary.
 
JoshuaH said:
I think flateric mentioned/proposed launching missiles via longshot drones dropped out of the bomb bay, which can be a solution to the revealing position problem…
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that seems like an expensive way to do that. Just use B-21s. Or depending on the range of long shot, use B-52s.
 
JoshuaH said:
I think flateric mentioned/proposed launching missiles via longshot drones dropped out of the bomb bay, which can be a solution to the revealing position problem…
Click to expand...
So a bomber is launched, which launches longshot, which in turn launches a missile guided by a different drone, which is directed by a manned fighter?

Seems like way too many steps to achieve something rather simple in theory.

I don't necessarily think using the B-21s as arsenal planes is a terrible idea, if the aircraft is acquired in sufficient numbers (200 aircraft and above). But hey, this kind of dual use (AAM carrier, Anti-Ship, Drone control) could certainly be leveraged to lobby for more B-21s being bought. As in "look we need so many Raiders to replace our legacy bombers. Oh! And they could also be adapted for this and that and draw from the existing pool of spares and maintenance personelle and bring down unit cost".

Furthermore, I think Northrop Grumman made it clear that in their mind the B-21 can be so much more than just a bomber. It would be a shame to waste such potential. Although I personally would argue anti-ship missions would be more important than stuffing them with AAMs.

Obviously though, such fantastical ideas are often met by the harsh budgetary realities and even if we ignore that, the threat of bloating the mission profile at the expense of the core purpose of the aircraft would be real. So while the B-21 could be much more than a bomber, it should be a good bomber first and foremost and for now it has to enter service first.
 
There has been talk about the numbers of B-21s in the past EmoBirb, but no one really knows how many Raiders will be bought until full scale production starts and that is a long time away yet.
 
“The Air Force is studying whether a large flying wing-type stealth aircraft armed with dozens of air-to-air missiles could be an element of its future air superiority force, sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine”
——————-
I didn’t read this as the B-21 itself.

Now see renderings of the stealth Nexgen tanker airframe as an example.
 
The 21 would need a good long-range stand-off weapon for air to air, its definitely not a fighter. Would a bunch of 260's do the job?
 
The ideal system would be a 80% (as a figure of speech not as a technical ideal) of B-21 stealth firing very long range AAMs with space based targeting putting opposing air on the defensive so limited shot fighters/CCAs etc. can move in closer and finish the job so to speak.

Or the B-21. But either way budgetary restrictions mean nothing will actually get built at least in my lifetime.
 
I think maybe it'll be helpful putting this into doctrine.

During a static friction scenario, you won't have B-21s doing the fighting. 90% of these interactions are going to be edge unit CCAs, and manned fighters like the F-35 and the 6th gen fighters fighting it out sporadically. In select scenarios when you need to do pinpoint strikes, or when you are fighting relatively alone, you need that concealment because you'd stand out too much. During a surge, when you need to generate sufficient air power to punch through enemy lines as you move towards your target area, you will be a drop of water in the sea as far as how many targets there will be in the sky for the enemy. And that's also when you'll benefit the most from having the magazine depth of a B-21, especially if they are already part of the surge with targets to hit ahead.

Amassing a huge amount of air power isn't concealable, and besides - right now with the things all three branches are buying, you are purposefully trying to generate so many targets to make it difficult for your enemy to know whats what. So given that, even if it's launching a huge number of missiles, it may or may not matter if it gives away it's location. I don't expect this to be a widespread case though. I think it's sufficient for a B-21 to carry a few air to air missiles with the rest being whatever munitions they need for strike.
 
I could probably see the B-21 carrying the AIM-260 for stand off engagements for self defence but that is all, perhaps with one or two B-21 armed solely with the AIM-260 to protect other B-21s that are armed with bombs or cruise missiles.
 
FighterJock said:
I could probably see the B-21 carrying the AIM-260 for stand off engagements for self defence but that is all, perhaps with one or two B-21 armed solely with the AIM-260 to protect other B-21s that are armed with bombs or cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it's been rumored that longer range missiles are coming down the line too. Either that, or stack a booster on the AIM-260 and you should have enough standoff range.
 
What about putting a scramjet engine onto the AIM-260? That would probably work wouldn't it Reddington777?
 
FighterJock said:
What about putting a scramjet engine onto the AIM-260? That would probably work wouldn't it Reddington777?
Click to expand...
It would be nice to have that, but it's probably too much work for the DoD/DoW to decide to make the switch.

I remember hearing elsewhere on this forum that a new missile was being worked on with greater range so that we don't have to lug AIM-174s around. Also
LREW was a concept missile for which research was being done by Raytheon so whatever conclusions drawn from that seems most certainly contributing to a longer ranged missile.

It would make sense since if you're firing out of the B-21 or 4th gen fighters, you wouldn't be constrained by fighter sized IWBs and you'd likely be flying out of safer bases that makes the logistics easier.
 
bobbymike said:
“The Air Force is studying whether a large flying wing-type stealth aircraft armed with dozens of air-to-air missiles could be an element of its future air superiority force, sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine”
——————-
I didn’t read this as the B-21 itself.

Now see renderings of the stealth Nexgen tanker airframe as an example.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the only aircraft to fit these criteria are the B-2, B-21 and the large Chinese UAV recently spotted. Out of these the B-21 is the only viable option, one being foreign and the other being retired once the Raider is properly in service.

I doubt the US will swallow the cost to develop another large, flying wing, stealth aircraft on top of the B-21. And the whole KC-Z/NGAS thing is in limbo and probably wouldn't result in an aircraft suitable for the role. While something like a BWB airlifter/tanker that may or may not be developed in the decades to come wouldn't be particularly stealthy.

So the B-21 is the only logical option. And the application of this type for such a role hinges heavily on projected fleet size. Otherwise the USAF won't waste their precious and expensive stealth bombers doing anything but high priority precision strike.
 
EmoBirb said:
I doubt the US will swallow the cost to develop another large, flying wing, stealth aircraft on top of the B-21.
Click to expand...
There's a flying wing design from GA-ASI Gambit that could maybe be adapted for the job. Scale it up to fly with a single full sized fighter/bomber's engine like F110, it can be smaller than the B-21, it's already unmanned too so then just let it sling missiles and / or drop bombs. It doesn't have to be as exquisite as a B-21 and however much you want to pay for it would depend on how large and how many missiles you want it to carry.
 
Reddington777 said:
There's a flying wing design from GA-ASI Gambit that could maybe be adapted for the job. Scale it up to fly with a single full sized fighter/bomber's engine like F110, it can be smaller than the B-21, it's already unmanned too so then just let it sling missiles and / or drop bombs. It doesn't have to be as exquisite as a B-21 and however much you want to pay for it would depend on how large and how many missiles you want it to carry.
Click to expand...
This would still amount to a complete bespoke, large, stealth aircraft, more or less designed from the ground up. So even that approach would be costly. And with such an approach you'd already venture into CCA territory again, which conflicts with various acquisition programs and so on and so forth. Meaning it would be a tough sell, compared to just waiting for the next increment of CCAs.
 
EmoBirb said:
Meaning it would be a tough sell, compared to just waiting for the next increment of CCAs.
Click to expand...
Does this requirement for a flying wing missile slinger in preclude it from being rolled into what next increments of CCAs could bring?

We're already sticking with subsonic UCAVs. There's no reason why this couldn't just be a UCAV/CCA, albeit less attritable.
 
Reddington777 said:
Does this requirement for a flying wing missile slinger in preclude it from being rolled into what next increments of CCAs could bring?

We're already sticking with subsonic UCAVs. There's no reason why this couldn't just be a UCAV/CCA, albeit less attritable.
Click to expand...
I'd argue this would exclude the "large" part
 
If the 'missileer' is going to be an ultra stealthy, subsonic flying wing (which is optimal IMHO). then it would need to carry significantly larger and longer ranged / higher speed missiles than what something faster would need to carry. If it can carry AIM-174, or ideally 21" SM-6 variants (whatever comes of them) then that would do the trick nicely. Of course for any of this to work, they would need to at least double the annual buy rate or else its just not realistic given other higher value missions the smaller fleet would be tasked with.
 
Reddington777 said:
There's a flying wing design from GA-ASI Gambit that could maybe be adapted for the job. Scale it up to fly with a single full sized fighter/bomber's engine like F110, it can be smaller than the B-21, it's already unmanned too so then just let it sling missiles and / or drop bombs. It doesn't have to be as exquisite as a B-21 and however much you want to pay for it would depend on how large and how many missiles you want it to carry.
Click to expand...

Gambit is not remotely in a suitable size class to carry an AAM payload larger than a manned fighter.

ETA: this probably deserves its own thread; it seems to have nothing to do with B-21 outside the “large flying wing” part.
 
EmoBirb said:
So a bomber is launched, which launches longshot, which in turn launches a missile guided by a different drone, which is directed by a manned fighter?
Click to expand...
Well I don’t think there would be an advantage if sufficient tactical platforms can be deployed into the airspace in the first place… It would need to be a situation where tactical platforms are either too short-ranged or too visible for the purpose.
 
EmoBirb said:
I doubt the US will swallow the cost to develop another large, flying wing, stealth aircraft on top of the B-21.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, with R&D cost approximately half of the projected procurement cost of the B-21, developing another less capable novel large stealthy flying wing is probably not going to be worth it.
 
An uncrewed B-21 variant was considered for a while but dropped when the numbers didn't make it worthwhile. I wonder how far plans progressed though? A clean-sheet large stealthy flying wing will, as several have said, be too expensive with all of the other competing priorities. Would this 'BQ-21' be a reasonable option or would NG be stretched too thin (especially if it gets F/A-XX)?
 
Snake eating its own tail again. B-21 as missileer was exhaustively discussed during the NGAD pause last year.

Not much has changed - given the right effectors and if implementing means a software update to the AESA and mission systems, why not? NG appears to be roughly walking the walk and I’ve yet to see a commander cry about having too many strike platforms…
 
In principle, you can consid stripping b-21 clean of most sensors, and use it this way "as is".
 
JoshuaH said:
I totally agree, with R&D cost approximately half of the projected procurement cost of the B-21, developing another less capable novel large stealthy flying wing is probably not going to be worth it.
Click to expand...

Add on to that, is firing a lot of weapons from the same subsonic platform viable? IMO, no once you get past maybe a half dozen. One dozen, if you assume CCAs are just ineffective? This concept is absolutely a lot of eggs in one bag, something the USAF was getting away from. If the cheap NGADs work, build more. If they don’t, arsenal planes won’t help your lack of sensors.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom