Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

4decaa said:
I think the point you two are heading towards is that Guam isn't going to be the best place for valuable strike and A2AD assets, at least until there is enough interceptor volume to defend against a coordinated missile/UAV attack (?)

I wonder if the stealth bomber the PLAAF is working on will be here anytime soon. Would definitely change basing strategies and cause more bases to be at risk.
Click to expand...

I actually think a PRC stealth bomber changes the situation far less than a U.S. one, because the PLARF already can fulfill the roll. Where as the USAF has a limited number of AGM-158s and after that likely has little recourse that is not a stealth bomber.
 
Not sure why Guam basing is even up for discussion. To quote SECDEF Austin on the B-21, "it won't have to be based in theater to hold any target at risk." the B-2 spirit can already fly from California to Taiwan unrefueled (albeit using 100% of the gas tank), and it's plausible that the B-21 has even better range. Throw in a single mid-air refuel and it's doubtful the B-21 would ever be based anywhere except CONUS.
 
joshjosh said:
Not sure why Guam basing is even up for discussion. To quote SECDEF Austin on the B-21, "it won't have to be based in theater to hold any target at risk." the B-2 spirit can already fly from California to Taiwan unrefueled (albeit using 100% of the gas tank), and it's plausible that the B-21 has even better range. Throw in a single mid-air refuel and it's doubtful the B-21 would ever be based anywhere except CONUS.
Click to expand...
Likely to support higher sortie rates. In addition, tankers are going to be needed all over and may see some attrition which will make them even more of a limited asset.
 
The B-21 may be more LO maintainable judging from it's "evolved" LO surface, so Guam could a good option but I'm sure Australia, the PI, Japan and South Korea may be options as well. I do agree, the 21 probably has better range than the B-2 and could fly from CONUS as well.
 
NMaude said:
How much of a maintenance headache is the work required to maintain the B-2A's low RCS?
Click to expand...
for starters there’s the climate controlled hangar… scraping away tape from panels that need to be opened for maintenance… i’m sure someone has the figure for the amount of hours of required maintenance per flight out for the b-2. It seems like a big part of the Raiders development was focused on maintainability (no cc hangar, panels that just pop open)
 
4decaa said:
It seems like a big part of the Raiders development was focused on maintainability (no cc hangar, panels that just pop open)
Click to expand...

I imagine with the big advances in materials science and manufacturing methods since the late 80s/early 90s along with experience in maintaining the B-2A will mean the B-21A's RCS will be a great deal easier to do.
 
The B-2 LO surface is much different now since when I was on the program from 86 to 96. Mechanically, the B-2 was pretty reliable and considering the avionics complexity, they were pretty reliable as well. LO treatments evolve just like anything and everything else. The B-21 is an evolved, more organic looking B-2. For F-117, Tacit Blue and B-2, the tech had to be invented back then even YF-23 is this mix, key aspects were invented for it as well. A smaller version of the B-21 would be great and now feasible for the USN but wait, we had that in our ATA.
 
joshjosh said:
Not sure why Guam basing is even up for discussion. To quote SECDEF Austin on the B-21, "it won't have to be based in theater to hold any target at risk." the B-2 spirit can already fly from California to Taiwan unrefueled (albeit using 100% of the gas tank), and it's plausible that the B-21 has even better range. Throw in a single mid-air refuel and it's doubtful the B-21 would ever be based anywhere except CONUS.
Click to expand...
You'd want to base them closer, because they can be reloaded and back over the target faster.
 
They don't have climate controlled hangers in Australia, and it's a very humid and rainy region up there. The coatings have come a long way.
 
Bounce said:
They don't have climate controlled hangers in Australia, and it's a very humid and rainy region up there.
Click to expand...

That depends on which part of Australia you are in, sure the tropical regions such as the Cape York peninsula, the Gulf of Carpentaria (And its' surrounding lands) along with Northern Australia but much of the rest while hot is also arid.
 
NMaude said:
I imagine with the big advances in materials science and manufacturing methods since the late 80s/early 90s along with experience in maintaining the B-2A will mean the B-21A's RCS will be a great deal easier to do.
Click to expand...
I expect F-35 played far more of a role than the B-2 as far as RCS management. NG has a big role in that program https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/f35-lightning and that knowledge would have been used to de-risk much of the B-21 tech.
 
Ozair said:
I expect F-35 played far more of a role than the B-2 as far as RCS management.
Click to expand...

It has definitely been a learning experience for all involved.
 
Ellsworth B-1s temporarily relocating

Construction at Ellsworth to house the B-21s should be completed by the end of this year. I believe there are around 6 aircraft funded by the test program with the contract for production aircraft awarded this year. So are they relocating because aircraft will start to arrive? May be the relocation is related to B-21 test activities at Ellsworth? It still could be construction related. Have more test articles rolled out? Interesting.

It would be good if they moved B-1s back to Grand Forks and kept them in the inventory while B-21 production ramped up.
 
B2Blain said:
Ellsworth B-1s temporarily relocating

Construction at Ellsworth to house the B-21s should be completed by the end of this year. I believe there are around 6 aircraft funded by the test program with the contract for production aircraft awarded this year. So are they relocating because aircraft will start to arrive? May be the relocation is related to B-21 test activities at Ellsworth? It still could be construction related. Have more test articles rolled out? Interesting.

It would be good if they moved B-1s back to Grand Forks and kept them in the inventory while B-21 production ramped up.
Click to expand...
USAF is not about to retire any Bones before there's enough Raiders to replace them 1-for-1.

First, fill the (new) OTE squadron with Raiders, because Bone OTE will be the last Bone squadron closed. Then stand up an operational Raider squadron, so that the Bone squadrons transitioning don't hugely reduce the bomber count. Now you can start thinking about re-equipping the Bone squadrons with Raiders.

And that's even without any laws that IIRC are requiring the Bones to be held in service longer...
 
Scott Kenny said:
USAF is not about to retire any Bones before there's enough Raiders to replace them 1-for-1.

First, fill the (new) OTE squadron with Raiders, because Bone OTE will be the last Bone squadron closed. Then stand up an operational Raider squadron, so that the Bone squadrons transitioning don't hugely reduce the bomber count. Now you can start thinking about re-equipping the Bone squadrons with Raiders.

And that's even without any laws that IIRC are requiring the Bones to be held in service longer...
Click to expand...
Oh, and that's assuming that the USAF doesn't want to replace the Bones 3 for 1, for equal bombload capacity instead of equal airframe numbers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, and that's assuming that the USAF doesn't want to replace the Bones 3 for 1, for equal bombload capacity instead of equal airframe numbers.
Click to expand...

I think Congress requires that the B-1s cannot be retire without 1:1 replacement. I doubt the USAF will keep B-1 any longer than that. The B-21 payload is lower but the number of munitions delivered likely is similar or even higher with things like SDB.
 
Scott Kenny said:
USAF is not about to retire any Bones before there's enough Raiders to replace them 1-for-1.

First, fill the (new) OTE squadron with Raiders, because Bone OTE will be the last Bone squadron closed. Then stand up an operational Raider squadron, so that the Bone squadrons transitioning don't hugely reduce the bomber count. Now you can start thinking about re-equipping the Bone squadrons with Raiders.

And that's even without any laws that IIRC are requiring the Bones to be held in service longer...
Click to expand...
The B-1 FTU is the 28th BS at DY, Ellsworth will have the B-21 FTU. Memory fails me if it will be the Thunderbirds or the Tigers. That said, the FTU will stand up, then first combat squadron. While that first combat squadron gets stood up, I bet that the 28th stops being the schoolhouse and covers things until Raiders start showing up in TX to keep at least two combat capable B-1 squadrons until DY goes stealth.

FWIW one of my current colleagues was B-1 initial cadre.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think Congress requires that the B-1s cannot be retire without 1:1 replacement. I doubt the USAF will keep B-1 any longer than that.
Click to expand...
Probably. The War on Terror really ate the hell out of the life of the planes.


Josh_TN said:
The B-21 payload is lower but the number of munitions delivered likely is similar or even higher with things like SDB.
Click to expand...
Right. That's acceptable for conventional strike. That's NOT acceptable for nuclear strike. Nukes are larger diameter weapons than SDBs and cannot be racked as close together as SDBs are.

Actually, if the B-21 bay is the same size as the B-52 bay, 28ft long, it's the same size as the forward two bays of a Bone. So a Raider is ~2/3 of a Bone by bay VOLUME.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think Congress requires that the B-1s cannot be retire without 1:1 replacement. I doubt the USAF will keep B-1 any longer than that. The B-21 payload is lower but the number of munitions delivered likely is similar or even higher with things like SDB.
Click to expand...
Buying at least 100 B-21's is at least a close wash to replacing 44 B-1's that can't penetrate any heavily defended airspace and 19 B-2's that can go most places. Bonus points if they can buy more than 100 (don't F this up NG).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Probably. The War on Terror really ate the hell out of the life of the planes.
Click to expand...
That is did but they were so incredibly useful in that role!

Scott Kenny said:
Right. That's acceptable for conventional strike. That's NOT acceptable for nuclear strike. Nukes are larger diameter weapons than SDBs and cannot be racked as close together as SDBs are.

Actually, if the B-21 bay is the same size as the B-52 bay, 28ft long, it's the same size as the forward two bays of a Bone. So a Raider is ~2/3 of a Bone by bay VOLUME.
Click to expand...
B-1 has no nuclear strike role with the USAF and has been this way for 30+ years. Hence conventional comparison to the B-21 is the only valid one.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Probably. The War on Terror really ate the hell out of the life of the planes.
Click to expand...

It did, and that's when I was there at DY 20 years ago, can't imagine what it's like today (actually I can since I work someplace that makes a lot of B-1 parts).

Right. That's acceptable for conventional strike. That's NOT acceptable for nuclear strike. Nukes are larger diameter weapons than SDBs and cannot be racked as close together as SDBs are.

Actually, if the B-21 bay is the same size as the B-52 bay, 28ft long, it's the same size as the forward two bays of a Bone. So a Raider is ~2/3 of a Bone by bay VOLUME.
Click to expand...

First, the Bone lost the alone and unafraid role long before I showed up at DY as a 2nd Lt. There are all kinds of nice ways SDB's can stack and give lots of DMPI's, but sometimes 2000 lbs of persuasion is needed. Which triggers an interesting idea, namely the 2000 lb naval mines are not B-52 CSRL weapons, they're in the B-52 bays on cradles of 4 forward and aft, just like the old B-28 country pleasers. Which goes to an old B-52 load out of 4 B-28's forward and a rotary of SRAM's aft.

So far, we've seen nothing about the Raider's weapon carriage. What if they went from the B-2's two bays with 16 GBU-31/B-61/B-83 side by side to the same loadout tandem in a single bay. Absolutely no evidence for this, but I've been scratching my cranium about how can you give up that many DMPI's for cost's sake and had that light bulb. The GBU-31 is 13 feet long, Scott's mention of a 28-foot bay and recalling dropping a few of the 1-ton naval mines caused this thought. Now, granted cruise missiles are limited to 8 only, but way waste a 6th gen penetrating asset on those?

JP-8 for the fire.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right. That's acceptable for conventional strike. That's NOT acceptable for nuclear strike. Nukes are larger diameter weapons than SDBs and cannot be racked as close together as SDBs are.

Actually, if the B-21 bay is the same size as the B-52 bay, 28ft long, it's the same size as the forward two bays of a Bone. So a Raider is ~2/3 of a Bone by bay VOLUME.
Click to expand...

B-1s have no nuclear capability. So it matters not at all.

If anyone wanted to to make a SBA rack with PAL connections, I expect it would not be hard to pack 16 B-61s. They are basically mk83 sized but less mass.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-1s have no nuclear capability. So it matters not at all.

If anyone wanted to to make a SBA rack with PAL connections, I expect it would not be hard to pack 16 B-61s. They are basically mk83 sized but less mass.
Click to expand...
And you can probably stick 16x B61s onto the longer rotary launcher that the Raider uses. You could definitely stick 16x B61s inside the forward two bays of a Bone.
 
mkellytx said:
It did, and that's when I was there at DY 20 years ago, can't imagine what it's like today (actually I can since I work someplace that makes a lot of B-1 parts).



First, the Bone lost the alone and unafraid role long before I showed up at DY as a 2nd Lt. There are all kinds of nice ways SDB's can stack and give lots of DMPI's, but sometimes 2000 lbs of persuasion is needed. Which triggers an interesting idea, namely the 2000 lb naval mines are not B-52 CSRL weapons, they're in the B-52 bays on cradles of 4 forward and aft, just like the old B-28 country pleasers. Which goes to an old B-52 load out of 4 B-28's forward and a rotary of SRAM's aft.

So far, we've seen nothing about the Raider's weapon carriage. What if they went from the B-2's two bays with 16 GBU-31/B-61/B-83 side by side to the same loadout tandem in a single bay. Absolutely no evidence for this, but I've been scratching my cranium about how can you give up that many DMPI's for cost's sake and had that light bulb. The GBU-31 is 13 feet long, Scott's mention of a 28-foot bay and recalling dropping a few of the 1-ton naval mines caused this thought. Now, granted cruise missiles are limited to 8 only, but way waste a 6th gen penetrating asset on those?

JP-8 for the fire.
Click to expand...

I would guess the B-21 bay is optimized for smaller glide bombs as opposed to the B-2 optimized for a nuclear payload. So I think it is remotely possible three bomb rack assemblies are possible, at least for SDB. Even three mk82 end to end is only 22’ 6”, so a 25’ bomb bay could fit three racks end to end with mk82.
 
aim9xray said:
Coolness! Hangar/Building is the former home of Northrop's A-9, YF-17, F-5E/F/RF-5E and F-20 test efforts. And IIRC, home of the short-lived SR-71 reactivation Det in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

Now it’s the museum restoration hangar

Early retirement for B-21?

www.edwards.af.mil

Flight test museum relocates restoration facility

Thanks to the help of numerous volunteers, the Air Force Flight Test Museum recently relocated their storage and restoration facility from Hangar 1210, located behind the United States Air Force Test
www.edwards.af.mil
 
When I saw the 4 hangers and the adjacent shelters, I was thinking the F-22 CTF. The Museum post confirms it. Surprised they are not in South Base, where the B-2 CTF is (was) located. It is possible that this is temporary / one-off photo, but who knows?
 
sferrin said:
But 44 B-1bs can carry a buttload of missiles.
Click to expand...
Old bomber fleet (AGM-158/GBU-31):
44 x 24 (B-1) + 19 x 16 (B-2) + 76 x 12 (B-52 no -1760 in bay) = 2,272

Defended airspace DMPI's: 304 Stand off DMPI's: 1,968

New bomber fleet (AGM-158/GBU-31):
100 x 8 (B-21) + 76 x 20 (B-52 -1760 in bay) = 2,320

Defended airspace DMPI's: 800 (1,600 if 16 JDAM) Stand off DMPI's: 1,520

The AGM-158 is 14 ft long, if the bay is just a bit bigger than 28 ft and can do tandem lights out.

100 x 16 (B-21) + 76 x 20 (B-52 -1760 in bay) = 3,120
 
The museum had to move from Hangar 1864 to North Base to make room for the Raider CTF. I remember when they were planning this. I was surprised, too, that they didn't put the B-21 at South Base, but I guess that facility was already full of other interesting projects.

F119Doctor said:
When I saw the 4 hangers and the adjacent shelters, I was thinking the F-22 CTF. The Museum post confirms it. Surprised they are not in South Base, where the B-2 CTF is (was) located. It is possible that this is temporary / one-off photo, but who knows?
Click to expand...
 
Whisperstream said:
The museum had to move from Hangar 1864 to North Base to make room for the Raider CTF. I remember when they were planning this. I was surprised, too, that they didn't put the B-21 at South Base, but I guess that facility was already full of other interesting projects.
Click to expand...
I left the B-2 CTF at South Base in Jan 1997 and the aprons were wide open, only the two older Quonset-style hangers (supply and GSE) were there at the other end, plus our two YF-23's behind the chain link fences. Quite a few new hangars now and you are probably right, some new toys lurking inside. The big main hangar could hold I think 5 B-2s plus one in the engine run dock.

Sorry for going off-topic but fun story. Had to defuel a B-2 front of the run dock, I had do some gear system repair then gear swings. Out in the distance was a huge dust devil and it was coming right at us but the ground crew could not get the wind screen and inlet covers on in time, the dust devil hit us in the left, front corner and shattered the two left cockpit windows, had to lay-up for 6 weeks to replace the windows, naturally got to blame the Northrop engineer, wouldn't have happened if we didn't have to defuel for gear swings. Ah, the good old days!
 
mkellytx said:
Old bomber fleet (AGM-158/GBU-31):
44 x 24 (B-1) + 19 x 16 (B-2) + 76 x 12 (B-52 no -1760 in bay) = 2,272

Defended airspace DMPI's: 304 Stand off DMPI's: 1,968

New bomber fleet (AGM-158/GBU-31):
100 x 8 (B-21) + 76 x 20 (B-52 -1760 in bay) = 2,320

Defended airspace DMPI's: 800 (1,600 if 16 JDAM) Stand off DMPI's: 1,520

The AGM-158 is 14 ft long, if the bay is just a bit bigger than 28 ft and can do tandem lights out.

100 x 16 (B-21) + 76 x 20 (B-52 -1760 in bay) = 3,120
Click to expand...
Aren't they enabling external carriage on the B-1B for larger weapons? Does anybody know how long the B-21s weapon bay is?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom