Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

EmoBirb said:
Sooner or later the B-52 will be replaced by the B-21 anyway. Be it just the B-21, or the B-21 in conjunction with unmanned force multipliers. So if B-52J is late, then some B-21s will just do that earlier.
Click to expand...
The USAF has 25 years to figure it out and plenty of possibilities between now and then. As Scott said, the B-21 is not an ideal fit and won't become more so 15 years from today.
 
bring_it_on said:
'expected first flight' is not a milestone. You seem to be piecing it by looking at public statements. There is always a threshold and objective range built on such milestones so that they can track schedule. By all indications, the B-21 has held its schedule and cost. Unless you can show otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t have non-open source information… I totally understand that there will always be threshold and objective KPPs, but without knowing the actual threshold performance with respect to project timeline, all of the publicized “expected dates” do not matter because they can always be objectives that are not going to be met…? Or am I getting something wrong here…

Just as an example (not implying that this is happening with the program, just an example), I can say the objective IOC date for the B-21 is in 2027, and the threshold IOC date is 2035 or even 2040. That way I can always say the program is on track…
 
Last edited:
JoshuaH said:
Well I don’t have non-open source information… I totally understand that there will always be threshold and objective KPPs, but without knowing the actual threshold performance with respect to project timeline, all of the publicized “expected dates” do not matter because they can always be objectives that are not going to be met…? Or am I getting something wrong here…

Just as an example (not implying that this is happening with the program, just an example), I can say the objective IOC date for the B-21 is in 2027, and the threshold IOC date is 2035 or even 2040. That way I can always say the program is on track…
Click to expand...
Because all I care about is not whether the B-21 is on track from a programmatic or accounting perspective, all I care about is whether the B-21 can actually achieve IOC in the mid-2020s, and how many would be available for a potential war over Taiwan in the 2027-2030 time range… Because long-range strike is going to be extremely important in that scenario… right…?
 
JoshuaH said:
Because all I care about is not whether the B-21 is on track from a programmatic or accounting perspective, all I care about is whether the B-21 can actually achieve IOC in the mid-2020s, and how many would be available for a potential war over Taiwan in the 2027-2030 time range…
Click to expand...

On one end, you claim that programmatic or account perspective doesn't concern you all that much, and on the other hand you use a programmatic milestone (IOC) to track progress on the program. There are a whole host of things that need to happen for the service leaders to declare IOC on the B-21. While we do not have access to the exact list, it is likely a combination of a defined number of aircraft in hand capable of performing a defined set of missions, a number of air-force pilots, maintainers trained, MILCON activities at first location ready so that those defined number of aircraft can be sustained and operated there with the crew able to forward deploy as needed with the necessary manuals and components in place to do this operationally. That is a programmatic and contractual milestone requiring each to be certified before the milestone can be declared as achieved.

Ability to fight in 2027-2030 is a different thing altogether. There are several ways to send aircraft on the ramp out to war if needed even prior to formal declaration of milestones..USAF has done this in the past (JSTARS for example) and other services are routinely doing that with CUAS gear for example.


-----------

Feb. 2025:

For the first time in 38 years, there are currently no B-1 bombers on Ellsworth Air Force Base and that’s because of the runway reconstruction taking place in anticipation of the B-21 bombers.

Seventeen B-1’s, including 800 airmen, were relocated to Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota last month in preparation for the base’s largest current construction project, the runway reconstruction. Colonel Derek Oakley says while the roughly 2 1/2 miles of runway could have lasted a couple more years, officials believed it was better to update before the arrival of the new jets.

“We had two options. We either could wait for B-21 arrivals to happen and probably about halfway through those arrivals, we would have to tear up our runway which is not where we wanted to be as an Air Force. We’re going to have a brand-new runway, brand-new lighting, everything will be great when the new airplane arrives,” Oakley said.
Click to expand...

https://www.kotatv.com/2025/02/08/ellsworth-air-force-base-begins-crucial-runway-reconstruction/
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
On one end, you claim that programmatic or account perspective doesn't concern you all that much, and on the other hand you use a programmatic milestone (IOC) to track progress on the program. There are a whole host of things that need to happen for the service leaders to declare IOC on the B-21. While we do not have access to the exact list, it is likely a combination of a defined number of aircraft in hand capable of performing a defined set of missions, a number of air-force pilots, maintainers trained, MILCON activities at first location ready so that those defined number of aircraft can be sustained and operated there with the crew able to forward deploy as needed with the necessary manuals and components in place to do this operationally. That is a programmatic and contractual milestone requiring each to be certified before the milestone can be declared as achieved.

Ability to fight in 2027-2030 is a different thing altogether. There are several ways to send aircraft on the ramp out to war if needed even prior to formal declaration of milestones..USAF has historically done this in the past and other services are routinely doing that with CUAS gear for example.
Click to expand...
Understood. Then my assumption of an aircraft has to be declared IOC to fight in a war is completely wrong then… Thank you so much for the reply!
 
Scott Kenny said:
So I'm not expecting UAVs to be nuclear weapon carriers.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, I'm not expecting a nuclear exchange between the US and China either though.

So I don't see how that's relevant. Given that said UAVs would carry conventional ALCMs and for the air launched nuclear deterrent exists the B-21. So the theorized UCAVs wouldn't have to fulfill that role either way.
 
EmoBirb said:
Neither do I, I'm not expecting a nuclear exchange between the US and China either though.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping one won't happen. I'm not holding my breath over it, however.

We all know what happened the last time a country "touched America's boats:" We dropped the sun on them. Twice.



EmoBirb said:
So I don't see how that's relevant. Given that said UAVs would carry conventional ALCMs and for the air launched nuclear deterrent exists the B-21. So the theorized UCAVs wouldn't have to fulfill that role either way.
Click to expand...
How many CALCM strikes has the USAF actually launched, though? Or I guess JASSMs these days?

Also, remember that in a conventional conflict, any nuclear-tasked B-21s would be unavailable for use. You're not going to have them flying with JASSMs, JDAMs, SDBs, no flights at all.

IIRC, the plan is that the first ~45 (3 squadrons?) B-21s replace the B-1s in the conventional role 1:1, then the next ~20 to 40 replace B-2s in the nuclear role (not sure whether that's replacing 1:1 or 2:1 for weapons capacity).
 
Hypothetically a SBAR with PAL integration could easily accommodate 16 B-61s. So 1:1 might be possible.
Also it appears that the first aircraft to be replaced will be the Ellsworth B-1s, temporarily moved to Grand Fork for base renovation. But then after that, Whiteman is next on the schedule before Dyess, implying that the B-2 fleet might be retired first before the entirety of the B-1 force. I do not tho the USAF has an official public position on this outside of “retirements decisions will be conditions based” or something to that effect.
 
Josh_TN said:
Hypothetically a SBAR with PAL integration could easily accommodate 16 B-61s. So 1:1 might be possible.
Also it appears that the first aircraft to be replaced will be the Ellsworth B-1s, temporarily moved to Grand Fork for base renovation. But then after that, Whiteman is next on the schedule before Dyess, implying that the B-2 fleet might be retired first before the entirety of the B-1 force. I do not tho the USAF has an official public position on this outside of “retirements decisions will be conditions based” or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I hope at least a couple B-2s will be preserved in museums
 
NMaude said:
Given how few B-2s there are in existence aside from maybe several put into museums that would likely be all of them (That's assuming no more are lost in accidents or possibly combat).
Click to expand...
IIRC, there's only ~4x F-117s in active adversary use at a time, even though some ~60 were made and there's ~55ish left and IIRC 4 in various museums. (I kinda hope that more get sent out to museums, just stripped of all their RAM)

So I wouldn't expect that there'd be more than 2-4x B-2s active at any time. Which would allow at least 8 birds to go to museums.
 
Josh_TN said:
Hypothetically a SBAR with PAL integration could easily accommodate 16 B-61s. So 1:1 might be possible.
Also it appears that the first aircraft to be replaced will be the Ellsworth B-1s, temporarily moved to Grand Fork for base renovation. But then after that, Whiteman is next on the schedule before Dyess, implying that the B-2 fleet might be retired first before the entirety of the B-1 force. I do not tho the USAF has an official public position on this outside of “retirements decisions will be conditions based” or something to that effect.
Click to expand...
B-61 seems too long for the SBRA… It’s size is closer to the 1klbs MK83 than the 500lbs MK82. A rotating launcher can probably accommodate 16 though.
 
NMaude said:
Well if you have, say, a dozen B-2s in active with only 2-4 active at any one time then that means you can rotate the airframes to keep airframe life use to a minimum extending their useful remaining fatigue lives.
Click to expand...

B-2 might be too sensor for museums for some time though.
 
JoshuaH said:
B-61 seems too long for the SBRA… It’s size is closer to the 1klbs MK83 than the 500lbs MK82. A rotating launcher can probably accommodate 16 though.
Click to expand...

I had thought the SBRA able to handle up to 1000 lb CBU-87, but in any case it would have to be a brand new storage system to accommodate PAL. But volume wise there should be no problem stacking B-61 in 4x4. But perhaps the rotary will be have staggered dual slots. Nose to tail, two would 24’.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-2 might be too sensor for museums for some time though.
Click to expand...

Well that could be dealt with by a) removing any classified systems from the airframe when they arrive at the museum and b) by having armed guards to discourage any snooping around (Also having the exhibit indoors).
 
NMaude said:
Well that could be dealt with by a) removing any classified systems from the airframe when they arrive at the museum and b) by having armed guards to discourage any snooping around (Also having the exhibit indoors).
Click to expand...

I had thought photography of the rear of the aircraft was sensitive to this day, but clearly some accommodation was made for the ground test article. I am sure any sensitive electronics would be removed.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had thought photography of the rear of the aircraft was sensitive to this day, but clearly some accommodation was made for the ground test article. I am sure any sensitive electronics would be removed.
Click to expand...
I was assuming that it'd be like what they did with the Museum F-117s: stripped off all the RAM, museum fabricates a few chunks of what was RAS on the flying plane but is plain aesthetic fiberglass et sim patches in the museum, any classified systems long since removed and if necessary replaced with ballast, etc.
 
I think if the LO treatments evolve further with reduced man-hours and increased durability, they can keep the B-2's flying longer. I think the USAF may have to and should do so, the B-2 has a lot of life and capability still left in her. I bet at some point, we'll see a B-2 flying and testing with B-21 surface treatments.
 
Hydroman said:
I think if the LO treatments evolve further with reduced man-hours and increased durability, they can keep the B-2's flying longer. I think the USAF may have to and should do so, the B-2 has a lot of life and capability still left in her. I bet at some point, we'll see a B-2 flying and testing with B-21 surface treatments.
Click to expand...

It has a lot of life in it, but there are huge issues updating any of the electronics and I would guess, integrating new weapons. I think the most recent attempt at updating the defensive suite was 2 billion in the hole when they decided that it was unworkable. Plus there is the issue of maintaining an entirely separate parts and training stream for <20 aircraft.

At most, they will replace all the B-1s first. I think it entirely possible they replace half of the B-1s to stop the bleeding of that force and then replace B-2 as soon as full rate production occurs. The base update schedule kinda implies the latter.
 
Josh_TN said:
It has a lot of life in it, but there are huge issues updating any of the electronics and I would guess, integrating new weapons. I think the most recent attempt at updating the defensive suite was 2 billion in the hole when they decided that it was unworkable. Plus there is the issue of maintaining an entirely separate parts and training stream for <20 aircraft.
Click to expand...
I mean, the US does that all the time for various specialty aircraft. EC-130s, E-4Bs, E-6 TACAMO, JSTARS, etc.

I suspect that the killer for the B-2s is how much it costs to maintain their RAM coatings, and how it's not practical to refit them with B-21/F-35 "baked-in" RAM skins.


Josh_TN said:
At most, they will replace all the B-1s first. I think it entirely possible they replace half of the B-1s to stop the bleeding of that force and then replace B-2 as soon as full rate production occurs. The base update schedule kinda implies the latter.
Click to expand...
That plan feels weird to me, but I agree that the base update schedule suggests replacing half the B-1s immediately, then all the B-2s, and finally the other half of the B-1s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, the US does that all the time for various specialty aircraft. EC-130s, E-4Bs, E-6 TACAMO, JSTARS, etc.

I suspect that the killer for the B-2s is how much it costs to maintain their RAM coatings, and how it's not practical to refit them with B-21/F-35 "baked-in" RAM skins.



That plan feels weird to me, but I agree that the base update schedule suggests replacing half the B-1s immediately, then all the B-2s, and finally the other half of the B-1s.
Click to expand...

The difference would be the B-2 would have a replacement/equivalent where as those other aircraft don’t. Additionally nothing you mentioned was a combat aircraft, which I think makes a difference as far as sortie generation. The nuclear mission probably complicates their cost of operation further.

There is an NG maintenance and update contract for $7 billion that is to update the coatings and integrate new weapons. In particular it will apparently make use of magnetic applicays in place of caulk and tape, and supposedly this effort will remove tens of thousands of man hours of maintenance per year over the whole fleet when completed in 2029. But I assume Ba21 uses radar reduction methods built into its base structure that cannot be retrofitted. The electronics seem to be the bigger sticking point; pretty much the opposite of MOSA. I would assume it’s all Ada code and totally integrated throughout.

I do not know that is the plan, but that is the base update schedule. It would allow the B-1 force to consolidate around the best condition airframes and free up lots of parts and personnel to maintain the remaining force at Dyess while building up an inventory of ~40 stealth bombers of both types, thereafter updating that force with newer bombers. I suspect the final decision has not been made yet, and it is also possible that updates to bases are based on the conditions of the infrastructure there, not the replacement schedule.
 
Agreed Scott Kenny, it is better having new tarmac on the runways for the B-21s to use when they finally arrive at Ellsworth than sticking with the old stuff that the B-1Bs used.
 
I think people here thought 140-150’, but 132’ seems to be the wiki value, for what that’s worth. Apparently AW&T thinks it is smaller and lighter than sone of the initial responses here; not sure what to make of that.
 
JoshuaH said:
Its first flight offered a direct comparison with the accompanying F-16 (image is reposted). Should be around 160 feet if we assume similar distance to the observer.
Click to expand...
I wonder if them cat ears aux intakes also provide some yaw stability much like the landing gear door of the j-36 a in low speed.

Edit: nvm just looked at side view, way too small. The unusual elongated piece probably have more to do with low frequency RCS management.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think people here thought 140-150’, but 132’ seems to be the wiki value, for what that’s worth. Apparently AW&T thinks it is smaller and lighter than sone of the initial responses here; not sure what to make of that.
Click to expand...
The Wiki value is directly quoted from AW&ST, which didn’t even get the planform angle correctly…(I would be very, very surprised if the trailing edges are not parallel with the leading edges)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7436.jpeg
    IMG_7436.jpeg
    204.2 KB · Views: 151
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom