Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

djfawcett said:
It all depends on the test card for that flight. A chase was probably required.
Click to expand...
The B-2 tended to fly with an F-16 chase more often than not. All of the B-2 test pilots were dual qual'd B-2/F-16 back in the day. Cockpit viz is pretty bad, R2508 is see and avoid, so a safety chase with a bubble canopy is a pretty decent idea. Same argument applies for the B-21.
 
@mkellytx I’m assuming if the B-21 has a F-35 like DAS system you’d still want that assurance from a high visibility chase plane?
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...
So this is so powerful now for the Air Force b-2 fleet and 2 B-21 abble to bomb soon is a huge capacity .
 
Training_Dummy said:
@mkellytx I’m assuming if the B-21 has a F-35 like DAS system you’d still want that assurance from a high visibility chase plane?
Click to expand...
If they're still doing flight sciences work, those systems might not have even been turned on presuming that they exist/are installed. If I knew the answer to those questions, I wouldn't comment. So, it's a safe bet AFFTC will be extra careful with their shiny new toy.
 
Galaxy said:
View: https://youtu.be/6xF0YlMjuz0


Nothing new really but still interesting to see what a fighter pilot has to say about the B-21. The B-21 has really grown on me in terms of aesthetics and clean, almost alien like design features meant to reduce RCS. Interesting evolution in design philosophy compared to the B-2.
Click to expand...
Mhhmmm, I think a bomber pilot or engineer could give more insightful comments tbh. Still interesting though
 
Galaxy said:
[...]
Nothing new really but still interesting to see what a fighter pilot has to say about the B-21. The B-21 has really grown on me in terms of aesthetics and clean, almost alien like design features meant to reduce RCS. Interesting evolution in design philosophy compared to the B-2.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got fooled earlier too. The image of the aft of the B-21 Raider shown at the start of this video isn’t new; it’s actually from November 2023.
 
EmoBirb said:
Mhhmmm, I think a bomber pilot or engineer could give more insightful comments tbh. Still interesting though
Click to expand...

Lots of pilots have degrees in engineering or aerospace engineering but I’m not sure what Ryan’s degree is in. Even pilots with some business degrees or something similar have lots of knowledge in aircraft design because many of their colleague or people they interact with are engineers.

Interesting take from Ryan is that the B-21 is much more mature than most people realize and it could possibly be doing some very advanced testing or limited/covert missions based on lack of all the ground personnel and auxiliary equipment accompanying the aircraft as well as how the fit and finish looks like something latter prototypes or early production models would have. I have to agree, the finish looks like it’s a production aircraft minus the pitot tube.
 
Galaxy said:
View: https://youtu.be/6xF0YlMjuz0


Nothing new really but still interesting to see what a fighter pilot has to say about the B-21. The B-21 has really grown on me in terms of aesthetics and clean, almost alien like design features meant to reduce RCS. Interesting evolution in design philosophy compared to the B-2.
Click to expand...
Like, dude, man, brah, this was like so totally un/misinformed. Max needs to stay in his T-bird fighter pilot lane and not bloviate about things he doesn't know/understand.

Full disclosure, I worked/flew bombers 8 out of my 10 years in the AF and did flight test half of those years, not to mention studied the topic for my MS in Aero Eng. Hoss, the test pilot on the first flight on the B-21 was my squadron commander when I showed up in the 419th. The level of ignorance and click bait is very cringe.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
If they were a test pilot, they have an engineering degree. Aerospace engineering, IIRC.
Click to expand...
An engineering degree or hard science degree is mandatory for acceptance to USAF TPS as rated aircrew. Flight Test Engineers must have engineering or hard science degrees as well. The mass majority of FTE's are engineers, that said my engineering flight commander was a math guy with tons of DOE experience. Shotgun (the guy who first dropped MOP) was a Physics major, and since there were no real engineers who wanted to go to TPS that year we took him. Yes, there was a discussion, the engineers wanted an engineer, but settled since the guy was a pretty decent stick.

Small communities...
 
Last edited:
mkellytx said:
Like, dude, man, brah, this was like so totally un/misinformed. Max needs to stay in his T-bird fighter pilot lane and not bloviate about things he doesn't know/understand.

Full disclosure, I worked/flew bombers 8 out of my 10 years in the AF. Hoss, the test pilot with the first flight on the B-21 was my squadron commander when I showed up in the 419th. The level of ignorance and click bait is very cringe.
Click to expand...


I respect your opinion, he does come off funny but it doesn’t make him uninformed. I know a lot of professionals that talk like him but then they will talk about stuff that’s way over my head. Like I mentioned he didn’t really say anything new but just covered pretty basic stuff and had some options, perhaps they were off but nevertheless he has some credibility and it’s fun for aviation geeks to talk about this stuff.

I’m very interested in anything military pilots would share.
 
Galaxy said:
I respect your opinion, he does come off funny but it doesn’t make him uninformed. I know a lot of professionals that talk like him but then they will talk about stuff that’s way over my head. Like I mentioned he didn’t really say anything new but just covered pretty basic stuff and had some options, perhaps they were off but nevertheless he has some credibility and it’s fun for aviation geeks to talk about this stuff.

I’m very interested in anything military pilots would share.
Click to expand...
His comments about flight test weren't just brah-fied, they were totally completely dead wrong. They were astoundingly misinformed. Put this into context, I spent the last week with a retired initial cadre B-1 pilot colleague who was quite familiar with the basic FTT's and test stages in our 10% true discussions after dinner. Max got the latter completely wrong. It was an embarrassing display of ignorance, but hey, display your T-bird shwag, talk like a gamer and get your clicks.
 
Last edited:
mkellytx said:
An engineering degree or hard science degree is mandatory for acceptance to USAF TPS as rated aircrew. Flight Test Engineers must have engineering or hard science degrees as well. The mass majority of FTE's are engineers, that said my engineering flight commander was a math guy with tons of DOE experience. Shotgun (the guy who first dropped MOP) was a Physics major, and since there were no real engineers who wanted to go to TPS that year we took him. Yes, there was a discussion, the engineers wanted an engineer, but settled since the guy was a pretty decent stick.

Small communities...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suspect that the Test Pilot community is about as small as the submarine nuclear officer community. Maybe smaller, even.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, I suspect that the Test Pilot community is about as small as the submarine nuclear officer community. Maybe smaller, even.
Click to expand...
It is, but Pappi wasn't a flight tester, only B-1 initial cadre (which was part of my point about him knowing something). So, all of his bro's who stood up the FTU were my commanders a decade later, it's why it took about 30 seconds for us to figure out that we'd enjoy being colleagues. The smallness of the test community is that my former 419th commander, Hoss, flew the first flight on the Raider. B-21 content, safely back on topic.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I'm assuming it's this article:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a...s-northrop-can-expand-production-at-plant-42/
Which actually says very little beyond 'the test aircraft will be combat-capable' on the matter. But that doesn't make a breathless YouTube video.
Click to expand...
Actually that makes me wonder about the avionics readiness of the B-21... As far as I know the first two B-2 flight prototypes do not have working mission avionics at their respective first flights.
 
I would have thought that NG would have learnt from the B-2 avionics problems and had at least prototype avionic systems in the first two flying B-21 prototypes.
 
My understanding is the program that preceded and led to the B-21 design eschewed prototype systems to specify components with a high maturity / tech readiness level. To the extent this is the case, then I’d love to know why the first ship shouldnt look identical (or close to it, once the test systems and instruments have been stripped) to the nth aircraft delivered in the first Raider increment or lot(s).
 
JoshuaH said:
Actually that makes me wonder about the avionics readiness of the B-21... As far as I know the first two B-2 flight prototypes do not have working mission avionics at their respective first flights.
Click to expand...
The first two B-2 flight test aircraft were heavily instrumented and this was back in the late '80s, early '90s, this was common practice back then. As you progressed through B-2 aircraft AV-3, AV-4, AV-5 and AV-6, less and less instrumentation. AV-6 if I remember correctly was not instrumented at all. I think the 21 took a way different approach as compared to B-2, hence with all of digital tools used including very high fidelity systems integration and hardware in the loop simulation facilities.
 
Weren't a lot of the B-21's mission avionics tested and matured on a modified aircraft similar to what Lockheed-Martin did with the F-22 and F-35 (The CATBird for example)?
 
Training_Dummy said:
My understanding is the program that preceded and led to the B-21 design eschewed prototype systems to specify components with a high maturity / tech readiness level. To the extent this is the case, then I’d love to know why the first ship shouldnt look identical (or close to it, once the test systems and instruments have been stripped) to the nth aircraft delivered in the first Raider increment or lot(s).
Click to expand...
The tech can be very mature in a silo by itself, but if it's never played with the other mature tech... Integration is always a very big issue in any development program. Which is why you have MBSE, iron birds, SIL's and flying labs to burn down risk. The fact that it looks like the first B-21 is the flight sciences bird instead of a flight sciences bird, and then only until the envelope is proved out is a positive sign. Flight test takes time, it not for the impatient, that gets people killed.
 
Everyone forgets of that small thing called X-47B I wouldn't be surprised if the avionics developed for the X-47B evolved into the avionics for the B-21, ( or they were directly applied ) after all, the aerodynamics also resemble that of the X-47B sure it's larger but many of the features that the X-47 had are included in this plane the pilots are there just for decoration like it or not
 
piko1 said:
Everyone forgets of that small thing called X-47B I wouldn't be surprised if the avionics developed for the X-47B evolved into the avionics for the B-21, ( or they were directly applied ) after all, the aerodynamics also resemble that of the X-47B sure it's larger but many of the features that the X-47 had are included in this plane the pilots are there just for decoration like it or not
Click to expand...
X-47B was only a demonstrator of autonomous takeoff/landing on aircraft carrier and didn't have much avionics outside of what's necessary to demonstrate that mission no?
 
donnage99 said:
X-47B was only a demonstrator of autonomous takeoff/landing on aircraft carrier and didn't have much avionics outside of what's necessary to demonstrate that mission no
Click to expand...

hybrid global positioning system (GPS) electro-optics (EO), infrared (IR), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), inverse SAR, ground moving target indicator (GMTI), electronic support measures (ESM), maritime moving target indicator (MMTI) sensors. electronic-warfare and the more basic sensors etc.
 
Looking at the picture for the B-21, has Northrop Grumman had to redesign the second B-21 after flight testing the first? Was that the reason why the second Raider's first flight test delayed?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom