Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Sferrin said:
What a dumb idea. It's difficult enough for two pilots flying those 40-hour missions. Imagine trying to do it by yourself.
Click to expand...
This was actually the original thought on the two-man B-2 but shot down by the "Peace is our profession" old timers. hence two pilots. Most WSO's have enough basic airmanship skills to monitor George on cruise legs, or to refuel/land the jet if the pilot couldn't. Fighters that do ACM the gap exists. Bombers, not really to be quite honest. The BUFF and Bone have terrible handling characteristics by themselves or if stab aug fails. The B-21 is FBW only, so anyone who can land a light twin with an engine out can land the B-21 with minimal training.

Given the pilot shortage AF wide, and the WSO surplus created by the Bone retirement, it's not an entirely bad idea.
 
mkellytx said:
This was actually the original thought on the two-man B-2 but shot down by the "Peace is our profession" old timers. hence two pilots. Most WSO's have enough basic airmanship skills to monitor George on cruise legs, or to refuel/land the jet if the pilot couldn't. Fighters that do ACM the gap exists. Bombers, not really to be quite honest. The BUFF and Bone have terrible handling characteristics by themselves or if stab aug fails. The B-21 is FBW only, so anyone who can land a light twin with an engine out can land the B-21 with minimal training.

Given the pilot shortage AF wide, and the WSO surplus created by the Bone retirement, it's not an entirely bad idea.
Click to expand...
As long as the WSO has enough ability to perform the basic flying functions in the event the pilot has a problem that seems acceptable. I seem to recall their being 2-seaters in the past where the GIB didn't even have a stick, and couldn't fly the plane even if he knew how. I thought that was what was being proposed.
 
Sferrin said:
As long as the WSO has enough ability to perform the basic flying functions in the event the pilot has a problem that seems acceptable. I seem to recall their being 2-seaters in the past where the GIB didn't even have a stick, and couldn't fly the plane even if he knew how. I thought that was what was being proposed.
Click to expand...
Their UNT includes a bunch of T-6 time for basic airmanship. Honestly almost any FBW aircraft is super easy to fly. Case in point, for maintenance officer training we got to go up to Altus and fly the C-17 full motion sim. My classmates knew I had a PPL and wanted to go to UPT, so they told the techs to mess with me, 30 kt cross wind in driving rain and I still put it on the numbers, Barney is super easy/fun to fly. Almost every two seat AF fighter I can think has a stick in back. The only exception I can think of the GIB wasn't in back but on the right side, then again, he was an EWO (different pipeline), and the "fighter" version had sticks for their WSO's, EF-111.

Now, the B-1's WSO's don't have sticks, but that's what the FTU is for, to rebuild stick and rudder skills from UNT. Additionally, they'll have to know all of the EP's and systems which is 90% of the hard stuff. Seen firsthand how Nav's downstairs helped run EP's and checklists for the drivers, been in a BUFF that lost cabin pressurization at 25 kft and ran a real BOLDFACE, the Radar Nav was all over it (I was sitting next to him learning how to use the radar in the Nav seat). The field graders who can't relearn get exciting careers in mission support or backfilling Army jobs in the sandbox.
 
Josh_TN said:
It is possible the money was not actually spent that way, at least not yet. There seems to be an awfully lot of hand wringing over increasing production capacity. Apparently USAF has always feared that a program with more ambitious production rates would have its budget threatened. It seems like a rather over cautious attitude in the age of what is basically a new Cold War.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's not like any current senior staff have served in the cold war. They all joined sometime after 1991!



NMaude said:
Perhaps the WSO will be a qualified B-21 pilot too?
Click to expand...
May have flight skills and training, but isn't a pilot. WSOs are not pilots in the USAF. Like how any plane that still has a flight engineer or navigator, those two aren't pilots either.
 
Apart from the KC-135 and the RC-135 tanker and reconnaissance planes then there are no modern planes that have flight engineers they sadly are a dying breed Scott Kenny.
 
Given that the current Airforce One VC-25As are modified 747-200s wouldn't they have flight-engineers? I wonder if the replacement VC-25Bs will have flight-engineers?
 
NMaude said:
Given that the current Airforce One VC-25As are modified 747-200s wouldn't they have flight-engineers? I wonder if the replacement VC-25Bs will have flight-engineers?
Click to expand...
IIRC, the VC-25As do have flight engineers and even a Navigator. I'm not sure about the -Bravos.
 
dark sidius said:

Northrop CEO Links B-21 ISR Capability To Fleet Growth | Aviation Week Network

ISR capabilities may be the deciding factor in a future decision over whether to increase the size of the Northrop Grumman B-21 fleet beyond 100 aircraft.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
Interesting...Warned called the B-21 "relatively affordable." It's sensors might be value added. But I think the purchase of additional B-21s will depend on it's ability to deliver kinetic effects.

If the AF did buy more - assuming the buy of 100 will replace the B-1 units at Ellsworth and Dyess, and the B-2s at Whitemen - they might look to reactivate units at old B-1 bases such as Grand Forks and McConnell AFB.
 
The B-1s from Elleworth are hanging in Grand forks during the rehab of the base for B-21, so I think it is a strong candidate. Even if only a hundred B-21s are built, that’s more than the operating B-1 and B-2 fleet by a wide margin.
 
Reading between the lines I see subtle demand signaling: who can say if Raider 10n or whatever makes sense in 203x, but if there is a credible way for both partners to invest in the capability to deliver 150 Raiders by 203x-ish then there should be a discussion.
 
I think the bigger question is not how many raiders, but how quickly. You can always just keep buying them for a couple decades. The real program change would if production rate was increased, not just a hypothetical buy a decade from now. The difference between 100 and 200 raiders happens in like 2035 unless there is a decision to accelerate production.
 
Last edited:
The fact that they are openly discussing a recon variant points toward a DoD need for such that would suggest the existence of a platform today that is in need of replacement.
It's a striking change in the language where all recon assets were supposed to be space based and no strategic recon airframe officially aknowledged.
 
TomcatViP said:
The fact that they are openly discussing a recon variant points toward a DoD need for such that would suggest the existence of a platform today that is in need of replacement.
It's a striking change in the language where all recon assets were supposed to be space based and no strategic recon airframe officially aknowledged.
Click to expand...
U-2.
 
I think this is a way to justify increasing the number of B-21's purchased and the rate at what they are purchased. Especially if you think about the recent suggestion that the aircraft should be one pilot and a WSO.
 
One Pilot and a WSO? That is different to the B-2 where both crew members were qualified pilots and could fly the aircraft when one pilot was taking a quick nap, I wonder if the B-21 will have to fly most of the mission in autopilot in that case?
 
Today’s National Institute of Deterrence Studies talked about B-21 in numbers as high as 200-300 but not possible without a second production location.

Apparently there’s lobbying going on to pay for a second production site in the 2027 defense budget.
 
bobbymike said:
Today’s National Institute of Deterrence Studies talked about B-21 in numbers as high as 200-300 but not possible without a second production location.

Apparently there’s lobbying going on to pay for a second production site in the 2027 defense budget.
Click to expand...
But they need people to build them. This ain't China. (Schools have not been kind to the younger generations in the US.)
 
FighterJock said:
One Pilot and a WSO? That is different to the B-2 where both crew members were qualified pilots and could fly the aircraft when one pilot was taking a quick nap, I wonder if the B-21 will have to fly most of the mission in autopilot in that case?
Click to expand...

You don't think they are hand-flying the B-2 on those 30-hour missions, do you? Of course the B-21 will be on autopilot most of the time on those long-haul missions.
 
Sferrin said:
But they need people to build them. This ain't China. (Schools have not been kind to the younger generations in the US.)
Click to expand...
Shouldn't an aircraft like the B-21 see many of the assembly processing being automated? I'd expect the utmost precision is required and machines can handle larger individual components. Surely, qualified people are needed here and there, but I'd argue money is more so the issue than manpower.
 
EmoBirb said:
Shouldn't an aircraft like the B-21 see many of the assembly processing being automated? I'd expect the utmost precision is required and machines can handle larger individual components. Surely, qualified people are needed here and there, but I'd argue money is more so the issue than manpower.
Click to expand...

I'd say that there would be a lot of automated manufacture especially compared with how the B-2A was built* as there have been tremendous advances in manufacturing tech since the 1990s when B-2A was in production.

*IIRC back when the B-2A was built most composite construction was still manually laid up.
 
NMaude said:
I'd say that there would be a lot of automated manufacture especially compared with how the B-2A was built* as there have been tremendous advances in manufacturing tech since the 1990s when B-2A was in production.

*IIRC back when the B-2A was built most composite construction was still manually laid up.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's possible that it just didn't work, and they abandoned it later in the program, but tape layup was always planned to be automated. That was the first manufacturing technology initiative approved and funded by the USAF in the early days of the contract.
 
NMaude said:
I'd say that there would be a lot of automated manufacture especially compared with how the B-2A was built* as there have been tremendous advances in manufacturing tech since the 1990s when B-2A was in production.

*IIRC back when the B-2A was built most composite construction was still manually laid up.
Click to expand...
Any B-2 documentary of an era shows wing / central section automatic layup from Northrop, LTV and Boeing official B-rolls. Just a few airframe elements like complicated inlet ducts and SAFS were manually laid up.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
I'd say that there would be a lot of automated manufacture especially compared with how the B-2A was built* as there have been tremendous advances in manufacturing tech since the 1990s when B-2A was in production.

*IIRC back when the B-2A was built most composite construction was still manually laid up.
Click to expand...
Boeing, LTV and us at Northrop used automated composite tape laying machines. There was no way Boeing could manually layup complete outboard wing sections. For B-2, a lot of automated processes were developed. NCAD and NCAL was also used for the basis of some of the automated manufacturing. We also developed variable speed/torque, material density sensitive drilling machines for complex, layered material sandwiched assemblies. Around 900 new processes were developed for B-2 and other Northrop advanced programs via our ManTech group.
 
bobbymike said:
Today’s National Institute of Deterrence Studies talked about B-21 in numbers as high as 200-300 but not possible without a second production location.

Apparently there’s lobbying going on to pay for a second production site in the 2027 defense budget.
Click to expand...
Yes I brought up setting up a second line much earlier in this thread. To my mind that’s what it would take to deliver meaningfully more Raiders in a timeframe that’s meaningful.

The decision of whether or not the 101st Raider or whatever should be bought is far less interesting a question than “can the component and subsystem ecosystem support a second line in the next ~5ish years?”
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom