Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Last edited:
kmrumble said:
From this morning's Northrop Grumman earnings call:

Kathy Warden is "optimistic" that an agreement will be reached in Q1 2026 concerning acceleration of B-21 production.
The option for Lot 3 LRIP was exercised in Q4 2025, as well as advance procurement funding for Lot 5.

Full transcript here: https://www.investing.com/news/tran...umman-beats-q4-2025-eps-forecast-93CH-4468072
Click to expand...

I wonder how aggressive the acceleration plan will be, will they be looking to make a geopolitical statement or are they just giving the industrial base a modest boost?
 
joshjosh said:
Vago Muradian said today that the B-21 "obviously" doesn't have as much range as a B-2. That's the inverse of my impression based on public statements on the B-21. Did he mean "not as much range as the B-52?"
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think he has a way of knowing that… So I am not sure whether his opinion, without explanation of the thought processes for coming to that conclusion, matters…
 
And don't forget the sleeping area. I remember the first time we put aircrew in the motion-based simulator for a 44 hour mission down at Pico, the start of getting the aircrews conditioned for these types of missions.
 
It is hard to imagine a bomber designed for the Pacific would have a shorter range. It is even harder to imagine that an engine estimated to have twice the bypass ratio of F118 would generate a shorter range for a given fuel fraction, or that B-21 has a significantly lower fuel fraction.

I would dismiss the comment unless further explanation is provided.
 
Josh_TN said:
It is hard to imagine a bomber designed for the Pacific would have a shorter range. It is even harder to imagine that an engine estimated to have twice the bypass ratio of F118 would generate a shorter range for a given fuel fraction, or that B-21 has a significantly lower fuel fraction.

I would dismiss the comment unless further explanation is provided.
Click to expand...

It transpired recently that Northrop had to accept a change of design requested by the USAF to ease and hasten manufacturability. Would that be something related like a design change that would result in an increased mass (hence a lower range)?

At this stage of development, anything is possible. Remember the distributed nozzles that never went to see the light of the day as much as we know about the program.

But to confirm what was said earlier, early statements made clear that the B-21 was a smaller airframe with similar range than the B-2 but half the payload.
 
TomcatViP said:
But to confirm what was said earlier, early statements made clear that the B-21 was a smaller airframe with similar range than the B-2 but half the payload.
Click to expand...

I actually do not remember any USAF comments about range; not that I doubt you but do you happen to remember a quote or press release?
 
Josh_TN said:
I actually do not remember any USAF comments about range; not that I doubt you but do you happen to remember a quote or press release?
Click to expand...
Most USAF officials have stuck with phrases like "global reach", etc. The most specific thing I recall having heard is Lloyd Austin's remark at the unveiling ceremony:
"Let's talk about the B-21's range. No other long-range bomber can match its efficiency. It won't need to be based in-theater. It won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk."
This would seem to imply a greater range than the B-2. The number I've heard whispered among former colleagues is around 7000nm unrefueled.
 
kmrumble said:
Most USAF officials have stuck with phrases like "global reach", etc. The most specific thing I recall having heard is Lloyd Austin's remark at the unveiling ceremony:
"Let's talk about the B-21's range. No other long-range bomber can match its efficiency. It won't need to be based in-theater. It won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk."
This would seem to imply a greater range than the B-2. The number I've heard whispered among former colleagues is around 7000nm unrefueled.
Click to expand...

I remember that, and that was my interpretation as well.
 
scautomoton said:
More than this; the fact it is classified..... is classified.
Click to expand...
"What are you even talking about? 'Range'? What's that? Who are you? Who am I, and how did here get here?"

The chloroform pad passes over your mouth and nose before you can get the media liaison officer to even admit you're both standing in the same room.
 
Josh_TN said:
I actually do not remember any USAF comments about range; not that I doubt you but do you happen to remember a quote or press release?
Click to expand...

That might be correct. I was on the impression that this was what came out of W. Roper press conversations early on when he was still Assistant Secretary.
 
It would certainly make sense for the B-21 to have greater range, given that it most likely runs much more efficient engines and carries less payload compared to the B-2, while also being a bit smaller but not significantly smaller too.
 
Sferrin said:
Always wondered if the fact both the B-2 and U-2 use the F118 if that might hint at an altitude capability of higher than the 50k normally associated with the B-2. ISTR the early concepts looked at as high as 80,000 feet.
Click to expand...
I know they made changes to the F118 for the U-2. During B-2 flight test, I think we hit 55K but operationally it was 50K. Now since I have been off the program for some time and through upgrades, maybe the B-2 can go above 50K.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom