Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

The B-21 having air-to-air capabilities (not limited to self-defense) has been discussed for years, and several hints have been made...

“If we were to characterize it [NGAD] as a fighter, we would be… thinking too narrowly about what kind of airplane we need in a highly contested environment,” U.S. Air Force Major General Scott Pleus, who is currently Director of Air and Cyber Operations for Pacific Air Forces, recently told Air Force Magazine. “A B-21 [Raider stealth bomber] that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.”

www.thedrive.com

"B-21s With Air-To-Air Capabilities," Drones, Not 6th Gen Fighters To Dominate Future Air Combat

The Air Force's vision of the future of aerial combat has evolved greatly as of late and has moved away from plans for new, costly manned fighters.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
That is the first time that I have ever heard of such a use for the B-21 Manuducati, it will be interesting to see if such a system works in reality.
 
weight:
empty 48 t,
normal takeoff 117 t,
maximum takeoff 124 t,
landing 51 t,
flight range 12,000 km,
radius 5700 km,
total combat effectiveness +16% B-2
 
Just for info and continuity for history:

www.thedrive.com

B-21 Raider's First Flight: What We Learned

Our analysis of seeing the first B-21 Raider, nicknamed Cerberus, in the sky and from many new angles for the very first time.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

It's almost like reading this forum, with questions about the data probe and discussion of Cerebrus, how odd...

;):rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
paralay said:
total combat effectiveness +16% B-2
Click to expand...

"In terms of total combat effectiveness, the Su-57 surpasses the F-35A by 34%"

If you're going to use this method perhaps also provide a measurement of the manufacturing effectiveness of the provider, and, perhaps, the sustainability of the system during hostilities. If I can only build prototypes then my score is low. If the system can survive hostilities, or sustain production, those scores are high. That way, the recipient of the data can discern bravado and bullshit from legitimacy and lethality.

Without context, the data seems worthless.
 
It is measured in a different way.
By the way, there is a 17% difference between B-1B and B-2, that is, this is normal between aircraft of different generations. In the case of the B-21, it should be borne in mind that it is at least twice cheaper than the B-2 and 1.4 times lighter, that is, according to the efficiency / cost criterion, the Raider is twice as good as the B-2
 
bob225 said:
Just for info and continuity for history:

www.thedrive.com

B-21 Raider's First Flight: What We Learned

Our analysis of seeing the first B-21 Raider, nicknamed Cerberus, in the sky and from many new angles for the very first time.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

It's almost like reading this forum, with questions about the data probe and discussion of Cerebrus, how odd...

;):rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They seem to miss the specific 'three-headed' implications of Cerberus though.

Note official Air Force statement on the B-21:

"The B-21 Raider will be a dual-capable penetrating strike stealth bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions"

Maybe 'Cerberus' is a nod to other missions, like air-to-air, reconnaissance and battle management that have been mentioned.
 
In Seneca's telling of the myth, as well as three heads Cerberos has a mane of snakes.

Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-03%2Bat%2B11.16.27%2BAM.png
 
flateric said:
This was inevitable
https://twitter.com/x/status/1723235051176079771
View: https://twitter.com/Konwashi_2/status/1723235051176079771
Click to expand...

Not a bad trend tbh.

----------

The possibility of air-to air capability are interesting tho, particularly sensor wise. Could indicate the attack radar of the aircraft would have kinda bigger power compared to previous generation attack radar. Ground targets doesnt need large transmit power to detect, few to tens of Watts are enough. But for air target, several hundreds of Watts could be needed as well as higher duty cycle.

One design example are in "Introduction to RF Stealth" but i think even for stealth, 40 km range in A2A mode would be kinda inadequate. Especially if there is desire to use long range AAM's.
 
Such an large aircraft in the A2A role seems very strange. Perhaps as a missile truck in conjunction with NGAD/F-35? You only need the big bay for that, not secondary smaller bays. In the bombing role you would want to get in and out undetected and shooting your way in and out amoungst enemy aircraft is not the way to do it. Come in above enemy fighters from an unlikely direction is.
Even in the SEAD role it seems far too big and unmanuverable and again, shooting your way into a target hardly seems stealthy.

Either the USAF has gone mad in wanting an A2A role in such a huge aircraft, or we simply have no idea why those bays exist. My money is on the latter.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Such an large aircraft in the A2A role seems very strange. Perhaps as a missile truck in conjunction with NGAD/F-35? You only need the big bay for that, not secondary smaller bays. In the bombing role you would want to get in and out undetected and shooting your way in and out amoungst enemy aircraft is not the way to do it. Come in above enemy fighters from an unlikely direction is.
Even in the SEAD role it seems far too big and unmanuverable and again, shooting your way into a target hardly seems stealthy.
Click to expand...
A smaller bay with a smaller door can have a faster open/launch/close cycle, so less time for the radar to catch you with a large RCS. If that's the case with the doors on the B-21, I'd expect that they're for a couple of ARMs and any decoys or ALEs carried. AAMs are less likely, but possible, especially if Peregrines or CUDAs can intercept incoming AAMs as well as fighters.

There's a bit of a fun argument for a "Megafortress" type mission for the B-21, having one bird in the flight that is dedicated to SEAD/DEAD and loaded with AAMs and ARMs.

There's also the original reasoning for Bomber Defense Missiles as being able to intercept SAMs and AAMs.


BLACK_MAMBA said:
Either the USAF has gone mad in wanting an A2A role in such a huge aircraft, or we simply have no idea why those bays exist. My money is on the latter.
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out that the "side bays" have visible screw heads around the perimeter so are more likely to be access panels than weapons bays. I'm just not sure what systems you'd need to put there that result in a door longer than the engine.

Remember that the A-12's design brief had space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x HARMs, and 2x 2000lb bombs, so there's definitely precedence for stealth attack/bombers having A2A capabilities.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that the A-12's design brief had space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x HARMs, and 2x 2000lb bombs, so there's definitely precedence for stealth attack/bombers having A2A capabilities.
Click to expand...
The A-12 would fit the bill for an bomber that was manuverable enough to fight its way out if need so A2A weapons seem logical there.

Possible SAM interception weapons I do get.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
The A-12 would fit the bill for an bomber that was manuverable enough to fight its way out if need so A2A weapons seem logical there.
Click to expand...
Both proposed craft were flying wings (crud, the NG version looks a LOT like the B-21!), so I'm not sure just how maneuverable the A-12 would have been.
 
The bays just inboard of the MLG bay doors I assume would be the engine/hydro bay access similar to the B-2. The B-2 engine bay/ECS/hydro bay doors in the single line-up. I would assume the 21 would use a vapor cycle machine similar to the 787, does not require engine bleed air as all the avionics would be liquid cooled. I would also assume the 21 is brake-by-wire where the B-2 is not. I asked the question way back to a SPO landing gear engineering counterpart of mine why the heck we have this high-tech platform and no BBW, the answer, well the F-16 and F-117 had development issues, which were fixed. I wonder where the crew entry is?
 
Hydroman said:
The bays just inboard of the MLG bay doors I assume would be the engine/hydro bay access similar to the B-2. The B-2 engine bay/ECS/hydro bay doors in the single line-up. I would assume the 21 would use a vapor cycle machine similar to the 787, does not require engine bleed air as all the avionics would be liquid cooled.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, that makes sense, thanks!


Hydroman said:
I wonder where the crew entry is?
Click to expand...
My guess is inside the Nose Landing Gear bay. Saves you from having to make another hatch in the skin that you then need to do RCS treatments for...
 
Hydroman said:
I wonder where the crew entry is?
Click to expand...

This is a good question. The Nose gear landing bay has been mentioned, but it seems full up to me. The main strut is right at the front end of the bay, and there is an angled strut that comes off the back of the main strut and seems like it would block access at the back end of the bay. I wonder if the panel behind the NLG hatch might fold down.
 
I'm wondering if that second door behind the front nose gear door is just a crew entrance door. I realize it could be a gear door that closes on power up, but in all of the pics of the B-21 taxiing and definitely flying, that door is closed. It also looks to me like the nose gear could compress upon retraction to fit within just the front door.
 
Sundog said:
I'm wondering if that second door behind the front nose gear door is just a crew entrance door. I realize it could be a gear door that closes on power up, but in all of the pics of the B-21 taxiing and definitely flying, that door is closed. It also looks to me like the nose gear could compress upon retraction to fit within just the front door.
Click to expand...

Seems likely. I just noticed that you can see that second panel folded down on the ground.

1699748219302.png
 
OK, looking at the enhanced pic from Paul yesterday, here's my thought on the crew door. I arrived at this because I wanted to look at the nose gear to see if it folded in two. But now that I see the detail of the nose gear, I think the second door is just a nose gear door that opens when the gear retracts and closes again. Also, once I saw the door on side of the gear doors and given it's size, that seemed to me to indicate it's the crew door.
 

Attachments

  • B-21 Entrance.jpg
    B-21 Entrance.jpg
    357.8 KB · Views: 304
Last edited:

Attachments

  • IMG_1105.jpeg
    IMG_1105.jpeg
    111.1 KB · Views: 209
  • IMG_1106.jpeg
    IMG_1106.jpeg
    42.6 KB · Views: 132
  • IMG_1107.jpeg
    IMG_1107.jpeg
    60.8 KB · Views: 106
  • IMG_1108.jpeg
    IMG_1108.jpeg
    78.7 KB · Views: 108
  • IMG_1109.jpeg
    IMG_1109.jpeg
    47.4 KB · Views: 120
  • IMG_1110.jpeg
    IMG_1110.jpeg
    46.7 KB · Views: 116
  • IMG_1111.jpeg
    IMG_1111.jpeg
    43 KB · Views: 162
You know, something I've forgotten to mention in all the "new plane flies for first time! squeee!!!!" is how pale the gray is on the B-21. It's in there with Navy Haze Gray, one of those fun colors that's supposed to disappear at a distance and ends up looking white over time.

Should be really hard to see at 45kft as long as it's not spewing contrails.
 
TomS said:
Seems likely. I just noticed that you can see that second panel folded down on the ground.

View attachment 711466
Click to expand...
This is probably the reason for the aft NLG door. On the B-2, you can clearly see the crew entry door on left side. It looks like during the NLG retraction sequence, NLG up, front door close (front door may be mechanically linked to the NLG) then aft door close. Also if you notice and zoom in on the MLG, the door is linked to the MLG, seems not to be hydraulically sequenced like the B-2. I assume the cockpit is smaller as well, I had plenty of room (due to the 3rd man area not being used) in the B-2 and I am 6'4".
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom