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

B-2 is using RLA. Not using/never used CSRL/CRL.
 

Attachments

  • 1700240833152.png
    1700240833152.png
    104.8 KB · Views: 558
flateric said:
B-2 is using RLA. Not using/never used CSRL/CRL.
Click to expand...

Weird that they seem to have some parts in common, at least, to judge by the contracts I see. But yeah, I think I finally figured out my confusion.

I think the CSRL was common across the B-52 and B-1, back when the B-1 still could carry ALCM.
 
flateric said:
Sweep angle is 35, not 40. Distortion due to most spotters position play tricks. Hence while wingspan is 48 m, lenght is less, about 20-21 m.
Click to expand...
And yes, there are some problems with the long one
 

Attachments

  • 100.JPG
    100.JPG
    164.3 KB · Views: 368
  • profil.JPG
    profil.JPG
    207.8 KB · Views: 357
Last edited:
TomS said:
Then what's up with the Common in the name?
Click to expand...
I had assumed it was common across multiple bombers, but I suspect now it means common across strategic weapons for B-52 carriage. IE, bombs or cruise missiles (or SRAM, back in the day).
 
TomS said:
Weird that they seem to have some parts in common, at least, to judge by the contracts I see. But yeah, I think I finally figured out my confusion.

I think the CSRL was common across the B-52 and B-1, back when the B-1 still could carry ALCM.
Click to expand...

I would assume that moving the bulkhead forward and having a longer bomb bay for ALCM involved using the CSRL rather than...whatever the B-1 rotary launcher is (forgot the name). MKellyTX could tell us.

ETA: I wonder if B-21 will use CSRL to standardize the fleet or use yet another rotary launcher? Would the length of the bay we are seeing be consistent with CSRL?
 
TomS said:
As of 2010, there were reports that PW9000 was a gearless derivative of the PW1000G. Two sizes were mooted -- one at 15,000lbf and one at 30,000lbf. That second one was proposed as a fighter replacement engine saving 18% in fuel compared to existing F100 engines. That seems like a reasonably close fit to Sweetman's PW9000 (27k lbf) in the article. Probably not even 4:1 bypass but still way more efficient than the F118.
Click to expand...
The smaller of those two options is rather close to the larger PW800 variants in production for Gulfstream. The PW815 is a PW1000G derived core with a gearless fan section, albeit at a ~5:1 rather than 4:1 bypass ratio, producing about 16,000lbf.

If the overall thrust requirement was still around 60,000lbf overall, it’s possible they went with a 4 engine (2x groups of 2) setup lifted from the B2.

You could argue that it gave engine out capability or lower overall fuselage height.
 

Attachments

  • 400207862_3570312823239764_3505396858277869632_n.jpg
    400207862_3570312823239764_3505396858277869632_n.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 307
  • 401284743_955508372746418_3465300734262109877_n.jpg
    401284743_955508372746418_3465300734262109877_n.jpg
    151.4 KB · Views: 275
Josh_TN said:
ETA: I wonder if B-21 will use CSRL to standardize the fleet or use yet another rotary launcher? Would the length of the bay we are seeing be consistent with CSRL?
Click to expand...
not so obvious pros as it turned out to be back then and killed an idea
 

Attachments

  • masad-83-3.pdf
    565.9 KB · Views: 48
  • 1700257868293.png
    1700257868293.png
    677.8 KB · Views: 298
TomS said:
Weird that they seem to have some parts in common, at least, to judge by the contracts I see. But yeah, I think I finally figured out my confusion.

I think the CSRL was common across the B-52 and B-1, back when the B-1 still could carry ALCM.
Click to expand...

Later modifications made it possible for the B-52H to be able to carry eight more AGM-86B missiles internally in a Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), which was not fitted to the B-52G. CSRL-equipped B-52Hs can therefore carry up to 20 AGM-86B cruise missiles (8 on the CSRL, plus six each on the underwing pylons. The CSRL program began in 1988 and the first CSRL-equipped B-52Hs appeared later that year. The rotary launcher is fitted inside the bomb bay and is attached to yokes. New electrical and hydraulic lines were fitted inside the bomb bay to operate and control the launcher. The launcher and its associated systems weigh approximately 5000 pounds. Instead of a battery of AGM-86Bs, the CSRL can carry as many as four B28 70-350 kT nuclear bombs or as many as eight B61 (10-500 kiloton yield) or B83 (1-2 megaton yield) nuclear bombs. However, the CSRL cannot carry the AGM-129A ACM, which is too big to fit inside the bomb bay. Some 82 of the B-52Hs were provided with CSRL capability. The CSRL is not compatible with either the B-1 or the B-2 bombers.
Click to expand...
 
If I understand its right, what should be CSRL on B-52H is called AGMBRL. Rewired AGMBRL with 1760 data bus is CRL.
 
I stretched Paralay's top view so the leading edge angle is 35 deg.
 

Attachments

  • B-21-stretchedto35degrees.png
    B-21-stretchedto35degrees.png
    789.4 KB · Views: 333

Attachments

  • 41375675_1699984123983.png
    41375675_1699984123983.png
    480.4 KB · Views: 316
  • 41375675_1699983522582.png
    41375675_1699983522582.png
    318 KB · Views: 300
  • 41375675_1699982524055.png
    41375675_1699982524055.png
    219.4 KB · Views: 292
  • 41375675_1699985169070.png
    41375675_1699985169070.png
    69.7 KB · Views: 295
  • 41375675_1699980881331.png
    41375675_1699980881331.png
    428.5 KB · Views: 374
Last edited:
flateric said:
It's clearly seen that there are no F-117A platypus nozzle style expansion on B-21.
(C) David Swanson/Reuters
Click to expand...
Of course, with a fairly high bypass ratio (at least compared to the 0.34:1 of an F404), there's less need for the super-expansion nozzle to drop temperature.
 
Josh_TN said:
If the wingspan is 40m, roughly what is the length of the bomb bay doors?
Click to expand...

I get 240 pixels compared to 1600 pixels on AvWeek drawing. That means 6m at absolute maximum (measured as the length of the door edge).

Assuming the drawing is accurate a 48m wingspan would give 7.2m maximum for the bomb bay.
 
Doing a similar rough approximation on the B-2 gives me somewhere around 7m for the B-2 bay length.

Assuming the internal bays are identically sized in length (big assumption, I know) that would make the wingspan about 46.66m which is 153ft which just 1ft from my guess for wingspan before actually even seeing it of 154 ft.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I get 240 pixels compared to 1600 pixels on AvWeek drawing. That means 6m at absolute maximum (measured as the length of the door edge).

Assuming the drawing is accurate a 48m wingspan would give 7.2m maximum for the bomb bay.
Click to expand...

it seems unlikely the 6m figure could be accurate, unless LRSO is shorter than AGM-86. I’m a little skeptical of the AvWeek dimensions.
 
Josh_TN said:
If [AvLeak's guess] the wingspan is 40m, roughly what is the length of the bomb bay doors?
Click to expand...
First answer:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I get 240 pixels compared to 1600 pixels on AvWeek drawing. That means 6m at absolute maximum (measured as the length of the door edge).
Click to expand...
Reply:
Josh_TN said:
it seems unlikely the 6m figure could be accurate, unless LRSO is shorter than AGM-86. I’m a little skeptical of the AvWeek dimensions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't believe AvLeak on this one.

I'm expecting LRSO to be AGM-86B length (6.3m), which more or less requires a B-52 sized bomb bay.


overscan (PaulMM) said:
Assuming the [AvLeak] drawing is accurate a 48m wingspan would give 7.2m maximum for the bomb bay.
Click to expand...
That's a better number, IMO. Rotary launchers need to be significantly longer than the weapons they carry, as the entire spine can come out of the aircraft to be loaded/unloaded.


overscan (PaulMM) said:
Doing a similar rough approximation on the B-2 gives me somewhere around 7m for the B-2 bay length.

Assuming the internal bays are identically sized in length (big assumption, I know) that would make the wingspan about 46.66m which is 153ft which just 1ft from my guess for wingspan before actually even seeing it of 154 ft.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's a big assumption. I'd expect that NG would reuse as much of the existing B-2 weapons racks as possible, which implies bays close to the same size.
 
Perhaps another way of looking at this is to compare bomb bay door width between B-2/B-21. It isn’t clear exactly what rotary would be used or what its length would be, but presumably the Smart Bomb Assembly rack is used and requires a similar width*. Is the length : width ratio the same between B-2 and B-21 bomb bays?

*ETA: and the rotary launchers probably all have more less the same widths as well, at least for our rough measuring purposes.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps another way of looking at this is to compare bomb bay door width between B-2/B-21. It isn’t clear exactly what rotary would be used or what its length would be, but presumably the Smart Bomb Assembly rack is used and requires a similar width. Is the length : width ratio the same between B-2 and B-21 bomb bays?
Click to expand...
That is a very good point.

I feel stupid for not thinking of it...
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1729682120665141505
View: https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1729682120665141505

View attachment 712893
Click to expand...

I don’t know the context of the presentation or that list, so I am unable to have a truly informed opinion. But if that list is trying to establish where the B-21s technology came from, it seems extremely unlikely most of it is accurate. That list of features covers at least three different aircraft manufacturers (along with weird things like landing gear being mentioned twice). It would be fair to say the B-21 represents a lot of off the shelf technology (tech readiness level 6 or better was required for all systems), and in particular I suspect BAE carried over a lot of its F-35 avionics. And NG makes the radar for the F-35, so I’d be surprised if the B-21 didn’t use the same T/R modules - though the list for some reason mentions the radar as B-2 derived.

All in all it looks like not only a fabrication, but also a fabrication by someone who isn’t familiar with US aircraft production.
 
That graphic comes from the CSBA (a defense think tank) report were it is labeled as "Illustrative off-the-shelf systems and components for a new bomber" in 2010.

There's two versions: one in the full report and the version that was copied is from a series of slides that can be found here: Sustaining America's Strategic Long Range Strike (slideshare). It's from slide 22.

The graphic predates the B-21 program.
 
NTKV said:
That graphic comes from the CSBA (a defense think tank) report were it is labeled as "Illustrative off-the-shelf systems and components for a new bomber" in 2010.

There's two versions: one in the full report and the version that was copied is from a series of slides that can be found here: Sustaining America's Strategic Long Range Strike (slideshare). It's from slide 22.

The graphic predates the B-21 program.
Click to expand...

Ah, that explains why it doesn’t make much sense in current context and is in English.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom