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

If the B-21 uses an improved version of the F135 for propulsion, it can provide approximately 29 tons of thrust. In comparison with the B-2A, it seems feasible to carry two MOPs.
 
Forest Green said:
Will the B-21 still be able to carry two MOPs?
Click to expand...

All but certainly not. The be B-2s nominal warload was 45,000 lbs; I suspect it was only able to carry GBU-57s with reduced fuel. B-21 would almost definitely be limited to one. Volume wise I doubt there would even be enough space in the single bomb bay.
 
If the B-21 can only carry one MOP but with reduced fuel, would it be possible to shrink the size of the MOP down to make the bomb fit into the weapons bay but without harming the explosive power of the weapon. I am thinking of what the UK did to the Blue Danube nuclear bomb when they did the much smaller Red Beard.
 
FighterJock said:
If the B-21 can only carry one MOP but with reduced fuel, would it be possible to shrink the size of the MOP down to make the bomb fit into the weapons bay but without harming the explosive power of the weapon. I am thinking of what the UK did to the Blue Danube nuclear bomb when they did the much smaller Red Beard.
Click to expand...

Probably. No weapon is known to be in the works but the USAF has been constantly refining the MOP and other weight classes of penetrators to get more performance out of less weight. There is a new 5000 lb class GBU-72 that was tested just last year; obviously not a GBU-57 level munition but I suspect it works on most things. There has been talk of achieving MOP like penetrations by using rocket assists or BROACH type multiple warhead bombs, or even a combination of both. I suspect if there is such a munition in the works we will never hear about it. The USAF has grown incredibly secretive just in the last half dozen years. We still do not know what an AIM-260 looks like.
 
FighterJock said:
If the B-21 can only carry one MOP but with reduced fuel, would it be possible to shrink the size of the MOP down to make the bomb fit into the weapons bay but without harming the explosive power of the weapon. I am thinking of what the UK did to the Blue Danube nuclear bomb when they did the much smaller Red Beard.
Click to expand...
Why have you decided B-21 should reduce fuel to carry one MOP and why you want shrink it if B-21 weapons bay is sized to B-2?
 
Clarification: it is my suspicion that the B-2 has to take off with a reduced fuel load to carry two GBU-57s. The USAF at one point released a slide that indicated the B-21 would have a payload of “30,000 lbs +”, and since MOP predates B-21 I suspect it was spec’d out to carry a single weapon without sacrificing fuel (but we have no hard numbers on any potential B-21 payloads).
 
Since the USAF is working on a new rocket powered munition to replace the MOP, which means it will be smaller, why would the B-21 need to carry the MOP?
 
That is news to me Sundog, a new rocket powered munition, is there any infor mation available about it? I am intrigued.
 
Forest Green said:
Will the B-21 still be able to carry two MOPs?
Click to expand...
I don't believe so, the B-21 only has one bomb bay that seems to scale out to the size of one of the B-2s bays.

Josh_TN said:
All but certainly not. The be B-2s nominal warload was 45,000 lbs; I suspect it was only able to carry GBU-57s with reduced fuel. B-21 would almost definitely be limited to one. Volume wise I doubt there would even be enough space in the single bomb bay.
Click to expand...
Remember that the launch racks or rotary launchers don't included in the 45klbs bombload, and likely weigh 7500lbs each.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that the launch racks or rotary launchers don't included in the 45klbs bombload, and likely weigh 7500lbs each.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I imagine there is a beefy suspension system involved in storing and dropping a 30,000 bomb as well. Anyway, it is just a guess on my part; I have not seen it documented one way or the other. But it seems like 60,000+ lbs of ordnance and 167,000 lbs of fuel would put the B-2 over MTOW.
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps, but I imagine there is a beefy suspension system involved in storing and dropping a 30,000 bomb as well. Anyway, it is just a guess on my part; I have not seen it documented one way or the other. But it seems like 60,000+ lbs of ordnance and 167,000 lbs of fuel would put the B-2 over MTOW.
Click to expand...
Until we somehow become best friends with the Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time, if I were in congress, I would find it irresponsible to lack platforms that can deliver a MOP sized bomb.

If I was writing requirements for an affordable next-gen bomber with more range than a B-2, I would spec it out with one rack sized for a MOP/rotary launchers, a couple thousand pads for some extra deployable doodads, and then iterate on B-2 derived L/D vs RCS targets, and then start making designs with the range/fuel/powerplant trades.
 
zevets said:
Until we somehow become best friends with the Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time, if I were in congress, I would find it irresponsible to lack platforms that can deliver a MOP sized bomb.
Click to expand...

MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.

This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.

For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
 
quellish said:
MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.

This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.

For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
Click to expand...
There's a reason that sentence has a "if I were congress" ;) I don't doubt that the munitions technologies has improved, but congress gonna do congress things, and we all know the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules, and congress loves images of big explosions.

But I'd also hold that reqt for more boring reasons: I'm a gambler, and I bet the GBU-72 shares some mounting/weapons systems integration technologies with existing heavy weapons racks, and if you're trying to rapidly acquire a bomber, derisking systems integration is probably priority #2 on the program.
 
quellish said:
MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.

This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.

For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
Click to expand...
I think the W76-2s are intended for Natanz. They seem to have little applicability outside of that.
 
quellish said:
MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.

This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.

For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
Click to expand...
What would be a type of target that a GBU-72 could destroy that a MOP (GBU-57) couldn't? One would think anything a GBU-72 would destroy a MOP would absolutely obliterate.
 
Carriage of at least (1) GBU-57 MOP was a requirement of the LRS-B, I can only assume that it carried over to the Raider.

I can't find good links but my sources are;

A Slimmer MOP | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force’s massive ordnance penetrator, or MOP, is a good first step at being able to destroy deeply buried targets beyond the reach of other bunker busters, says Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans,...
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
and
Flight Global, 20 February 2011
 
sferrin said:
What would be a type of target that a GBU-72 could destroy that a MOP (GBU-57) couldn't? One would think anything a GBU-72 would destroy a MOP would absolutely obliterate.
Click to expand...

A hard and deeply buried target using modern construction techniques (i.e. concrete with high compression strength, etc)

GBU-72 has:
- Better penetration
- Better fusing
- Explosives package tailored for the mission

Much of the energy of the GBU-57 goes into the ground, not the target. The GBU-72 puts most of its energy into the target.

A New Design for a Better Bunker Buster – DSIAC

dsiac.org dsiac.org

www.mobilityengineeringtech.com

More Bang for the Buck: A New Design and Manufacturing Method for Deep Penetrating Bomb Cases

There is a new way to design penetrators and projectiles: Composites.
www.mobilityengineeringtech.com www.mobilityengineeringtech.com

Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues

Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
 
quellish said:
A hard and deeply buried target using modern construction techniques (i.e. concrete with high compression strength, etc)

GBU-72 has:
- Better penetration
- Better fusing
- Explosives package tailored for the mission

Much of the energy of the GBU-57 goes into the ground, not the target. The GBU-72 puts most of its energy into the target.

A New Design for a Better Bunker Buster – DSIAC

dsiac.org dsiac.org

www.mobilityengineeringtech.com

More Bang for the Buck: A New Design and Manufacturing Method for Deep Penetrating Bomb Cases

There is a new way to design penetrators and projectiles: Composites.
www.mobilityengineeringtech.com www.mobilityengineeringtech.com

Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues

Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
Click to expand...
There is a Curious Droid YouTube video about bunker busters that goes into a bit of detail on modern concrete designed to resist penetration. It sounded very similar to some of the descriptions of the "fondag" that the SpaceX Super Heavy cratered on its first launch.

 
flateric said:
Click to expand...
The above link gets me:
This content is only available to subscribers.
Get unlimited digital access.
$1 for the first 6 months.
Subscribe Now
Your subscription supports:
Investigative reporting that makes our community a better place to work, live and play
Expert coverage of high school sports teams
The best tips on places to eat and things to do
Daily newsletter with top news to know
Mobile apps including immersive storytelling
Are you a subscriber with digital access?
Sign in to your account
Are you a subscriber without digital access?
Activate your digital account
Not ready to subscribe? Tell us why.
Click to expand...
 
The expansion likely has nothing to do with B-21; the headline is clickbait. There’s no shortage of NG products and projects that might interest Australia, especially with the recent AUKUS arrangement.
 
Surely NG B-21 Design and Development HQ and The Manned Aircraft Design Center of Excellence in Melbourne has nothing to do with B-21...
www.af.mil

VCSAF Wilson visits B-21, X-37B facilities in Florida

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson recently visited two separate sites associated with the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
www.af.mil
 
Josh_TN said:
Hah! My bad. Still probably not B-21 related, however.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, this report is a decade old, but at least some on NG's plans for expansion in Melbourne was tied to its bid for LRS-B.

www.floridatoday.com

10 things to know: Northrop Grumman's 'Project Magellan'

Here are ten things to know about the until-now secret Project Magellan.
www.floridatoday.com

WORK IS RELATED TO NEXT-GENERATION BOMBERS

The expansion will involve military work for U.S. and allied forces. U.S. Sen Bill Nelson said that will include work aimed at winning a contract to build the Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, which the Air Force has identified as a top priority. The company, which already builds the B-2 stealth bomber, reportedly is one of two companies competing to build the LRS-B, which could cost as much as $550 million apiece and start rolling off the assembly line within a decade.
Click to expand...
 
BlackBat242 said:
Thanks very much.

That IS interesting... is NG going to open another production line?
Or maybe this is to be a repair/modification center for the B21 etc?
Click to expand...
What they're doing is moving moving most of their engineering there. If you hire an employee to live in CA, due to the cost of living you have to pay them a lot more. If you hire them to work in FLA, where the cost of living is less, they can pay them less, which means more profits. They'll keep in CA just what they need to operate there.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom