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

The New B-21 Stealth Bomber to Be Revealed Later This Year, Senator Says​


Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said the B-21 Raider stealth bomber will finally be revealed to the public later this year, unveiling an aircraft that has been shrouded in secrecy since the program began in 2014.

Rounds, the only elected official in a classified visit July 15 to the B-21 Raider production facility in Palmdale, California, said the project is also on track for a first flight in 2023.

"While much of the information I received on my visit is classified, I am pleased to report the B-21 is on time and on budget," Rounds said in a Tuesday press release from his office. "The public can expect the B-21 to be revealed later this year."

To date, the public has seen only realistic artist renderings of the next-generation stealth bomber, but a spokesman for Rounds' said an image of the B-21 itself should be coming soon.
Click to expand...

www.military.com

The New B-21 Stealth Bomber to Be Revealed Later This Year, Senator Says

The public has seen only artist renderings of the next-generation stealth bomber, but a spokesman said an image of the B-21 itself should be coming soon.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
torginus said:
youROKer said:
From a Russian modeling firm:
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the jagged behind of the B-21 is good for stealth, since that's essentially all right angles.
Click to expand...
The goal is to limit the reflection angles to the smallest number possible and control the exposure of the platform to emitters in those directions. For both the B-2 and B-21, every surface is designed to reflect down one of four angles - two forward perpendicular to the leading edge of the wing and two rearward perpendicular to the bleeding edge of the wing. The saw tooth of the B-2 tail aligns each edge of the three "teeth" with either the port or starboard bleeding edge angle. Along these four angles, both aircraft have a significantly larger radar signature. In actual operation B-2s "tack” into opponent AD space, changing course so as to not expose these angles to known emitters.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
torginus said:
youROKer said:
From a Russian modeling firm:
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the jagged behind of the B-21 is good for stealth, since that's essentially all right angles.
Click to expand...
The goal is to limit the reflection angles to the smallest number possible and control the exposure of the platform to emitters in those directions. For both the B-2 and B-21, every surface is designed to reflect down one of four angles - two forward perpendicular to the leading edge of the wing and two rearward perpendicular to the bleeding edge of the wing. The saw tooth of the B-2 tail aligns each edge of the three "teeth" with either the port or starboard bleeding edge angle. Along these four angles, both aircraft have a significantly larger radar signature. In actual operation B-2s "tact" into opponent AD space, changing course so as to not expose these angles to known emitters.
Click to expand...

Following onto that, the trailing edges on the B-2 (and likely the B-21) don't meet at right angles. They are parallel to the two long straight leading edges, and since the leading edges are swept less than 45 degrees (actually 33 degrees in the B-2), the angles where the trailing edges meet are wider than 90 degrees (114 degrees on the B-2).

Now, in a perfect RCS world, the trailing edges would probably just be two straight lines paralleling the leading edges and meeting at a single angle directly behind the nose of the aircraft. But for aerodynamic and structure/volume reasons, it makes sense to lengthen the centerbody of the aircraft, resulting in the central "point" on the trailing edge.
 
GTX said:
www.aspistrategist.org.au

Senior US official says Washington would consider supplying B-21 bombers to Australia | The Strategist

A senior Washington official has indicated that the United States would consider providing Australia with B-21 Raider long-range bombers, if Canberra requested them. US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was hosted in Canberra this week ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
Click to expand...

Not a matter of if, but when at this point. Whenever the AUS government decides to brace for the economic impact Re: China.
 
I could see it happening given the AUKUS arrangement, though not until after the USAF gets most of its machines. Assuming B-21 has a similar range to B-2, then northern airbases like Tindal would place the aircraft within its unrefueled combat radius. At a minimum the USAF would want to be able to base *its* B-21s there. The fact that four B-2s were in Australia recently seems to underline that.
 
GTX said:
www.aspistrategist.org.au

Senior US official says Washington would consider supplying B-21 bombers to Australia | The Strategist

A senior Washington official has indicated that the United States would consider providing Australia with B-21 Raider long-range bombers, if Canberra requested them. US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was hosted in Canberra this week ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
Click to expand...
As suspected.... AUKUS was always much more than just submarines.

Bhurki said:
jeffb said:
The other question I haven't seen asked (forgive me if it has) is why Australia, given the decision to "go nuclear", didn't simply approach the French for Suffren-class SSNs retrofitted with US combat systems?

A quick search shows that the Suffrens require refueling at ten year intervals which would have been inconvenient, but given the fact that a partnership already existed to produce conventionally powered versions, would another contract change have made that big a difference?

Australia would require fewer boats, but because sections of them could, like the proposed new nuclear boats be built in France and shipped to Australia, France would see some savings through the increased production of 'power units'.
Click to expand...
Short answer - This isn't just about submarines.
Click to expand...
 
Flyaway said:
Well I suppose if the RAF can be the only other operator of the RC-135, I don’t see why Australia cannot be a B-21 operator.
Click to expand...
That will never happen just based on costs alone. Its not like buying the f111... Maintenance of the skins requires $$ investment in facilities for starters and ongoing $$$ expenditures on top of the vehicle cost.
 
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
 
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
Click to expand...
Might be difficult for the JASDF to get that, given the fact that bombers are strictly offensive. There’d be a hue and cry over any purchase due to the post-war “peace” constitution.
 
starviking said:
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
Click to expand...
Might be difficult for the JASDF to get that, given the fact that bombers are strictly offensive. There’d be a hue and cry over any purchase due to the post-war “peace” constitution.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading that on the Eastern front prior to a big Soviet attack, it was forbidden to use any words relating to attack etc in comms. So the General in charge said "we will be defending ourselves outwards at a rate of 20km a day".
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
starviking said:
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
Click to expand...
Might be difficult for the JASDF to get that, given the fact that bombers are strictly offensive. There’d be a hue and cry over any purchase due to the post-war “peace” constitution.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading that on the Eastern front prior to a big Soviet attack, it was forbidden to use any words relating to attack etc in comms. So the General in charge said "we will be defending ourselves outwards at a rate of 20km a day".
Click to expand...
And I recall a commentary on Japanese victories towards the end of WWII: The Japanese public could not help noticing that every new ”great victory” against the enemy was getting closer and closer to the Home Islands.
 
rooster said:
Flyaway said:
Well I suppose if the RAF can be the only other operator of the RC-135, I don’t see why Australia cannot be a B-21 operator.
Click to expand...
That will never happen just based on costs alone. Its not like buying the f111... Maintenance of the skins requires $$ investment in facilities for starters and ongoing $$$ expenditures on top of the vehicle cost.
Click to expand...
The F-35's coatings don't seem to be nearly as hard to maintain - that platform's maintenance issues seem to stem primarily from the failed ALIS system and the fact that there are not enough engines and engine sub assemblies available given the lower than expected engine life. While the up front cost would be rather higher than most Australian purchases (outside submarines), I could see a small force being purchased since the USAF force would always assure a steady parts and udpate stream for the force. Additionally were a nuclear sub ultimately not to be procured, that could potentially free up money for other types of force projection.

It's hardly a given and the USAF is going to need a lot of the initial machines to get its force up to anything like the numbers it wants, but I think it is a realistic option for Australia were they to have any perceived need to make that purchase.
 
Would make a nice replacement from the Super Hornets starting around 2030 - 2035. Thus end up with a primary striking/air combat force of F-35s, B-21s and MQ-28s...;)
 
GTX said:
Would make a nice replacement from the Super Hornets starting around 2030 - 2035. Thus end up with a primary striking/air combat force of F-35s, B-21s and MQ-28s...;)
Click to expand...
That would probably be the earliest availability anyway, given the need to replace the B-1 fleet at the minimum. Is the RAAF F-18E/F fleet to be retired in that time frame?
 
Last edited:
LOT is 2037 I believe. I know that there is talk of an upgrade in the coming years but the current Defence review might nix that.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
starviking said:
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
Click to expand...
Might be difficult for the JASDF to get that, given the fact that bombers are strictly offensive. There’d be a hue and cry over any purchase due to the post-war “peace” constitution.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading that on the Eastern front prior to a big Soviet attack, it was forbidden to use any words relating to attack etc in comms. So the General in charge said "we will be defending ourselves outwards at a rate of 20km a day".
Click to expand...
Or you mean a Defensive Offensive.
 
If the B-21 is on the table for AUS, then its compliment aircraft probably is too. It might already be flying out of there for regional ops.
 
Josh_TN said:
The Australians might be the ones who end up building it. :)
Click to expand...
No, they won't. As the RQ-180 is reportedly already in production. Also, I'll believe the RAAF will get B-21s when I see it. I can see the USAF basing B-21s there and coordinating their ops with the RAAF, but I'm not holding my breath on this tech being transferred to another country.
 
Sundog said:
Josh_TN said:
The Australians might be the ones who end up building it. :)
Click to expand...
No, they won't. As the RQ-180 is reportedly already in production. Also, I'll believe the RAAF will get B-21s when I see it. I can see the USAF basing B-21s there and coordinating their ops with the RAAF, but I'm not holding my breath on this tech being transferred to another country.
Click to expand...
Yeah and that shortsighted kind of attitude came back to bite them in the ass with the F-22. If they had been able to sell it, it would have probably been in production longer and the USAF would have probably have had more examples in their fleet.
 
Sundog said:
Josh_TN said:
The Australians might be the ones who end up building it. :)
Click to expand...
No, they won't. As the RQ-180 is reportedly already in production. Also, I'll believe the RAAF will get B-21s when I see it. I can see the USAF basing B-21s there and coordinating their ops with the RAAF, but I'm not holding my breath on this tech being transferred to another country.
Click to expand...
I was referring to a loyal wingman type like the MQ-28. There apparently won't be any unmanned B-21 analog. But a smaller long ranged drone that could provide sensor coverage and jamming, or possibly even defense, is likely still on the table. Something of the size of MQ-28 would have a one way mission though; mostly I was kidding.

The US appears to be extending its "special relationship" with the UK to Aus; if nuclear tech and hypersonics are on the table it's hard to imagine stealth tech isn't. More over the sale of an aircraft to another country isn't the same as a technology transfer; witness the F-35 being offered to over a dozen countries from Singapore to the UAE.
 
Last edited:
starviking said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
starviking said:
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the LO for B-21 has evolved, early days of B-2 flight test were a pain but kept getting better over time, big improvements at Block 30 and beyond, LO always evolving. B-21 is probably twin engine, its smaller than the B-2 (you can tell by the MLGs), could be feasible for the RAAF, unit cost may be an issue. If the Aussie's get B-21s then JASDF may want some as well.
Click to expand...
Might be difficult for the JASDF to get that, given the fact that bombers are strictly offensive. There’d be a hue and cry over any purchase due to the post-war “peace” constitution.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading that on the Eastern front prior to a big Soviet attack, it was forbidden to use any words relating to attack etc in comms. So the General in charge said "we will be defending ourselves outwards at a rate of 20km a day".
Click to expand...
And I recall a commentary on Japanese victories towards the end of WWII: The Japanese public could not help noticing that every new ”great victory” against the enemy was getting closer and closer to the Home Islands.
Click to expand...

Nothing worse than that French generals (in the summer 1914 or spring 1940, can't remember) who was saying "ah sure, the germans are advancing exactly as we planned !" Sure, dude. "L'ennemi avance, suivants nos prévisions."

Unfortunately my Google-flu fails to find the exact quote, time, and bright guy who said that. I would have bet for Gamelin, but August 1914 before the miracle on the Marne had similar vibes to 1940 (with a happier conclusion) - so maybe if was Joffre.
 
Last edited:
Like that article states, a B-21 sized/ranged drone is probably not cost effective, but drones could stage from closer to the target to provide capability at a lower price. UAVs could be launched from forward austere air bases or potentially even rocket launched/parachute recovered (looking at you X-58). You could also potentially have a B-52 "escort" the B-21 carrying air launched UAVs; we've seen experimental UTAP-22s loaded onto F-15 pylons. Something larger and more sophisticated in the AGM-183 size/weight range could be carried four at a time as an attritable asset. Perhaps something smaller and expendable, like an extended range ADM-160, could be carried internally for additional support. Maybe the AGM-158B form factor (or stretched version in the AGM-86/1500kg range) could altered to be stealthy decoy; take away the 500kg warhead and you have a lot more space and weight for fuel and an EW payload. A B-52 could carry eight internally; a dozen more externally if that was the only type carried.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sundog said:
Josh_TN said:
The Australians might be the ones who end up building it. :)
Click to expand...
No, they won't. As the RQ-180 is reportedly already in production. Also, I'll believe the RAAF will get B-21s when I see it. I can see the USAF basing B-21s there and coordinating their ops with the RAAF, but I'm not holding my breath on this tech being transferred to another country.
Click to expand...
I was referring to a loyal wingman type like the MQ-28. There apparently won't be any unmanned B-21 analog. But a smaller long ranged drone that could provide sensor coverage and jamming, or possibly even defense, is likely still on the table. Something of the size of MQ-28 would have a one way mission though; mostly I was kidding.

The US appears to be extending its "special relationship" with the UK to Aus; if nuclear tech and hypersonics are on the table it's hard to imagine stealth tech isn't. More over the sale of an aircraft to another country isn't the same as a technology transfer; witness the F-35 being offered to over a dozen countries from Singapore to the UAE.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes

It is important to see the AUKUS agreement as the culmination of the Aus / UK / US 'special relationship" which already existed in practice. The agreement formalizes the process.

If each new situation is viewed in that light one can understand much of the decision making that is occurring.
 
Josh_TN said:
Like that article states, a B-21 sized/ranged drone is probably not cost effective, but drones could stage from closer to the target to provide capability at a lower price. UAVs could be launched from forward austere air bases or potentially even rocket launched/parachute recovered (looking at you X-58). You could also potentially have a B-52 "escort" the B-21 carrying air launched UAVs; we've seen experimental UTAP-22s loaded onto F-15 pylons. Something larger and more sophisticated in the AGM-183 size/weight range could be carried four at a time as an attritable asset. Perhaps something smaller and expendable, like an extended range ADM-160, could be carried internally for additional support. Maybe the AGM-158B form factor (or stretched version in the AGM-86/1500kg range) could altered to be stealthy decoy; take away the 500kg warhead and you have a lot more space and weight for fuel and an EW payload. A B-52 could carry eight internally; a dozen more externally if that was the only type carried.
Click to expand...
EW requires power and it comes from the turbo fan which is quite tiny and reduces thrust. 500 pounds less warhead becomes 350 after new power equipment is added even assuming the tiny airframe can accommodate it and the cooling needed.
 
It comes ahead of the new federal government’s Defence Strategic Review, which will decide whether to expand the F-35 fleet to 100 and also examine whether Australia should replace its outgoing Taipans with Black Hawks.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what kind of priorities Australians will have.
 
If it wasn’t for their military posture I could imagine the Japanese might think well if they’ll sell the B-21 to Australia.
 
GTX said:
australianaviation.com.au

Marles hints RAAF could buy B-21 Raider bomber

It comes days after US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall surprisingly hinted his country would be willing to sell its most prized in-development aircraft to Australia.
australianaviation.com.au australianaviation.com.au
Click to expand...
it costs nothing to play mind games with potential adversaries.....

and I'm sure there were plenty of nay-sayers in the 70's that Australia couldn't operate the latest USAF medium bomber. But they did.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom