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

overscan (PaulMM) said:
Some panel detail can be seen around the cockpit.View attachment 688250
Click to expand...
From what i read this first article probably doesn't have production coatings or paint so a lot of that will be less prominent later on
Maro.Kyo said:
Just made a very coarse comparison based on the hanger door compartment width, based on the assumption that that hanger was the same hanger used in 1988 B-2 rollout ceremony since both are on Plant 42 and based on what was said on speech.

View attachment 688249
Click to expand...
Would not want to be a passenger with that lack of visibility. Vomit comet.
Tuna said:
rooster said:
The ground cart is a known variable..... Just saying
Click to expand...
But the geometry of the lens isn't. Especially since the wings bend back so much, you probably can't get a reliable estimate on size based on something that is so small in comparison to the aircraft.
Click to expand...
I knew the lens would come up from all the sasquatch discussions I've seen.
You have the cart size and the dude next to the gear who I only assume isn't 4ft tall....
 
Screwed with one side, left the other alone. Blue points to apparent intake duct, red points to apparently solid bit. Interesting. It occurs to me that the intakes curving inward may suggest that the engines are a bit closer together - this may be of benefit in a two-engine aircraft if an engine goes out. I have now spent way too much time being amused by an overexposed image of an intake.

Also: "it might not carry as much/carry MOP/etc." Well what sort of warload do you need to whack targets in Syria anyway?
 

Attachments

  • b21intake.jpg
    b21intake.jpg
    567.8 KB · Views: 161
SOC said:
Screwed with one side, left the other alone. Blue points to apparent intake duct, red points to apparently solid bit. Interesting. It occurs to me that the intakes curving inward may suggest that the engines are a bit closer together - this may be of benefit in a two-engine aircraft if an engine goes out. I have now spent way too much time being amused by an overexposed image of an intake.

Also: "it might not carry as much/carry MOP/etc." Well what sort of warload do you need to whack targets in Syria anyway?
Click to expand...
Or its cardboard to screw with everyone.
Next picture in about 6 months sooooo lots of theories will be posted here

Engines too close will screw with the thrust flight control mode seen in the spirit

The guy driving the cart is pretty close to the cockpit unless you want to get into inches so lots of size cues all over for the real geeks here. He also lines up well i think with the left seat....

More of a roll in than an out
 
SOC said:
Screwed with one side, left the other alone. Blue points to apparent intake duct, red points to apparently solid bit. Interesting. It occurs to me that the intakes curving inward may suggest that the engines are a bit closer together - this may be of benefit in a two-engine aircraft if an engine goes out. I have now spent way too much time being amused by an overexposed image of an intake.

Also: "it might not carry as much/carry MOP/etc." Well what sort of warload do you need to whack targets in Syria anyway?
Click to expand...
Why would you need a B-21 to hit anything in Syria?
 
Rhinocrates said:
Notice the old Northrop and Grumman logos combined.

View attachment 688257
Click to expand...
Yes, noticed that. A nice homage to its heritage and the logo on the N-1M.
deliveryService

Photo Credit: National Air & Space Museum (NASM).
 
sferrin said:
SOC said:
Screwed with one side, left the other alone. Blue points to apparent intake duct, red points to apparently solid bit. Interesting. It occurs to me that the intakes curving inward may suggest that the engines are a bit closer together - this may be of benefit in a two-engine aircraft if an engine goes out. I have now spent way too much time being amused by an overexposed image of an intake.

Also: "it might not carry as much/carry MOP/etc." Well what sort of warload do you need to whack targets in Syria anyway?
Click to expand...
Why would you need a B-21 to hit anything in Syria?
Click to expand...
Based on the last decade or two of experience, I'm being realistic about the kinds of conflicts we'd actually be willing to get involved in...
 
Maro.Kyo said:
How? Is there a new penetrator ordnance in development that is lighter and smaller than MOP with equivalent penetration depth?
Click to expand...

Well, we have the Advanced 5K penetrator. Not all the way to MOP performance but much improved over the older GBU-28 weapons.

www.stripes.com

Air Force drops new 5,000-pound bunker-buster bomb for first time

The Air Force is testing a mammoth, 5,000-pound bomb designed using advanced modeling to increase its impact in reaching and destroying hardened underground facilities the likes of North Korea’s ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons facilities.
www.stripes.com www.stripes.com

And they were talking about a Next-Generation Penetrator a third the size of MOP with similar penetration a while back. And then stopped talking about it. Not clear if it died or just went black.

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

sferrin said:
The B-2 doesn't even carry cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

JASSM-ER coming soon. Close enough?

www.janes.com/amp/usaf-nears-fielding-jassm-er-on-b-2-bomber/
 
sferrin said:
No way that thing could even carry one MOP let alone two.
Click to expand...

What from the reveal makes you think this thing couldn't carry even a single MOP? Based off the pictures we have it's only slightly smaller and if the rumors of it having two non-afterburning F135s are true it'll have about 85% of the thrust of the B-2. That all combines to it being able to carry at least one MOP.

Edit: Also, based off photos of the B-21 and B-2 reveals it seems the main landing gear for the B-21 is at about the same width as the B-2. Might mean two bomb bays (probably with two rotary launchers) like the B-2, or might mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
www.dvidshub.net

B-21 Raider makes public debut; will become backbone of Air Force’s bomber fleet

In a tangible display of the nation’s resolve in meeting security threats, the U.S. Air Force on Dec. 2, 2022, publicly unveiled the B-21 Raider, the first new, long-range strike bomber in a generation and an aircraft specifically designed to be the multifunctional backbone of the modernized...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
The B-21 is the first new bomber to be introduced since the end of the Cold War. Air Force officials envision an ultimate fleet of at least 100 aircraft with an average procurement unit cost requirement of $692 million (base year 2022 dollars).
Click to expand...
 
SOC said:
Also: "it might not carry as much/carry MOP/etc." Well what sort of warload do you need to whack targets in Syria anyway?
Click to expand...
Almost every new US weaponry are developed with West Pacific theatre in mind, B-21 included, so what are you even talking about?

overscan (PaulMM) said:
Lower fuselage panel detail.View attachment 688258
Click to expand...
I guess the long panels on each sides are the SAR apertures? Maybe those rectangular ones are instead who knows.

I really wonder if the B-21 will have any FLIR or laser designator. B-2 had none of those internalized TGP capabilities since it was designed with only the GPS/INS guided ordnances in mind.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the aircraft is painted the same light gray color as the so-called RQ-180 photographed over Cal City. Much more blended OML than the B-2. I'm still on the fence whether its 2 or 4 engines? Big, single-piece MLG doors, dual MLG wheels/tires, no NLG strut door, dual actuated NLG doors. Could have a large center weapons bay or two smaller side by side bays. I'm curious if the aircraft uses similar F-35 EHAs for the flight surfaces instead of standard EH servoactuators. Hydraulics could be either 4000 or 5000 psig and use a 270V electrical system.
 
NeilChapman said:
Well hell, that was anticlimactic.
Click to expand...
Found myself consciously thinking, "Since there is no model kit I can go out to get and which was done by a partnership of Renwal and Aviation Leak & Space Technology magazine, it is a waste of time and energy to be excited about the thing."
Wow, I'm more cynical than I thought.
 
Hydroman said:
Looks like the aircraft is painted the same light gray color as the so-called RQ-180 photographed over Cal City. Much more blended OML than the B-2. I'm still on the fence whether its 2 or 4 engines? Big, single-piece MLG doors, dual MLG wheels/tires, no NLG strut door, dual actuated NLG doors. Could have a large center weapons bay or two smaller side by side bays. I'm curious if the aircraft uses similar F-35 EHAs for the flight surfaces instead of standard EH servoactuators. Hydraulics could be either 4000 or 5000 psig and use a 270V electrical system.
Click to expand...
What it does not have is the strange shiny metallic coating that we've seen experimented with on the F-35 and F-22. That suggests to me that the metallic coating is some kind of workaround that we won't see on NGAD, or its particular to tactical aircraft for some reason.
 
skyblue said:
Hydroman said:
Looks like the aircraft is painted the same light gray color as the so-called RQ-180 photographed over Cal City. Much more blended OML than the B-2. I'm still on the fence whether its 2 or 4 engines? Big, single-piece MLG doors, dual MLG wheels/tires, no NLG strut door, dual actuated NLG doors. Could have a large center weapons bay or two smaller side by side bays. I'm curious if the aircraft uses similar F-35 EHAs for the flight surfaces instead of standard EH servoactuators. Hydraulics could be either 4000 or 5000 psig and use a 270V electrical system.
Click to expand...
What it does not have is the strange shiny metallic coating that we've seen experimented with on the F-35 and F-22. That suggests to me that the metallic coating is some kind of workaround that we won't see on NGAD, or its particular to tactical aircraft for some reason.
Click to expand...
Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
It’s still in development, planned to be used on all platforms you’re familiar with if things go well. There probably aren’t plans to use it on B-21 yet or B-21 may not need it. Would be impressive to see a shiny B-2 in the near future, though it’s not likely that when a B-2 tests it it will be visible
 
NMaude said:
What I'm wondering is if the B-21A's cockpit has the structural provisions for a third crew-member like the B-2A?
Click to expand...
Like the J-20B it has an extra seat for the social media officer. “System of systems” includes twitter and Facebook.
@GlobalStrikeOfficial “At the target, LOL”
 
The size of this aircraft may just allow it to take off from aircraft carriers, just like the Doolittle raid of 1942.

That explains the ability to strike anyway without land based support.
 
For some reason, my original post regarding the B-21's size and performance disappeared from this thread, so I'm re-posting it here. This is based on it being a twin engine, which I still think it is, but we'll find out eventually.

The inlets were incorrect, because the inlet lip changes sweep at the structural support in the inlet. Inboard of the structural strut it should match the wing LE sweep for the side it's on. I think I originally posted this back in March of 2022.
 

Attachments

  • B-21 Top View.jpg
    B-21 Top View.jpg
    188.5 KB · Views: 296
  • Calcs.jpg
    Calcs.jpg
    238 KB · Views: 247
Last edited:
Nobody guessed already that it could well be a tandem seater (canted windows are for the GiB).

Inlets are openings, probably near circular (more of an ellipse).

The interesting part of the landing gear is that it is well forward (struts looked angled frwd), meaning that there is less weight in the back and the central body might extend rearward.

Wings have also an impressive washout. That could mean some non trivial AoA is part of the domain (high altitude flight?).

Edited (weight in the back -> less weight in the..)
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
For some reason, my original post regarding the B-21's size and performance disappeared from this thread, so I'm re-posting it here. This is based on it being a twin engine, which I still think it is, but we'll find out eventually.

The inlets were incorrect, because the inlet lip changes sweep at the structural support in the inlet. Inboard of the structural strut it should match the wing LE sweep for the side it's on. I think I originally posted this back in March of 2022.
Click to expand...
I think the PW800 is too big a diameter for the amount of thrust, it would make that specific intake design difficult. I'm pretty sure it will be powered by two 28000lb dry F135s, making it around 250-260,000lb MTOW.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Sundog said:
For some reason, my original post regarding the B-21's size and performance disappeared from this thread, so I'm re-posting it here. This is based on it being a twin engine, which I still think it is, but we'll find out eventually.

The inlets were incorrect, because the inlet lip changes sweep at the structural support in the inlet. Inboard of the structural strut it should match the wing LE sweep for the side it's on. I think I originally posted this back in March of 2022.
Click to expand...
I think the PW800 is too big a diameter for the amount of thrust, it would make that specific intake design difficult. I'm pretty sure it will be two 28000lb dry F135s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Steve Trimble and I were discussing that and he thinks the engine will use the P1000G high spool and the F-135 low spool and I think the dry F-135 from there back.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom