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

All these pretty diagrams are fine etc but, for long range missions these A/C will be used for, where do they fit the B.O.G?
 
I sometimes doubt CNBC's veracity, but just for the B-21, here's their article on it
www.cnbc.com

The B-21 Raider and the future of the Air Force bomber force

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is the Air Force's new stealth bomber. Slated to begin flight tests in 2023, the secretive aircraft was revealed to the public in December 2022.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
bobbymike said:

B-21 Raider a Pathfinder for Digital Engineering Revolution

B-21 Raider a Pathfinder for Digital Engineering Revolution
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
"Despite the digital engineering push, some real-word testing is being conducted aboard a flying testbed, which is a business jet that can carry components and instruments, Bell said.

“We’re flying with the systems before the B-21 has actually flown yet,” Moss said. Along with being a less expensive alternative, the testbed allows them to find and fix problems before the components are integrated on the Raider, he added."
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
bobbymike said:

B-21 Raider a Pathfinder for Digital Engineering Revolution

B-21 Raider a Pathfinder for Digital Engineering Revolution
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
"Despite the digital engineering push, some real-word testing is being conducted aboard a flying testbed, which is a business jet that can carry components and instruments, Bell said.

“We’re flying with the systems before the B-21 has actually flown yet,” Moss said. Along with being a less expensive alternative, the testbed allows them to find and fix problems before the components are integrated on the Raider, he added."
Click to expand...
Not unprecedented. It's a similar practice with the F-22 mission systems being tested on the Boeing 757 Flying Test Bed and F-35 mission systems on the Boeing 737 CATBird.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Not unprecedented. It's a similar practice with the F-22 mission systems being tested on the Boeing 757 Flying Test Bed and F-35 mission systems on the Boeing 737 CATBird.
Click to expand...

The only part that stood out to me was that they are using a business jet, which seems small. Maybe a BBJ (aka 737)?
 
Pretty standard, yes, but it's something to try to find while the B-21 is still hidden. I also thought a business jet a bit small.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
"Despite the digital engineering push, some real-word testing is being conducted aboard a flying testbed, which is a business jet that can carry components and instruments, Bell said.

“We’re flying with the systems before the B-21 has actually flown yet,” Moss said. Along with being a less expensive alternative, the testbed allows them to find and fix problems before the components are integrated on the Raider, he added."
Click to expand...

Yup, N99NG.

ADS-B Exchange - track aircraft live

ADS-B Exchange - track aircraft live - aircraft flight history
globe.adsbexchange.com globe.adsbexchange.com


N99NG.png
 
A post on another thread (or board?) got me thinking about rearward facing radars on Su-34s, and how the new tail structure in the B-21 might allow for such (assuming the renderings are representative). Then I decided that was rather fanciful and not useful and forgot about it. But with the advent of the AGP-85 upgrade on the F-35, which is almost surely using Gallium Nitride and also made by NG, it got me to thinking - would be cost effective to mount fighter type arrays in the B-21 and provide wrap around coverage? Something that could fit inside the F-35 nose could probably be mounted rather easily in the cheeks and rearward facing tail in a 3 or 4 array arrangement, inverted to look downward like the B-52 radar upgrade. If it used common parts with the new F-35 radar, especially the TR units, then you could stamp out the arrays for very low cost compared to a new dedicated radar just for the B-21. You'd need more processoring power and software to integrate the radar picture, but the hardware should be cheap. That would give you a survivable AEW/ISR like platform floating at ~50,000 feet/15,000 meters and probably a really healthy detection range with GaN TRs. You could have MTI, A2A, SAR, iSAR, or any other mode the F-35 can use in any axis instantly, or all directions in a low threat area. You'd also have omnidirectional ECM emitters across the frequency range of the radar. Thoughts?
 
From User Smythers of DRL:
"Should be EFB-21 with the amount of heat she brings to the fight."

"She can hear you, she can see you, she can and will send others to reach out and kill you. If you thought tangling three on one with the F-22 was a nightmare? You are in for a short, very short, sharp shock. She will simply take her pick from the best weapons to do the job with, and you will none-the-wiser until your are stone cold dead. This isn't just a bomber, this is an apex predator of the skies."
Click to expand...
D'oh! Just what i was thinking of. Not "B-21", and more like "BF-21" But to deserve the tile of "Apex Predator Of The Skies" also aludes to the rumored Air to Air roles it is supposedly capable of performing, i think?
"Think of her as an F35D. Big D. All the power, all the package - She has got everything under her hood from sensors to range, all and more than we could ever have wished for."

"We had the space available to make the apetures to the size we desired, not the size that they had to be in order to fit the JSF (Yes, some people still talk about the 35 in that manner) so we super-sized some cool stuff and it works real neat."

"The shell is new, but that goes without saying. Near everything else? Off the shelf and proud of it. Folks will be hecka shocked at just how much. The only other example that has ever been in frontline service like this? Was the Goblin (F-117). We took everything we could get our hands on. Everything. Nothing was off limits or sacred."

"RQ-4 boys and girls deserve an air medal for their contribution. Their project managers / team leaders are on point. Great folks, great minds."

"When the history books are written? We had damned well better have the RQ-4 team on page 1 with our thanks. Without them? We would be 3, 4 years behind where we are now. Their contribution to this effort cannot be overstated. They came out from the desert, came out from their sheds, dusted themselves down and gave us all their time & experience with good grace and a lot of humor. We owe them big time."

"If you can fly an F-35, and have time on the flying wings in the desert? Converting to the B-21 is going to be far easier than you would expect. Hardest part for any potential pilots is how a flying wing performs behind the tankers & how they are a floaty menace for the unwary as they come in to land. Get some flying wing stick time, do whatever it is you need to do, because a flying wing isn't some fancy lawn dart when it comes to tanking time, and no amount of simulator is going to get you ready for riding the waves."

"How many times has a guy gotta say it? Please, for the love of God! Never ever try to land her like an F-35B on a carrier deck. There is no hover button, so stop searching for it!"

"This plane will be the B-52 of our era. Upgrades upgrades upgrades. Constant evolutionary tree that'll keep her beyond the edge of state of the art for her entire service life."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Interesting points about aperture size and the RQ-4 community. There’s so much real estate on the leading (and trailing) edge of a B-21 you wouldn’t be at all limited to a fighter sized radar if you we’re willing to pay the price for a larger installation…you could install a fairly gargantuan transmitter if you felt like it and weight wouldn’t be a huge problem in an aircraft with a 220-250,000lb gross weight. There would still be cost savings if you used the same TRs from another radar and just scaled them up like the SPY-6 radar series.
 
What provenance do these comments have? Is there a history that suggests an actual insider rather than a fabulist?

These sorts of comments seem like they would get an actual insider a security violation at a minimum.
 
TomS said:
What provenance do these comments have? Is there a history that suggests an actual insider rather than a fabulist?

These sorts of comments seem like they would get an actual insider a security violation at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Not familiar with source. It does seem a little sensational in tone, though the reference to the RQ-4 seems almost odd, not over the top. It does imply a significant ISR capability if the poster in question were to be actually in the know.
None of the opinions in those posts I feel would be sensitive in terms of security; there isn’t a specific capability or number attached to anything. And the quotes are presented as being from multiple sources, though for all I know it was written by a teenager in Brazil.
 
Josh_TN said:
And the quotes are presented as being from multiple sources, though for all I know it was written by a teenager in Brazil.
Click to expand...
??? How? When? Why? I then wonder where the original text posted by "Smythers"(who conveniently avoided including any reference to the sources) came from.
 
X-39 said:
Josh_TN said:
And the quotes are presented as being from multiple sources, though for all I know it was written by a teenager in Brazil.
Click to expand...
??? How? When? Why? I then wonder where the original text posted by "Smythers"(who conveniently avoided including any reference to the sources) came from.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there’s no reason to believe these statements are from people who actually have eyes on one of the more classified programs that isn’t completely black budget. I admit to hoping they are representative, but I won’t bet any money on it.
 
Last edited:
Speculations. The only ones who know are the ones cleared to the program. I was on B-2 for 10 years and eventually more info surfaced but not all, critical capabilities and design aspects still classified, as they should be. We are all aircraft buffs and we when something new is unveiled we get excited, no matter who's aircraft is is. More will come out for the B-21 eventually, but not everything. I'm a subsystems engineering guy with my hydraulics, actuation and flight controls fetish as examples, got to keep feeding my addiction and I'm thankfully still involved after all these years working other things.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Orionblamblam said:
If the B-21 doesn't work out, there are always options.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611427774652112896
View: https://twitter.com/galopujacy_jez/status/1611427774652112896
Click to expand...
So it's a fuselage synchronized helicopter! That means it has the potential for instantaneous omnidirectional ordnance and barf dispersal - kewl!
Click to expand...
Now I know where the Turbo Encabulator resides! Isn't advanced technology wonderful, mega-circular phase detractors in panadermic, not getting to where I need to go, infinite hyper-rotation with just a splash of obliqueness.
 
76ofbj.jpg
 
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
What provenance do these comments have? Is there a history that suggests an actual insider rather than a fabulist?

These sorts of comments seem like they would get an actual insider a security violation at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Not familiar with source. It does seem a little sensational in tone, though the reference to the RQ-4 seems almost odd, not over the top. It does imply a significant ISR capability if the poster in question were to be actually in the know.
None of the opinions in those posts I feel would be sensitive in terms of security; there isn’t a specific capability or number attached to anything. And the quotes are presented as being from multiple sources, though for all I know it was written by a teenager in Brazil.
Click to expand...
I was doubtful when I read you’ll be “hecka shocked”
 
The only thing that surprised me about that comment, other than all of the talk about the RQ-4 references, was, is there anyone who thought that wasn't what the B-21 was going to be? I mean we knew it was going to use the latest existing tech, being a bigger aircraft it can have bigger apertures, and I think most of us expected it to have some sort of A2A capability. The only thing the guy at Dreamland Resort did is sensationalize those expectations.
 
"When the history books are written? We had damned well better have the RQ-4 team on page 1 with our thanks.
Click to expand...
He could have specifically pointed out Bob from the RQ-4 engineering team. Without Bob's contribution the program might have been delayed by 5 or more years. Luke from IT also really stepped up with all the digital design work. They both deserve a notable mention in Rebecca Grant's future book on the B-21.
 
Last edited:
This Time article is trash, but one interesting mention popped out - the airframe shell is built first and systems are installed afterwards. Assuming this is true and not a typical journalistic error on a military matter, is this done for any other airframe or are they using a unique assembly method specific to this particular composite structure?

EDIT: one other interesting note, they claim two vehicles are completed, the roll out T1 and also G1, a ground test vehicle. Four other shells being assembled, presumably all the EMD aircraft.

time.com

Exclusive: The Making of the Military's New Stealth Bomber

The U.S. is making a massive, strategic gamble that hasn't paid off in the past
time.com time.com
 
Last edited:
NG may be building the aircraft in a different manner since they do not have a principal subcontractor (like Boeing), they probably get empty composite structural sections from their suppliers then the systems/subsystems are installed. The B-2 as an example, the Boeing and LTV sections were completely stuffed then shipped to Plant 42 where they were assembled in the production jigs.
 
I think thats normal if being manufactured in blocks at different sites. You then bring the blocks together for final assembly and check out. e.g. as at Fort Worth for F-35.

But whereever it is, airframe structure is usually assembled first. When installing the systems, cables, pipes etc. you need something to attach them to.
 
Josh_TN said:
This Time article is trash, but one interesting mention popped out - the airframe shell is built first and systems are installed afterwards. Assuming this is true and not a typical journalistic error on a military matter, is this done for any other airframe or are they using a unique assembly method specific to this particular composite structure?
Click to expand...
My informed guess is that this is required to meet stealth parameters. Shell need to be assembled with certain precision and internals adjusted - not opposite.
 
Josh_TN said:
This Time article is trash, but one interesting mention popped out - the airframe shell is built first and systems are installed afterwards. Assuming this is true and not a typical journalistic error on a military matter, is this done for any other airframe or are they using a unique assembly method specific to this particular composite structure?

EDIT: one other interesting note, they claim two vehicles are completed, the roll out T1 and also G1, a ground test vehicle. Four other shells being assembled, presumably all the EMD aircraft.

time.com

Exclusive: The Making of the Military's New Stealth Bomber

The U.S. is making a massive, strategic gamble that hasn't paid off in the past
time.com time.com
Click to expand...
Poor writing and partial truths
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom