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

Unless the Air Force are developing something else in the Black World that we do not know about, and won't be revealed for a number of years. That is maybe why the number of B-21s is being kept low. We will never know for sure.
 
It’s probably in the thread somewhere but has an “airframes per year” number come up for the B-21?

Once you get to 100 if the plane is “doing well” as a catch all description of “production to operations”, it seems a no brainer to keep building 10+/year until there is a replacement.
 
Josh_TN said:
While I would not be surprised if the B-21 had some kind of air to air capability for self defense, I cannot imagine that it would ever be used with an A2A focused payload. Firing an AAM is going to mark the aircraft’s position with a road flare for every launch event, heavily negating its stealth and putting a pricy, limited inventory asset at increased risk. Air to ground missiles would have a similar effect, but presumably the entire payload would be launched all once for an air to ground engagement. Glide munitions would not have a large IR event when released and are probably preferable.
Click to expand...
I think it's just dependent on the situation, but I'd assume the best use case would be with long-range missiles instead of AMRAAMs or anything of the sort. Even if the Raider flies at high altitudes, the simple fact that it's slow as fuck would require A2A truck load-outs to be spec'd for range.

More sensibly, there will probably be CUDA/AMRAAM-type missiles carried in the bay for self-defense on ground attack/ISR missions.
 
Maybe a MALI-type loitering A2A munition with cruise missile range and a rocket-boosted Pitbull stage? I mean, I can dream.
 
Wild speculation time: I think the USAF-s chief operating principle is maximizing the amount of enemy targets it can attack while spending the minimum amount of money. That gave rise to the 'cost onion' which basically describes what sort of weapon you need to engage a target successfully. At the top of the cost chart sit the long range cruise missiles, below them the medium range ones, and somewhere at the bottom are the unpowered glide bombs. That's why stealth matters - the closer you can get to the target without being endangered, the more 'bang' you can get for your buck.
The fact that the B-21 will only get procured in modest numbers can mean a couple of things off the top of my head:
  • The plane is more expensive to maintain/procure than anticipated
  • Anti-stealth technology is more developed than anticipated
  • UCAVs can do most of the job of the B-21 for less money
  • Modern manufacturing/technology breakthroughs mean that cruise missiles can be made much cheaper than previously thought
It's so weird to think that some aircraft can move from 'workhorse' to 'novelty' status just by the development of seemingly unrelated technologies. Meanwhile, other planes (namely the teen series fighters) are seemingly immune to such disruption.
 
Elysium said:
Wild speculation time: I think the USAF-s chief operating principle is maximizing the amount of enemy targets it can attack while spending the minimum amount of money. That gave rise to the 'cost onion' which basically describes what sort of weapon you need to engage a target successfully. At the top of the cost chart sit the long range cruise missiles, below them the medium range ones, and somewhere at the bottom are the unpowered glide bombs. That's why stealth matters - the closer you can get to the target without being endangered, the more 'bang' you can get for your buck.
The fact that the B-21 will only get procured in modest numbers can mean a couple of things off the top of my head:
  • The plane is more expensive to maintain/procure than anticipated
  • Anti-stealth technology is more developed than anticipated
  • UCAVs can do most of the job of the B-21 for less money
  • Modern manufacturing/technology breakthroughs mean that cruise missiles can be made much cheaper than previously thought
It's so weird to think that some aircraft can move from 'workhorse' to 'novelty' status just by the development of seemingly unrelated technologies. Meanwhile, other planes (namely the teen series fighters) are seemingly immune to such disruption.
Click to expand...
We can pretty well discount that idea, the USAF had been planning on a UCAV B21 and have publicly said there's very little savings at that size airframe.
 
Scott Kenny said:
We can pretty well discount that idea, the USAF had been planning on a UCAV B21 and have publicly said there's very little savings at that size airframe.
Click to expand...
That assumes a UCAV of equivalent size and numbers. That said, I suspect the role of bomb truck is harder for UAVs than A2A/ISR/EW roles. You have to cart a lot more shot around and probably accept some really low performance points for an attritional UAV with an air to ground focus and any reasonable range.
 
I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?
 
TomcatViP said:
I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?
Click to expand...
Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.
 
TomcatViP said:
I find the comment about the alleged low quantity hilarious. Where does 100 long range penetrative intercontinental nuclear bombers stand as a marginal number in the 21st century? What are the other countries on earth building such advanced platforms in such large number outside of a series of post on Meta, Youtube, X or TikTok?
Click to expand...
Especially when the number has always pretty much been 100 so the speculation seems way off.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.
Click to expand...
Missed the part where he said “in the 21st century”
 
Scott Kenny said:
Compared to the numbers of B52s built? 170 B52Ds alone. 100x -Es, 89x -Fs, 193x -Gs, and 100 -Hs.
100 B-1Bs made as an interim stand-in till the 132x ATB/B-2s were delivered.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we could also compare it to the number of F4F Wildcats produced. Would that be relevant?
 
Josh_TN said:
To be fair, we could also compare it to the number of F4F Wildcats produced. Would that be relevant?
Click to expand...
No.

But when the B21 Program of Record is the same size as both the B1 and (planned) B2 programs at ~100 airframes each, I don't see the issue.

Again, buying 100 B21s will increase the total US bomber fleet from 42x B1 + 17x B2 + 72x B52H = 131 to 100x B21s and 72x B52Js = 172 total aircraft.

An effective gain of +40 aircraft.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No.

But when the B21 Program of Record is the same size as both the B1 and (planned) B2 programs at ~100 airframes each, I don't see the issue.

Again, buying 100 B21s will increase the total US bomber fleet from 42x B1 + 17x B2 + 72x B52H = 131 to 100x B21s and 72x B52Js = 172 total aircraft.

An effective gain of +40 aircraft.
Click to expand...

The B-21 will not be executing the war plans that “required” those numbers under the conditions that required them.
 
totoro said:
Will there even be 70 b52 in service by the time b21 count gets to 100?
Click to expand...
That's the plan. There's still 15ish in the Boneyard to remanufacture-as-needed. By my count, the USAF has only lost 9x B52Hs out of a production run of 102, and hasn't lost a BUFF since 2016 (knock on wood).
 
Scott Kenny said:
They're too expensive to maintain, the stupid things have to live inside an air conditioned hangar when not in flight. Their RAM coatings are easy to damage, too, which eats more maintenance time.

B21s should have RAM baked into the skin panels like the F35 does, so they're a lot tougher and so don't take as much work to keep the RAM in good shape.
Click to expand...
It's actually incredibly difficult to see the seam tape on the first 'production' raider, and it could honestly be quite a bit more advanced than that on the F-35, especially considering how it's development only started what, 10 years ago?

something that is interesting that screws are still present - likely for panels that are frequently accessed. Hydro/Mech bay, Engine Bay, and the foremost bay with red squares (flight computer / cockpit avionics access?) all have screws visible.

However, if you look at the radar/air data panel, it's not going to be opened anywhere near as much as the aforementioned panels, so it's sealed and finished shut (quite flawlessly, might I add). Note that this image is slightly enhanced, and the light makes it easier to spot these details.

Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.

perhaps this is better off in the B-21 raider thread...
1714809483866.png
 
4decaa said:
Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.
Click to expand...

Jack pads attachment points.
 
4decaa said:
It's actually incredibly difficult to see the seam tape on the first 'production' raider, and it could honestly be quite a bit more advanced than that on the F-35, especially considering how it's development only started what, 10 years ago?

something that is interesting that screws are still present - likely for panels that are frequently accessed. Hydro/Mech bay, Engine Bay, and the foremost bay with red squares (flight computer / cockpit avionics access?) all have screws visible.

However, if you look at the radar/air data panel, it's not going to be opened anywhere near as much as the aforementioned panels, so it's sealed and finished shut (quite flawlessly, might I add). Note that this image is slightly enhanced, and the light makes it easier to spot these details.

Finally, note the "?" next to the square(ish) markings. This could be a panel that is so perfectly meshed with the skin (through tape, other means) that it needs these specific markings to indicate it's location.

perhaps this is better off in the B-21 raider thread...
View attachment 727848
Click to expand...
Since this photo is from flight testing, I assume that those panels showing screws now would be taped over on a mission-ready B21.
 
Almost certainly Scott Kenny, not to do so would negate all the hours of hard work that went into designing the stealth qualities of the B-21 in supercomputers and leave them vulnerable.
 
Highly interesting Forrest Green, screws that are made of Radar Absorbent Material that should help with reducing the Radar Cross Section of an aircraft no end.
 
I guess I'll throw some more questions to you guys since the thread is active and I'm working on these for my model - what on earth are these black attachments on the elevons? I've heard people talking about active flow control, but I'd be wary to think that sort of technology has already made it's way into production readiness. Quite mysterious... 1714848682039.png 1714848658570.png
1714848540169.png
 
Scott Kenny said:
Since this photo is from flight testing, I assume that those panels showing screws now would be taped over on a mission-ready B21.
Click to expand...

There has been a general move away from tapes across the industry. There are now a wide de variety of conductive edge sealing methods available, such as conductive rubber seals.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom