USAF Contemplating B-21-Like Aircraft for Air-to-Air Combat (2025)

[Training_Dummy]

Stripped down?

Assuming all this fuss about g-men owned OSAs is even 10% true, software updates to mission systems and work/validation on AAM release from a rotary launcher should be an add-on capability implemented against an expanded Raider fleet (eg 200 a/c). For many obvious reasons more platforms that can do more interesting things is optimal, rather than for example a 20 ship flight of Raider Lite (TM) that would be operationally distinct from the Raider Original (TM) fleet.

How stupid am I being? Feels like a specific missileer Raider variant takes the best stand-in platform and forces it into a stand-off role?

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect standard B-21s will occasionally be used with extremely long range AAM capable weapons and/or a Longshot like UAV platform. I personally suspect HACM will have an A2A mode against nonmaneuving targets, but it would not surprise me if there was some kind of ultra long range AAM in the pipe as well.

 

[DesScorp]

Wow！

Air Force Contemplating B-21-Like Aircraft for Air-to-Air Combat

The Air Force is thinking about the B-21 as a potential flying magazine of dogfight missiles for stealth fighters, service officials say.

www.airandspaceforces.com

So basically a cross between the Navy's old Douglas F6D Missileer proposal, and the mid-90's Arsenal Ship concept. A subsonic, long-range missile-only, non-dogfighting, BVR only shooter that's basically a bomber with racks of BVR missiles instead of racks of Mk. 84's.

USAF has consistently rejected such proposals before (Lockheed had proposed making BVR missile truck versions of the C-130, P-3, and C-141). USAF's position was always that there's no substitute for speedy fighters in the interception role. Interesting that they may be warming up to the Missile Truck concept.

 

[Reddington777]

AAM release from a rotary launcher

It might require different adapters at the very minimum and on the software side it can get messy.

For many obvious reasons more platforms that can do more interesting things is optimal

How stupid am I being? Feels like a specific missileer Raider variant takes the best stand-in platform and forces it into a stand-off role?

The B-21 is a good stand in platform, but for air to air, the kinematics doesn't lend itself to the role. It's essentially a non-maneuvering aircraft by fighter standards and in order to fulfill this role, it absolutely needs to be shooting stuff much longer ranged than the AIM-260 even. That way it can unload and hand off the missiles to the sensors before scooting out of range of enemy missiles.

Instead of a B-21 sized platform, if you really wanted a somewhat comparable level of magazine depth + sufficient air to air kinematic ability with current AAMs, you'd go with a J-36 sized platform.

 

[Josh_TN]

It might require different adapters at the very minimum and on the software side it can get messy.


The B-21 is a good stand in platform, but for air to air, the kinematics doesn't lend itself to the role. It's essentially a non-maneuvering aircraft by fighter standards and in order to fulfill this role, it absolutely needs to be shooting stuff much longer ranged than the AIM-260 even. That way it can unload and hand off the missiles to the sensors before scooting out of range of enemy missiles.

Instead of a B-21 sized platform, if you really wanted a somewhat comparable level of magazine depth + sufficient air to air kinematic ability with current AAMs, you'd go with a J-36 sized platform.

Indeed that seems to be what it was intended for. I would go one step further and say J-36 is an anti bomber platform designed for independent operations outside the first island chain focused on bombers, but also any other multi engine aircraft it can find. But it also has the capability to use medium range weapons against opponent fighter so it can fight in and out of the first chain as needed.

Two radars, theee engines, and a nearly B-2 sized set of bomb bay doors makes for a very expensive platform that needs medium bomber level infrastructure to support. I would not be surprised see these based at H-6 locations.

You could fit a dozen BVR AAMs to a much smaller, lower performance platform. But I am not convinced as to why you would.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

and the very antithesis of CCA and affordable mass.

I do believe that the idea of CCA has some flaws, especially for the US in the Pacific. That being said, if we assume that most engagemenst would be BVR, wouldn't it make more sense to go for firepower volume and convert a C-130 into a drone that just launches cruise missiles and A2A missiles?

 

[Reddington777]

I do believe that the idea of CCA has some flaws, especially for the US in the Pacific.

@Josh_TN's original point, if I understood correctly, was that CCAs would get detected right away as soon as they fire - as will be the B-21 when they fire air to air missiles.

This is only worrisome if you are fighting in a fairly clean environment. This starts to matter less when everything is firing AAMs from everywhere and on both sides of the conflict. What would make the B-21 stand out would probably be repeated launches which may well cause an extended IR signature thus making it stand out.

For CCAs, that matters a lot less when you will have what are essentially one way attack drones/jammers armed with AAMs working in concert with your higher survivability ones in addition to manned fighters.

That being said, if we assume that most engagemenst would be BVR, wouldn't it make more sense to go for firepower volume and convert a C-130 into a drone that just launches cruise missiles and A2A missiles?

Well that's the thing - increase size and you've increased cost and sending a C-130 in as a drone is basically a one way attack mission for it. There's no survivability in that anymore.

The better thing would probably be to pack C-130s with longshot drones and plop them out the back from a safe standoff distance. You have far greater geometric flexibility with this when these drones can position themselves anywhere within their effective radius and be a major headache for your enemy.

The real value of a B-21 would either be something similar to this idea (which imo is still a waste) or for added mass, in which case I expect there to be a very very small number of B-21s armed this way (2 or 3 max) in any given context.

 

[Training_Dummy]

It might require different adapters at the very minimum and on the software side it can get messy.


The B-21 is a good stand in platform, but for air to air, the kinematics doesn't lend itself to the role. It's essentially a non-maneuvering aircraft by fighter standards and in order to fulfill this role, it absolutely needs to be shooting stuff much longer ranged than the AIM-260 even. That way it can unload and hand off the missiles to the sensors before scooting out of range of enemy missiles.

Instead of a B-21 sized platform, if you really wanted a somewhat comparable level of magazine depth + sufficient air to air kinematic ability with current AAMs, you'd go with a J-36 sized platform.

It’s not optimal but no one argued it was. It is simply a capacity that I think the fleet and the USAF would benefit from. As an aside, my primitive understanding is altitude matters far more than speed from a factor analysis of range off a platform. If this is correct, B-21 is good from an altitude perspective. If wrong, I’ll read the references and get less dumb.

As for a rotary launcher and AAMs, points well taken and I didn’t mean to trivialize things but there is at least one Bomber driver on this forum that can really give some insight here (and it’s not me nor you )

No I have not read any Dale Brown within the last 20 years.

 

[Reddington777]

It’s not optimal but no one argued it was. It is simply a capacity that I think the fleet and the USAF would benefit from. As an aside, my primitive understanding is altitude matters far more than speed from a factor analysis of range off a platform. If this is correct, B-21 is good from an altitude perspective. If wrong, I’ll read the references and get less dumb.

No need to apologize for anything lol. Eric Cartman is my pfp because I'm full of bad takes and I constantly look stupid.

You are right - altitude does matter if you are shooting off missiles and your individual platform's kinematics do matter less if you are shooting high kinematic missiles. The B-21 if it finds itself in this situation would always be escorted by fighters and CCAs of all sorts too so it does make a lot of sense to have a platform for capacity. The B-21 as a tool for penetrating air defenses at subsonic speed necessarily means that should have good survivability already even at subsonic speeds so who knows - it can be good enough.

Traditionally though, when we talk about air to air fights, a sufficient platform doesn't just rely on EW + decoys to escape enemy weapons. You fly by the math of distances, closure rates and timetables. You have to be a minimum distance away from the enemy when they fire so that even as you can't break his lock or his missile's lock, you can use high speed maneuvers to force the missile to turn with you. Each turn the missile performs while traveling at mach 2 + burns a hell lot of energy. Even with a second pulse or a ramjet motor, it'll still have substantial trouble chasing lead on a plane that's diving to denser air. A missile fired in ideal conditions at high altitude would be able to hit a co-altitude target hundreds of km away, but at low altitude that same missile's no escape zone shrinks to a few dozen km at best. A missile fired from up high and follows the target down into denser air while making turns along the way frequently ends up at low enough speeds that it drops out of the sky. It's probably why in the IAF vs PAF conflict recently, PL-15Es were found on the ground.

It's for this reason that a reasonable platform for air to air work has the kinematics to ensure that even if a missile retains lock on you, you have profiles you can fly to ensure the missile won't ever get close enough to touch you. In a bomber, you can still sorta kinda do that, but you have slow wide turns and not enough speed to buy yourself enough time to make the missile follow your turns. Realistically then, you rely almost entirely on EW if you end up getting shot at or you have to fly really really low and maintain high standoff distance. Low flying doesn't lend itself anymore to deploying long range stand off AAMs though. Bombers have a ton of EW equipment on board probably precisely because they can't escape fast enough, but still - the idea that you can't guarantee not getting hit like a fighter can is not ideal.

 

[Ronny]

As an aside, my primitive understanding is altitude matters far more than speed from a factor analysis of range off a platform.

That absolutely correct. But if enemy fire back, and you are still at high altitude, their missile will also have higher reach.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't necessarily think using the B-21s as arsenal planes is a terrible idea, if the aircraft is acquired in sufficient numbers (200 aircraft and above). But hey, this kind of dual use (AAM carrier, Anti-Ship, Drone control) could certainly be leveraged to lobby for more B-21s being bought. As in "look we need so many Raiders to replace our legacy bombers. Oh! And they could also be adapted for this and that and draw from the existing pool of spares and maintenance personelle and bring down unit cost".

I don't think that the B-21 has a big enough bay for Missileer work. It's a single B-2 bay in capacity. 8x 2000lb weapons. You might be able to make 16x AMRAAM-sized weapons fit onto a single rotary launchers with a rail adaptor.

 

[aim9xray]

You might be able to make 16x AMRAAM-sized weapons fit onto a single rotary launchers with a rail adaptor.

I *really* don't think that you'd want to rail launch off of a rotary launcher. You'd eject launch... (think about it and tell me why.) And if you are going to eject launch, then why not off of a specialized stack pak or a version of the B-1 conventional munitions clip-in pack with higher weapons density?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I *really* don't think that you'd want to rail launch off of a rotary launcher. You'd eject launch... (think about it and tell me why.) And if you are going to eject launch, then why not off of a specialized stack pak or a version of the B-1 conventional munitions clip-in pack with higher weapons density?

So I mis-spoke. It's still an adaptor from the 30" lugs on the rotary launcher to a pair of whatever attachment an ejected missile needs.

As to why I'd want an eject launch on the centerline over having to completely open the bomb bay doors, that should be self-evident as well. Less bay opening, less exposure.

 

[aim9xray]

With the cautious qualification "so far as I know", neither the B-52 nor the B-2 have an intermediate or partially open position for their bomb bay doors. Only the B-1 for aero/vibro-acoustic reasons. There's no photo proof for the B-21 one way or the other (so far); B-2 design practice/heritage would tend to suggest not.

 

[TomcatViP]

This program will end-up in a longer range, higher loitering capability, fully reusable Longshot offspring. Just like Ryan´s Firebee grew in size and functions, Longshot will evolve. Then it could be as well an evolution from GA Longshot than any prime's CCA.

For short, I don't see why you would bother re-using or de-rating an half billion dollar airframe for that purpose. A clean sheet design would achieve better while being more efficient (it's only a stealthy eggshell with barely any integrated systems but Nav and Coms).

 

[Training_Dummy]

does adding the ability to fire JATM add to B-21s survivability?

I mean I guess but also any situation when a B-21 is firing a JATM can’t be considered a successful one considering Raiders rough CONOPs?

Unless it’s the pretty horrible situation of plinking silos and you’d want a few missiles, for what, leakers?? I mean I’m stretching credulity here right?

 

[Reddington777]

does adding the ability to fire JATM add to B-21s survivability?

It definitely can, but for me to not shit my knickers, I'd like something matching parity with PL-21 to be safe (and that is something in the works already in addition to the AIM 260). Particularly if you want it to be that kind of missile truck when you need to surge your air power.

you’d want a few missiles, for what, leakers?? I mean I’m stretching credulity here right?

The only time I can see B-21s actually carrying AAMs is if it's purposefully used to add magazine depth or it might carry 2 or 4 flying around in the rear in case it runs into enemy fighters that broke through your CAP and came hunting for you.

Otherwise, when it's actually doing it's stand in missions past the front line, I'd expect there to be escorting 6th gens + CCAs. Assuming they do their jobs, then the B-21 shouldn't need to fire anything.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With the cautious qualification "so far as I know", neither the B-52 nor the B-2 have an intermediate or partially open position for their bomb bay doors. Only the B-1 for aero/vibro-acoustic reasons. There's no photo proof for the B-21 one way or the other (so far); B-2 design practice/heritage would tend to suggest not.

Fair point!

Given that, I'd want a modified set of bay doors with a small opening. Adding a(nother) fold to the bay doors that's maybe 12" wide. Gives a small opening that can close quickly, plus gives a little more clearance under the main doors when on the ground if they're a single panel each side. Makes for a Z-fold door if there's already a split in the doors.

I'm aware that this may do weird stuff with the RAM alignment.

 

[Training_Dummy]

It might require different adapters at the very minimum and on the software side it can get messy.


The B-21 is a good stand in platform, but for air to air, the kinematics doesn't lend itself to the role. It's essentially a non-maneuvering aircraft by fighter standards and in order to fulfill this role, it absolutely needs to be shooting stuff much longer ranged than the AIM-260 even. That way it can unload and hand off the missiles to the sensors before scooting out of range of enemy missiles.

Instead of a B-21 sized platform, if you really wanted a somewhat comparable level of magazine depth + sufficient air to air kinematic ability with current AAMs, you'd go with a J-36 sized platform.

That was the point I was making shoehorning an outstanding penetrating, stand-in platform and force it into a stand-off role, with extra distance required bc it’s a large, heavy, slow and non-maneuvering airframe.

It just makes no sense, unless you’re essentially laying aerial mines in the form of LO, persistent LongShots.

It definitely can, but for me to not shit my knickers, I'd like something matching parity with PL-21 to be safe (and that is something in the works already in addition to the AIM 260). Particularly if you want it to be that kind of missile truck when you need to surge your air power.

The only time I can see B-21s actually carrying AAMs is if it's purposefully used to add magazine depth or it might carry 2 or 4 flying around in the rear in case it runs into enemy fighters that broke through your CAP and came hunting for you.

Otherwise, when it's actually doing its stand in missions past the front line, I'd expect there to be escorting 6th gens + CCAs. Assuming they do their jobs, then the B-21 shouldn't need to fire anything.

I don’t want to name countries or coastlines but there’s no way F-47 or CCAa have the legs to go deep inland everywhere, without solving the refueling dilemma. I could name at least two but there are probably half a dozen potential countries where that would be a mission requirement for a striker.

Raider and perhaps some specific unmanned a/c will be alone for critical parts of those missions. So being able to shoot one or two JATMs to keep an interceptor honest or as an antimissilemissile makes sense, and should be “easy”, but I still can’t wrap my head around a rotary bay of AAMs, but who knows.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don’t want to name countries or coastlines but there’s no way F-47 or CCAa have the legs to go deep inland everywhere, without solving the refueling dilemma. I could name at least two but there are probably half a dozen potential countries where that would be a mission requirement for a striker.

Raider and perhaps some specific unmanned a/c will be alone for critical parts of those missions. So being able to shoot one or two JATMs to keep an interceptor honest or as an antimissilemissile makes sense, and should be “easy”, but I still can’t wrap my head around a rotary bay of AAMs, but who knows.

That's why I was hopeful that the B-21 had defensive missile bays in addition to the main bay. I was hoping for something like 2x AMRAAM and 2x SiAW (or 4x SiAW) plus the main bay, but that was not to be.

 

[Archibald]

If a B-21 can be turned into a missile carrier, they should also consider a tanker variant - for the Pacific theater.
In relation with this.

Business Jet Aerial Refueling Tankers Eyed By USAF

Smaller business jet-derived tankers offer many advantages, but the amount of fuel they have to offload isn't one of them.

www.twz.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

Might make an interesting wingman for assets such as tankers or AWACS, possibly even MRA's.

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is converting B-21s into anything else; the airframe is not suitable for these roles and other platforms are already planned for these missions. Stock B-21s *might* find itself performing in an air to air role with extremely long range missiles or Longshot style UAVs, but even that is of questionable utility compared to simply using them to destroy aircraft when they are still on the ground. It would only be useful if direct strikes to airbases were deemed too risky.

 

[Reddington777]

even that is of questionable utility compared to simply using them to destroy aircraft when they are still on the ground.

You would need to get within launch range of your standoff munitions. If you wanted to get even closer and be a stand in asset, then even more so.

I'm still more or less of the opinion that the whole flying wing missile truck idea shouldn't use an actual B-21 though. Even if the B-21 could launch AAMs, it shouldn't be carrying more than few to help itself get away.

Another dumb idea for a B-21 derivative.

• You toss:
  • Takeoff weight and range, as you aren't penetrating enemy defenses alone, and you aren't dropping heavy A2G munitions so you might not need the same engines as the B-21
  • RAM, Radar, EW, whatever expensive systems there are.
  • The pilot
• You keep:
  • underlying airframe shaping and add whatever cheap signature reduction techniques you use for CCAs onto it for some level of LO
  • keep whatever datalinking and comms you need to shoot and handoff AAMs.
  • can use scaled up CCA arrays + EO/IR sensors that go on a CCA.

Sure - redevelopment cost is going to be big, but sustainment costs down the line could be much less. The upside is you get your big missile plane, you share a substantial amount of components with the actual B-21 production line + whatever CCA production lines you use components from, you have much less maintenance, and it's a little more acceptable a loss as losing a B-21.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

What if there was a method to hot launch an AMRAAM out of the top of the B-21, redirecting missile exhaust gases perhaps into the engine exhaust nozzles? A single small dorsal opening would certainly be easier to mask against enemy radars.

 

[Josh_TN]

There appears to be exactly one large main bomb bay on B-21 and everything it launches must come out of that.

On that note, what is the most recent estimate for B-21 bomb bay length? I think estimates ranged from 24-28 feet previously, but I think most of us agree that the length and wingspan are somewhat larger than initial estimates. Specifically I am wondering if several 500lb JDAM could be stored in three back to back SBRA. It would make sense to design the bomber around small PGM carriage, and SDB is sufficiently short that three racks would be easy (this could probably even be managed in a B-2 bay if there was sufficient will and funding). It seems likely that 30,000 lbs can be carried, perhaps with a lighter fuel load if necessary. Also if I were designing it, I would make the racks able to carry JDAMs with wing kits, which might download the vertical stack from 5 to 4, which would make for a more comfortable 48 weapons in a three rack situation.

 

[Byeman]

What if there was a method to hot launch an AMRAAM out of the top of the B-21, redirecting missile exhaust gases perhaps into the engine exhaust nozzles? A single small dorsal opening would certainly be easier to mask against enemy radars.

No, the engines would ingest the motor exhaust plus windows at risk

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

No, the engines would ingest the motor exhaust plus windows at risk

A drop launch already has some of those risks. What I speak of would have the missile launch port as far back as feasible on the back of the aircraft with some upward launch angle either by the launch rail or some kind of ejection system. Already positive alpha on the missile at launch would help with separation. I understand being towards the rear of the aircraft would make missile launch exhaust hard to reroute to the engine nozzles (for mixing in the cold bypass). An ejection system of course would require no exhaust porting a la VLS. My mentality here is to preserve frontal stealth (by not opening payload bay doors on the bottom that’ll be more forward facing), and IR masking of a A2A missile shot if using an exhaust port. Granted I’m thinking of an AMRAAM size weapon here but using a CUDA size missile could make for an interesting defense system. May be rotatable in fuselage for front or rear facing shots. Or just VLS-it and use thrust vectoring for quick pitch overs.

 

[DWG]

No one is converting B-21s into anything else;

I doubt USAF will even entertain alternate missions until they have the B-21 in full operational service, with the number delivered well on the way towards 100. The last thing they want to do is give Congress is an idea they're not laser-focused on the bomber replacement programme and the opportunity to meddle.