Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:Who will have the first photo?
PaddyOMaddy wrote:This may be a stupid question, but why is it not called the B-3?
Ozair wrote:
I've also seen some comments suggesting the "21" stands for 21st century so perhaps the USAF PR folks had a hand in it.
Ozair wrote:...Also everything we know to date appears to suggest the B-21 will essentially be a new B-2, given it is subsonic, likely two bomb bays, likely four engines, reasonably similar flying wing profile...
QuarkFly wrote:I believe that although the B21 looks like the B2...it is smaller, so could be a single bomb-bay?
QuarkFly wrote:And I thought it was already indicated that the B21 would be a twin engine aircraft. Pratt won the B21 engine contract and will likely use a version of the F135 from the F35 -- a 30-klb thrust engine -- four of them would be way too much power and weight for a subsonic aircraft smaller than the B2.
James said the twin-engine B-21 will allow the Air Force to operate in a "high-end threat environment" and give the Air Force the flexibility to launch airstrikes from the continental United States, attacking anywhere in the world.
GE's adaptive cycle, three-stream engine extends aircraft operating range by more than 30%, improves fuel consumption by 25% and increases thrust by more than 10%. With the AETP and follow-on development programs, GE's engine could be ready to power the US military's most advanced combat jets.
SCAT15F wrote:Given that the F135 has 28,000 lbs dry and will certainly get a larger fan for a better subsonic efficiency, I can see the derivative for the B-21 having 36-40,000 lbs thrust.
Pratt & Whitney can now offer a Growth Option 1.0 upgrade configuration for the F135 engine, which powers the fifth generation F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft. The engine testing, conducted at Pratt & Whitney's West Palm Beach, FL, facility, verified this upgrade can provide a 5 to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 to10 percent thrust increase across the F-35 flight envelope.
Ozair wrote:PaddyOMaddy wrote:This may be a stupid question, but why is it not called the B-3?
Just guessing but perhaps because the B-2 was an NG aircraft and the B-21 is also an NG aircraft. Also everything we know to date appears to suggest the B-21 will essentially be a new B-2, given it is subsonic, likely two bomb bays, likely four engines, reasonably similar flying wing profile.
I've also seen some comments suggesting the "21" stands for 21st century so perhaps the USAF PR folks had a hand in it.
A U.S. Air Force official told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday that the new B-21 bomber has completed its preliminary design review and that he was "comfortable" with the progress made by builder Northrop Grumman Corp. The bomber is now on its way to critical design review, said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch Jr., the military deputy of the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. Citing the "nature of the work," Bunch declined to go into further detail about how the Air Force planned to spend the $2.3 billion it requested for the bomber program for fiscal year 2019 when asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). However, he said the program was "continuing engineering manufacturing development" and "some of those risk reduction areas."
The first set of software for the platform has been delivered, and the program is getting "set up" for the next set of software to come in, Bunch told the Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee on Airland during a hearing about Air Force modernization efforts.
"We're making everything ready to begin our test program in the future," he said. "We're making good progress. I'm comfortable today with where we're at, and the progress that Northrop Grumman is making on the program."
Northrop Grumman, which won the bomber contract in 2015, is building the aircraft at its plant in Palmdale. The plant also churns out the Global Hawk high-altitude surveillance drone for the Air Force, the closely related Triton drone for the Navy and the center fuselage for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Chaostheory wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
The USAF already has a huge issue with pilot shortages. How do they plan on pumping out even more crews? Are we going to see attrition in the transport or fighter squadrons?
mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Slug71 wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Interesting. With the advancements in ICBMs and cruise missiles, I'd have thought the future is moving in that direction and therefore less demand of bombers.
Chaostheory wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
The USAF already has a huge issue with pilot shortages. How do they plan on pumping out even more crews? Are we going to see attrition in the transport or fighter squadrons?
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Slug71 wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Interesting. With the advancements in ICBMs and cruise missiles, I'd have thought the future is moving in that direction and therefore less demand of bombers.
Remember that the B21 is going to be quite a bit smaller in raw payload compared to the B-1 and B-52. And with the increase of precision weapons and the loitering of CAS missions the bombers are doing they may end up being used more compared to the BUFF and Bone.
keesje wrote:This could become a lenghty thread
Who will have the first photo?
Slug71 wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Interesting. With the advancements in ICBMs and cruise missiles, I'd have thought the future is moving in that direction and therefore less demand of bombers.
cpd wrote:keesje wrote:This could become a lenghty thread
Who will have the first photo?
Won't be too far away:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/b-21-raid ... ?r=AU&IR=T
I think there was a sighting of a test aircraft last year but it wasn't photographed. Either it was a test aircraft or something fairly similar.
FrmrKSEngr wrote:Of course, it is possible the USAF is blowing smoke about PDR and is actually further along than stated. We will see when they release pictures.
Ozair wrote:FrmrKSEngr wrote:Of course, it is possible the USAF is blowing smoke about PDR and is actually further along than stated. We will see when they release pictures.
I think they’re a little further along than they are indicating, especially as there has been no indication of a slip of IOC past 2025. To meet that IOC date you would expect they have a full scale prototype flying today and are looking for low rate initial production to begin very soon. Factor in a 5-7 year test and evaluation phase and enough aircraft to meet an IOC target (likely 8-10 aircraft in a squadron with the required aircrew and ground personnel trained to proficiency) and they have to have been moving along already.
Alternatively, that IOC date could slide two plus years…
FrmrKSEngr wrote:Slug71 wrote:mmo wrote:Just a bit more on the B-21.
Looks as if the USAF will try to purchase more than the 100 talked about. Currently there are 9 Bomb Squadrons and the 100 had been planned to cover replacements for the B-1 and B-2 with the balance used for training. The USAF would like to increase the numbers in each squadron and then increase the number of squadrons from 9 to 14-16.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-447860/
Interesting. With the advancements in ICBMs and cruise missiles, I'd have thought the future is moving in that direction and therefore less demand of bombers.
Wow, where have I heard that before. Care to comment Mr McNamara?
FrmrKSEngr wrote:Mind Games - Potential schedule
6 Aircraft test program with the following 9 supporting stand-up for IOC (8 operational, 1 dedicated trainer)
PDR - Nov 2017
CDR - Nov 2018
Permanent DTE aircraft
A/C 1 Prototype roll-out - Nov 2019
AC 2 - Apr 2020
AC3 - Sept 2020
LRIP 3 planes per year
Pre-Flight 1 configuration (DTE for upgrade to flight 1 Operational config)
AC4 - Jan 2021
AC5 - May 2021
AC6 - Sept 2021
Flight 1/IOC Configuration
AC 7, 8, 9 - 2022 - Start Initial Operational training.
AC 10, 11, 12, -2023
AC 13, 14, 15 - 2024
IOC 2025
After IOC increase rate to 12 per year.
Slug71 wrote:FrmrKSEngr wrote:Slug71 wrote:
Interesting. With the advancements in ICBMs and cruise missiles, I'd have thought the future is moving in that direction and therefore less demand of bombers.
Wow, where have I heard that before. Care to comment Mr McNamara?
Point?
Ozair wrote:FrmrKSEngr wrote:Of course, it is possible the USAF is blowing smoke about PDR and is actually further along than stated. We will see when they release pictures.
I think they’re a little further along than they are indicating, especially as there has been no indication of a slip of IOC past 2025. To meet that IOC date you would expect they have a full scale prototype flying today and are looking for low rate initial production to begin very soon. Factor in a 5-7 year test and evaluation phase and enough aircraft to meet an IOC target (likely 8-10 aircraft in a squadron with the required aircrew and ground personnel trained to proficiency) and they have to have been moving along already.
Alternatively, that IOC date could slide two plus years…
mxaxai wrote:It does seem like an ambitious schedule. But I guess it is something to aim for and nobody will be sad if it achieves IOC in 2027 or 2030 or perhaps even 2032, as delays will inevitably happen and it's not like the USAF urgently need it anyways.
mxaxai wrote:It took the F-35 6 years from prototype to first flight of the serial version and another 10 years to achieve IOC. Not sure if you can cut that by more than 50 % for the next all-new stealth aircraft.
The Air Force said Wednesday that the new B-21 Raider bombers would go to three bases in the US when they start arriving in the mid-2020s.
The service picked Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, and Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri as "reasonable alternatives" for the new bomber.
The Air Force said that using existing bomber bases would reduce operational impact, lower overhead, and minimize costs.
"Our current bomber bases are best suited for the B-21," Heather Wilson, the secretary of the Air Force, said in a release.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota has said Ellsworth is a candidate to be the first to get the next-generation bomber.
The B-21 will eventually replace the B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit at those bases as well — though the Air Force doesn't plan to start retiring those bombers until it has enough B-21s to do so.
Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota will continue to host the B-52 Stratofortress, the workhorse bomber that was first introduced in 1952 and is expected to remain in service until the 2050s.
A final basing decision is expected next year after ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other regulations.
"We are designing the B-21 Raider to replace our aging bombers as a long-range, highly survivable aircraft capable of carrying mixed conventional and nuclear payloads, to strike any target worldwide," Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, said in the release.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Carl Schaefer, commander of the 412th Test Wing, said in March that the B-21 would head to Edwards Air Force Base in California for testing "in the near future." His announcement appeared to confirm that the Raider would undergo operational testing sooner than expected.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Maybe they really have gone hard on the idea of taking the F-35 guts and putting them in a bigger airframe. Would seem reasonable.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:There’s also an assumption it will have a classic large central bomb bay. We know it is intended more for modern precision weapons so it may have a narrower bomb bay and possibly one centreline and another two outboard of the engines. But we’ll have to wait for pics.
Andre3K wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:There’s also an assumption it will have a classic large central bomb bay. We know it is intended more for modern precision weapons so it may have a narrower bomb bay and possibly one centreline and another two outboard of the engines. But we’ll have to wait for pics.
Moving the weapons stations away from the centerline will always create balance issues if all the ordinance isn't dropped at once. I think it would be safer to leave it all near the centerline.
meecrob wrote:Andre3K wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:There’s also an assumption it will have a classic large central bomb bay. We know it is intended more for modern precision weapons so it may have a narrower bomb bay and possibly one centreline and another two outboard of the engines. But we’ll have to wait for pics.
Moving the weapons stations away from the centerline will always create balance issues if all the ordinance isn't dropped at once. I think it would be safer to leave it all near the centerline.
I agree that its safer to keep it centreline, but something in the back of my mind thinks that there is some pretty sophisticated FBW planned that may be able to compensate for the weight imbalance. Probably a FBW update for after EIS.
PaddyOMaddy wrote:This may be a stupid question, but why is it not called the B-3?
mxaxai wrote:meecrob wrote:Andre3K wrote:
Moving the weapons stations away from the centerline will always create balance issues if all the ordinance isn't dropped at once. I think it would be safer to leave it all near the centerline.
I agree that its safer to keep it centreline, but something in the back of my mind thinks that there is some pretty sophisticated FBW planned that may be able to compensate for the weight imbalance. Probably a FBW update for after EIS.
Don't most fighter-bombers store heavy ordnance under their wings, relatively far from the centreline? Surely they don't drop it all at the same time.
Andre3K wrote:mxaxai wrote:meecrob wrote:
I agree that its safer to keep it centreline, but something in the back of my mind thinks that there is some pretty sophisticated FBW planned that may be able to compensate for the weight imbalance. Probably a FBW update for after EIS.
Don't most fighter-bombers store heavy ordnance under their wings, relatively far from the centreline? Surely they don't drop it all at the same time.
Typically when the ordinance is very heavy, they try to drop from both sides. Missiles don't weigh much so they aren't a big deal
Spacepope wrote:Andre3K wrote:mxaxai wrote:Don't most fighter-bombers store heavy ordnance under their wings, relatively far from the centreline? Surely they don't drop it all at the same time.
Typically when the ordinance is very heavy, they try to drop from both sides. Missiles don't weigh much so they aren't a big deal
I can't think of a current US bomber that doesn't have its ordinance on the centerline. B-52s have pylons on the very inboard wings but that's so close to center that it really doesn't matter.
Spacepope wrote:I can't think of a current US bomber that doesn't have its ordinance on the centerline. B-52s have pylons on the very inboard wings but that's so close to center that it really doesn't matter.
mxaxai wrote:The Eurofighter, for example, carries two cruise missiles on its two heavy wing pylons and carries all bombs on the smaller wing pylons, both inboard and outboard. I believe this is similar for all Eurocanards.
Ozair wrote:Most fighter aircraft have G limitations when carrying A2G loads, such as the Rafale at 5.5G and the F-16 a similar restriction, which are built into the FCS. Obviously large bombers don’t typically manoeuvre at those limits and the weapons carriage is primarily centreline anyway.
mxaxai wrote:My point had been that placing ordnance outboard of the engines, relatively far from the centreline, can be done. In bomb bays or on external hardpoints, that doesn't change the mass distribution. If it works for fighter bombers it should work for bombers like the B-21 as well.
Ozair wrote:Spacepope wrote:I can't think of a current US bomber that doesn't have its ordinance on the centerline. B-52s have pylons on the very inboard wings but that's so close to center that it really doesn't matter.
Correct they all have central weapons bays. The B-52 has the external racks but don't forget the B-1 also had external racks...
Never used in anger I believe but the capability was there.