US Air Force LRS-B Bomber Thread - the B-21 Raider

Brumby

Major
Analysis: Does B-21 Bomber Have Overwhelming Advantage Over Military Powers?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING --- At the "State of the Air Force" held by the U.S. military in early March, Deborah Lee James, U.S. Secretary of the Air Force, announced the official name B-21 of their next-generation stealth Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B).

Military experts said that America's new-type stealth bomber is "tailored" for the Asia Pacific battlefield. As the first steal bomber developed by the U.S. in the 21st century, what are B-21's technical characteristics and is it capable of air defense penetration against major military powers around the world?

Targeting Asia Pacific and dealing with challenges from great powers

Three types of strategic bombers are currently serving in the U.S. military, named the B-52H, the B-1B and the B-2A.

In face of enemy's advanced air defense system, the B-52H and the B-1B are very weak in air defense penetration because they have no or limited stealth capability, while only 20 B-2A stealth bombers have been commissioned so far because of the high R&D cost and difficulties in maintenance, so they mainly play a deterrent role.

Besides, B-2 is a product that was commissioned in the 1990s. Many of its technologies cannot form absolute advantage over major military powers, and it is unable to effectively penetrate the enemy's intensive air defense system.

As of the 2015 fiscal year, the "three chariots" in the U.S. Air Force were 39 years old on average and their fuselage was very old, which was why the U.S. Air Force proposed the Next Generation Long Range Strike System (NGLRS) and LRS-B projects in 2010.

In the National Defense Strategic Guideline published by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2012, new-type long-range bomber was the only equipment that was mentioned for development. The "Asia Pacific rebalancing strategy" put forth by the U.S. also pointed out that the U.S. military should shift its focus from anti-terror operations to dealing with challenges from major military powers.

According to the U.S. standard for "potential rivals", they should be countries with a large territorial size and depth and strong air-defense and anti-ship capability. That's why the U.S. should have "stronger long-range strike capability" to meet the combat requirements in "anti-access/area denial" environment, which is also the requirement of the LRS-B project.

Ashton B. Carter, U.S. Secretary of Defense, and leaders of the U.S. Air Force announced in October 2015 that Northrop Grumman beat Boeing and Lockheed Martin and won the LRS-B contract that is worth US$55 billion, which was called by Carter the U.S. military's "strategic investment for the next 50 years". U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James also noted that the bomber will enable the Air Force to deal with "high-level threats in the future".

Small aircraft with higher technological level

The U.S. Air Force has kept quiet about the specific performance indicators of B-21, and we could only make a primary conjecture based on information released by various parties. On appearance, B-21 is like a mini B-2A with smaller size and payload than the latter, but its technological level and the number of equipment is considerably superior to the latter.

On one hand, B-21 and B-2A have similar "standard configurations" for high-altitude stealth aircraft, such as flying wing tailless configuration, S-shaped inlet, embedded weapon cabin, integrated nozzle and fuselage, and pointed wing leading edge.

On the other hand, the aircraft uses advanced multi-function stealth materials that are capable of stealth performance against radar/infrared/visible light. It may also overcome electromagnetic interference from the enemy and its better infrared stealth performance can largely reduce the infrared radiation of B-21, thus improving the air defense penetration capability.

Considering America's technical accumulation for stealth fighter jets, it is sure to arm the B-21 with intelligent tactical stealth capability. Relevant data show that B-21 will be equipped with cutting-edge task sensors so that aircraft, either independently or in cooperation with other aircraft, can perceive and judge the battlefield threat more comprehensively and make tactical plans in a real-time way to enhance the strike capability.

Moreover, the U.S. military will make B-21 stronger in capability expansion. The general embedded weapon cabin can hold multiple types of regular guided missile bombs, cruise missiles, earth penetrators and next-generation air-launched cruise missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. It is said that this aircraft will have two types, manned and unmanned, the latter able to carry out operations in the more dangerous and sensitive hinterland of the enemy.

The U.S. Air Force believed that B-21 will ensure effective deterrence against the "strongest potential rival" at least before 2040.

Worrisome air defense penetration capability in face of military powers

At present, B-21 is in the engineering and manufacturing stage. The U.S. military plans to purchase more than 100 of it, but some of its officials are discussing the possibility of increasing the purchase to 200 given the need for "warfare in the Asia Pacific".

Some experts said that if the U.S. military deploys B-21 in the Asia Pacific, it will exert major impacts on the regional security and even trigger a new round of arms race.

But does B-21 have overwhelming advantage over major military powers around the world? The answer is negative.

It is learnt that when B-21 was in the demonstration stage, the U.S. military, based on intelligence about and its judgment of "potential rivals", believed the aircraft was able to penetrate the enemy's future air defense system, launch precision strike on it and maintain standby coverage for more than an hour, but that sounds a little "self-bragging".

On one hand, both stealth and anti-stealth technologies are in the period of high-speed development, and new and better concepts and technologies keep showing up. B-21 cannot be commissioned on a large scale until after 2030, and its stealth capability is to be tested in face of the multi-layer 3D air defense systems, especially the multiple new detection equipment such as anti-stealth radar, adopted by major military powers.

On the other hand, B-21, like other strategic bombers, needs well developed supportive functions and a fixed airport, but fixed facilities are the top targets in the enemy's first round of attack, so B-21's airport will be more "fragile" than B-21 itself when faced with powerful winged missiles and strategic ballistic missiles. As a result, B-21 may find it difficult to assure durable combat capability.

Although the B-21 bomber is not a revolutionary aircraft with absolute deterrent force like B-2A, it will still display asymmetrical advantages in most cases when the enemy's long/medium/short-range detection system and interception system has one or more weak links.

In sum, stealth capability remains the focus of weapons and equipment research in the new age. B-21 that stresses the adoption of relatively mature technology and reduction of development and manufacturing cycle also needs to have state-of-the-art omni-directional broadband stealth capability. Therefore, the game between stealth and anti-stealth performance remains one of the themes of future warfare.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Besides, B-2 is a product that was commissioned in the 1990s. Many of its technologies cannot form absolute advantage over major military powers, and it is unable to effectively penetrate the enemy's intensive air defense system
:D
Author completely in the wrong ! do politic, propaganda with about flawed, Obviously B-2 can with a RCS size of - 2 dBm same front and rear :cool:
 
Last edited:
according to FlightGlobal (dated 21 July, 2016) USAF not settled on number of B-21s
The US Air Force will determine how many Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet after the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

The number of strategic bombers the air force will purchase is an ongoing discussion and the decision will be made after the B-21 "gets on the ramp", Lt Gen Jack Weinstein said following an Air Force Association event outside Washington, DC, on Thursday. Previously, the service called on bomber contractor Northrop to develop and build at least 100 nuclear-capable B-21s to replace the Rockwell B-1 and Boeing B-52.

“We’re not making that decision right now because we don’t need to,” he says. “So we’ll determine what that needs to look like. We’re doing a lot of analysis right now to determine how many bombers we need for the force based on all the warplanes that will help educate and allow us to make a decision on the breadth of B-21s.”

The entire fleet of B-21s will be both conventional and nuclear-capable, and the Air Force has built a timeline for when the aircraft will be nuclear-certificated, Weinstein said.

Some in Congress have attacked the USAF for shrouding the B-21’s costs in secrecy and more recently, critics have argued the B-21 and the proposed Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon’s penetrating capabilities would prove redundant. The air force plans to purchase 1,000 LRSOs and employ them on the B-52, Northrop B-2 and B-21.

Weinstein countered that the USAF needs the B-21, whether in its nuclear or conventional form, because the B-2 will not be able to penetrate in the future based on advanced anti-access area denial environments.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Bernard

Junior Member
according to FlightGlobal (dated 21 July, 2016) USAF not settled on number of B-21s

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Exactly why stop at 100? 200 is needed, build some for storage etc. Can we sell a dumbed down version heavy bombers abroad? UK? France? Maybe they take 10-20 a piece? Would that be economically feasible for them to retain such machines? I feel like the technology is "Off the shelf" and the F-35 is being sold abroad with all it's techno/stealth glory? Why can't a bomber? To our nearest Allies. No I would not give it to Israel
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Fact Europe has no want of a strategic bomber.
The Last European dedicated bomber was the UK's Vulcan Bomber
the last French being the Dassault Mirage IV after these they phased down to "Tactical bombers" In the form of the Tornado and the Mirage 2000,
The Nations with a want of such include the US, Russia, China, maybe India, and possibly Iran.
India is the only nation to whom the US might allow export but they it seems would want more of the Naval attack plane ( like there past use if TU22M) Russia and China have internal development capacities And Relations between the US and Russia, China, Iran are not of a nature to allow Military technologies to be exported.

A Bomber doesn't meet the needs of Israel as they primarily deal with Non conventional Asymmetric threats and are in relatively close range allowing fighters and Attack helicopters to better suit the role. If the Israelis wanted a new heavy attack bird my money would be on a AC130J for precision strikes and loiter.

The Bomber mission in Nato has fallen to the US as the European powers are set more to use there Air power based around multirole fighters as it allows them to use there fighters more for defence.

The primary aim of the new bomber is to replace the aging B52 and B1 bomber fleets. the only way I see any potential export or large fleet expansion is if the B21 hull became used for other mission sets like a Stealthy AEW or Tanker role.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Exactly why stop at 100? 200 is needed, build some for storage etc. Can we sell a dumbed down version heavy bombers abroad? UK? France? Maybe they take 10-20 a piece? Would that be economically feasible for them to retain such machines? I feel like the technology is "Off the shelf" and the F-35 is being sold abroad with all it's techno/stealth glory? Why can't a bomber? To our nearest Allies. No I would not give it to Israel

200 completely :)

Right now 159 Bombers so yet 150 can be a very good number.
Presumably right now they want, can ? about max 120 new + 20 B-2.

As new SSBN, ICBM all depends of a new budget account additional funding otherwise impossible get an important number, only limited.
 
Last edited:

Bernard

Junior Member
Fact Europe has no want of a strategic bomber.
The Last European dedicated bomber was the UK's Vulcan Bomber
the last French being the Dassault Mirage IV after these they phased down to "Tactical bombers" In the form of the Tornado and the Mirage 2000,

The Bomber mission in Nato has fallen to the US as the European powers are set more to use there Air power based around multirole fighters as it allows them to use there fighters more for defence.

The primary aim of the new bomber is to replace the aging B52 and B1 bomber fleets. the only way I see any potential export or large fleet expansion is if the B21 hull became used for other mission sets like a Stealthy AEW or Tanker role.

You mentioned tanker role, I saw somewhere that someone mentioned (in a article website comment) the U.S building a B21 stealth tanker version? I just blew it off as not true, but just wondering has there ever been talks?

Maybe, they build the initial 100 that was ordered and then build 25-50 to be used in different roles! AEW, stealthy AWAC, "Jimmy carter seawolf" special operation version ;), Stealthy JSTAR, Tanker, experimental craft for next generation tech, etc.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Exactly why stop at 100? 200 is needed, build some for storage etc. Can we sell a dumbed down version heavy bombers abroad? UK? France? Maybe they take 10-20 a piece? Would that be economically feasible for them to retain such machines? I feel like the technology is "Off the shelf" and the F-35 is being sold abroad with all it's techno/stealth glory? Why can't a bomber? To our nearest Allies. No I would not give it to Israel

Number one, Israel has never operated any large bomber, to my knowledge they have expressed NO interest in such a thing?? Personally I would enroll Israel and Japan into a super secret club to re-launch the F-22, and then purchase another 200-400 from them, for an agreed on price?

I would allow North-Rupp Grumman to weld up the Titanium center Fuse/ Wing boxes, sadly the BHO team continues to sell out our allies, and many of them have had to resort to playing both sides against the middle to maintain their own security.

One more point: who would you rather have standing behind you in a dark, black place with one Browning Hi-Power to defend you both?? Bibi or Barack???? riddle me this Bern???

note: this is NOT political, it is personal, who???
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
You mentioned tanker role, I saw somewhere that someone mentioned (in a article website comment) the U.S building a B21 stealth tanker version? I just blew it off as not true, but just wondering has there ever been talks?

Maybe, they build the initial 100 that was ordered and then build 25-50 to be used in different roles! AEW, stealthy AWAC, "Jimmy carter seawolf" special operation version ;), Stealthy JSTAR, Tanker, experimental craft for next generation tech, etc.
The US has been looking at a number of possible applications and options to expand missions for Stealth technologies. In Terms of needs vs Abilities and form historical reference, The Three sets I think Could be possibilities for B21 would be
AEW(AWAC) and JSTAR. One of the most influential stealth development platforms of history was Northrop's Tacit Blue which was developed as part of the Battlefield Surveillance Aircraft-Experimental (BSAX)
And Tanker As the USAF has been conceptualizing a low observable tanker option.

Special operations needs have been looked into as MC-X but MC-X has the need to land very short field to Vertical and have a ramp to allow rapid deployment. Bomb bays are not designed for carriage of payload the same way a transport does as well. The mission needs have to many contrary parts. Where a Bombers bomb bay could be used to house Radar and senors or fuel tanks it's not as efficient for troops and vehicles. Darpa and northrop did concept a stealth transport for SF once, The Humorously named
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top