B21 Missile truck

[Todjaeger]

I have seen simulation videos of B1's carrying numerous air to air missiles to shoot targets identified by F35's. The new F15ex is going to perform in this role as well. A stealthy B21 doing this seems like the perfect air to air domination the air force is looking for.

AND

Umm have you read what has been posted above? If you have seen video simulations of the B1 carrying AAM how about posting a link to the videos so that the rest of us can have a look. We'd be quite interested.

One of the first thoughts which came to mind was of some of the various Youtube video sims I have seen of other combat engagements. Does Repsim ring any bells for people? Pretty much unless the video sim was put out by something like the USAF, DARPA, the DOD, or maybe one of the major aerospace companies then it was more than likely something created by a fan. Which in turn means it might look nice, but not be something that is technically feasible or perhaps even possible. Something that many people often overlook when they see a large bomber or strike aircraft, with a large bomb bay and featuring a large (in space and/or weight) ordnance capacity, is just what the actual max ordnance capacity would be if the type of ordnance was changed. For example, an AIM-120 AMRAAM weighs ~150 kg, while a Mk 82 bomb is about 220 kg, which works out to three AIM-120's being approximately the same weight as two Mk 82 bombs. However, there are only so many internal hardpoints available inside the B-1B bomb bays, so even though one could carry ~80 Mk 82 bombs, it could not just work out to carrying ~120 AIM-120 AMRAAM's. In fact, with something like an air-to-air missile, some sort of dispenser would be needed to eject the air to air missile sufficiently far out from the bomb bay prior to ignition of the missile's motor to avoid damaging the aircraft. IIRC that was one of the things which had been getting worked on for the F-35, to increase the number of air-to-air missiles which could be carried and then launched from the internal weapons bay.

What this then leads back, is that in order for such an air-to-air combat capability to actually be fielded, someone would need to design such a system. The system would then need to be built, and successfully complete testing, including ordnance clearance. Lastly, if the capability was ever to be fielded, it would need to be sufficiently viable to meet if not exceed current methods of engaging in aerial combat and delivering air-to-air missiles on target. All of this would of course cost money, and quite likely a fair bit of coin.

Now, apply all the above to the B-21 Raider which is still being developed and tested. As it is, this strategic bomber/strike aircraft is expected to have a per aircraft price tag of ~USD$500 mil. each at roughly current pricing. This is also making two assumptions which could end up proving to be a case of naivete, and/or presumptuous. These assumptions are that there will be no significant developmental problems or cost over runs encountered, and that the currently expected number will be ordered so that the per aircraft development costs do not end up spiking. In order for a B-21 Raider to be able to carry and deploy air-to-air missiles, it too would need some sort of dispenser system developed, as well as the associated avionics, with all the costs driving the B-21 Raider development costs higher than they are already.

Next is the role which some people seem to keep overlooking, which are the currently expected and planned roles for the B-21 Raider. The most important of these would be the deep penetration strike missions, using either nuclear or conventional ordnance. This role then triggers for me the question, which is, "what would one rather a B-21 Raider do on a mission, targeting hostile tacair using offboard assets for targeting, or conducting delaminating deep penetration strikes against targets of strategic value like C4ISR installations and nodes, power generation and distribution points, significant transportation infrastructure like road junctions, bridges and rail lines, or even strikes against supporting military facilities like cratering runways?" Me being me, I would rather a B-21 Raider take out a hostile airfield while most or all the hostile air is still on the ground and while the hostiles are largely oblivious to any inbound strikes by the LO aircraft, rather than trying to have a long-ranged LO strike aircraft hacked into some sort of "arsenal ship of the air".

 

[swerve]

... Something that many people often overlook when they see a large bomber or strike aircraft, with a large bomb bay and featuring a large (in space and/or weight) ordnance capacity, is just what the actual max ordnance capacity would be if the type of ordnance was changed.

Reminds me of reading claims that various aircraft type could carry x weight of weapons, because that was the sum of the capacities of all the hardpoints. The people making the claims didn't think to check the interactions between the hardpoints, or how much fuel could be put in the tanks with that weight under the wings. They never stopped to ask how far beyond the perimeter fence aircraft y could fly with that load, or whether there was room for all of the biggest loads simultaneously. The idea of flexibility in loadout from being able to choose where to put heavy items was too complicated for them.

 

[nightsight971]

Umm have you read what has been posted above? If you have seen video simulations of the B1 carrying AAM how about posting a link to the videos so that the rest of us can have a look. We'd be quite interested.

Oh yes, everyone provided great information with their replies. I was trying to re establish how deadly an "invisible" B21 delivering air to air missiles to a very wide area patrolled by Raptors and Lightning's could be. It is the unfair fight the Air Force wants.

I have searched for the video but it is surprisingly difficult to find a copy to play for yall.

It is the History Channels "Dogfights" series.

Season 2 Episode 18 "Dogfights of the Future" has a beautiful simulation of 4 Raptors vs several........ I believe Rafales. At the end of the fight, the F22's weakness shows up, they are running out of missiles. They call in two B1 bombers loaded with air to air missiles to finish the fight. The B1's use targeting info provided by the Raptor's.

My idea for this thread came directly as a result of this 2008 episode, which I last saw a couple of years ago.

I hope everyone who is interested can find and view this video. It is a high a quality History Channel TV show. Very well done.

 

[Todjaeger]

Oh yes, everyone provided great information with their replies. I was trying to re establish how deadly an "invisible" B21 delivering air to air missiles to a very wide area patrolled by Raptors and Lightning's could be. It is the unfair fight the Air Force wants.

I have searched for the video but it is surprisingly difficult to find a copy to play for yall.

It is the History Channels "Dogfights" series.

Season 2 Episode 18 "Dogfights of the Future" has a beautiful simulation of 4 Raptors vs several........ I believe Rafales. At the end of the fight, the F22's weakness shows up, they are running out of missiles. They call in two B1 bombers loaded with air to air missiles to finish the fight. The B1's use targeting info provided by the Raptor's.

My idea for this thread came directly as a result of this 2008 episode, which I last saw a couple of years ago.

I hope everyone who is interested can find and view this video. It is a high a quality History Channel TV show. Very well done.

What the scenario as described completely overlooks, is the potential for a weapon platform like the B-21, operating as part of an overall USAF and UD military strike package, to potentially eliminate the threat aircraft well before an air to air engagement could begin by destroying the hostile aircraft when they are still on the ground, and/or damaging/destroying the air base they are located at.

What many still seem to keep forgetting, or perhaps not understanding, is that modern warfare as practiced by leading nations of the world is done at systems-level event. Now, I have not located the video on Youtube (and frankly, I am not inclined to try since the way it has been presented sounds rather fanciful IMO) but I would like to point out a few likely realities of engaging in combat ops as part of a systems-level event.

First, the hostile tac air would have to be operating from a still operational facility of some sort, that was also within range of where an F-22 could operate from, and be able to actually get a number of aircraft into the air. IMO this would require both some effort, and some explanation since the US makes a practice of establishing air supremacy ASAP in hostile situations and has both considerable skill and capability in terms of delaminating a hostile force's air and other defenses.

Secondly, unless the scenario was a rather strange one, the four-ship flight of F-22 Raptors would each start out with a minimum of two BVR and WVR air-to-air missiles each, plus the advantage of a smaller signature than the hostile tac air, and the option to potentially jettison any non-LO external stores if any.

Thirdly, the F-22 Raptor flight would also almost certainly have offboard support from any of a number of different sources which could make a significant difference in the outcome or an aerial engagement. AEW support from an E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 Sentry should be able to detect the hostile air before reaching BVR range, and not only enable the F-22's to go into an engagement with targeting data, but also have vector data on the hostile air. If the F-22's have that vector data, in addition to their own LO capabilities and additional targeting data from offboard sensors, the F-22 Raptor flight could decide when and where to initiate the engagement, setting the terms for it. The F-22's could, in theory, wait until within the NEZ for their various missiles before launching, and at the same time launching along a vector where the hostile air might not even become aware they had been fired upon until missiles start hitting. How well does one reasonably think hostile air would do when being engaged by an unknown enemy force?

IIRC there had been a RAND report which examined a similar sort of issue regarding projected losses of F-22 Raptors during a theoretical engagement with PLA-AF fighters near/over the Taiwan Strait. That report included projections where the F-22 fighters were reduced to shooting down PLA-AF fighters with the onboard gun, because they had run out of missiles. I did not consider that a reasonable scenario (to fit down to that level of ordnance) nor do I consider a simulation involving F-22 which does not also include other supporting US forces, since the US does not fight in isolation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Oh yes, everyone provided great information with their replies. I was trying to re establish how deadly an "invisible" B21 delivering air to air missiles to a very wide area patrolled by Raptors and Lightning's could be. It is the unfair fight the Air Force wants.

I have searched for the video but it is surprisingly difficult to find a copy to play for yall.

It is the History Channels "Dogfights" series.

Season 2 Episode 18 "Dogfights of the Future" has a beautiful simulation of 4 Raptors vs several........ I believe Rafales. At the end of the fight, the F22's weakness shows up, they are running out of missiles. They call in two B1 bombers loaded with air to air missiles to finish the fight. The B1's use targeting info provided by the Raptor's.

My idea for this thread came directly as a result of this 2008 episode, which I last saw a couple of years ago.

I hope everyone who is interested can find and view this video. It is a high a quality History Channel TV show. Very well done.

As @Todjaeger has posted in his reply immediately above, modern aerial combat is very much a systems approach. So using your video, the F-22 is a system within a system. It's what I call a system of systems system because the F-22 is just one cog within that larger system. When you include the F-35 and its computing and communications capabilities, you have another whole new level. Everyone goes on about its stealth being its greatest advantage and danger. Its low observability does give it some advantages, but its lethality is its ISR, computing and communications capabilities. With those they are superior to the F-22. Information is more valuable than all the platinum or gold in the world.

 

[nightsight971]

What the scenario as described completely overlooks, is the potential for a weapon platform like the B-21, operating as part of an overall USAF and UD military strike package, to potentially eliminate the threat aircraft well before an air to air engagement could begin by destroying the hostile aircraft when they are still on the ground, and/or damaging/destroying the air base they are located at.

What many still seem to keep forgetting, or perhaps not understanding, is that modern warfare as practiced by leading nations of the world is done at systems-level event. Now, I have not located the video on Youtube (and frankly, I am not inclined to try since the way it has been presented sounds rather fanciful IMO) but I would like to point out a few likely realities of engaging in combat ops as part of a systems-level event.

First, the hostile tac air would have to be operating from a still operational facility of some sort, that was also within range of where an F-22 could operate from, and be able to actually get a number of aircraft into the air. IMO this would require both some effort, and some explanation since the US makes a practice of establishing air supremacy ASAP in hostile situations and has both considerable skill and capability in terms of delaminating a hostile force's air and other defenses.

Secondly, unless the scenario was a rather strange one, the four-ship flight of F-22 Raptors would each start out with a minimum of two BVR and WVR air-to-air missiles each, plus the advantage of a smaller signature than the hostile tac air, and the option to potentially jettison any non-LO external stores if any.

Thirdly, the F-22 Raptor flight would also almost certainly have offboard support from any of a number of different sources which could make a significant difference in the outcome or an aerial engagement. AEW support from an E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 Sentry should be able to detect the hostile air before reaching BVR range, and not only enable the F-22's to go into an engagement with targeting data, but also have vector data on the hostile air. If the F-22's have that vector data, in addition to their own LO capabilities and additional targeting data from offboard sensors, the F-22 Raptor flight could decide when and where to initiate the engagement, setting the terms for it. The F-22's could, in theory, wait until within the NEZ for their various missiles before launching, and at the same time launching along a vector where the hostile air might not even become aware they had been fired upon until missiles start hitting. How well does one reasonably think hostile air would do when being engaged by an unknown enemy force?

IIRC there had been a RAND report which examined a similar sort of issue regarding projected losses of F-22 Raptors during a theoretical engagement with PLA-AF fighters near/over the Taiwan Strait. That report included projections where the F-22 fighters were reduced to shooting down PLA-AF fighters with the onboard gun, because they had run out of missiles. I did not consider that a reasonable scenario (to fit down to that level of ordnance) nor do I consider a simulation involving F-22 which does not also include other supporting US forces, since the US does not fight in isolation.

WOW. I have been banned for the past year cuz of a bad frigate post......... but now that I'm back I must say........ I have missed you Todjaeger!!!!!! You are a well spoken wealth of information on my threads!!! You let me know all about the Arsenal ship as well! Thanks also to you ngatimozart.

I found the video, most of it!!!! It is 4 vs like 30!!!! LOL. Enjoy!!!

 

[Redlands18]

What the scenario as described completely overlooks, is the potential for a weapon platform like the B-21, operating as part of an overall USAF and UD military strike package, to potentially eliminate the threat aircraft well before an air to air engagement could begin by destroying the hostile aircraft when they are still on the ground, and/or damaging/destroying the air base they are located at.

What many still seem to keep forgetting, or perhaps not understanding, is that modern warfare as practiced by leading nations of the world is done at systems-level event. Now, I have not located the video on Youtube (and frankly, I am not inclined to try since the way it has been presented sounds rather fanciful IMO) but I would like to point out a few likely realities of engaging in combat ops as part of a systems-level event.

First, the hostile tac air would have to be operating from a still operational facility of some sort, that was also within range of where an F-22 could operate from, and be able to actually get a number of aircraft into the air. IMO this would require both some effort, and some explanation since the US makes a practice of establishing air supremacy ASAP in hostile situations and has both considerable skill and capability in terms of delaminating a hostile force's air and other defenses.

Secondly, unless the scenario was a rather strange one, the four-ship flight of F-22 Raptors would each start out with a minimum of two BVR and WVR air-to-air missiles each, plus the advantage of a smaller signature than the hostile tac air, and the option to potentially jettison any non-LO external stores if any.

Thirdly, the F-22 Raptor flight would also almost certainly have offboard support from any of a number of different sources which could make a significant difference in the outcome or an aerial engagement. AEW support from an E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 Sentry should be able to detect the hostile air before reaching BVR range, and not only enable the F-22's to go into an engagement with targeting data, but also have vector data on the hostile air. If the F-22's have that vector data, in addition to their own LO capabilities and additional targeting data from offboard sensors, the F-22 Raptor flight could decide when and where to initiate the engagement, setting the terms for it. The F-22's could, in theory, wait until within the NEZ for their various missiles before launching, and at the same time launching along a vector where the hostile air might not even become aware they had been fired upon until missiles start hitting. How well does one reasonably think hostile air would do when being engaged by an unknown enemy force?

IIRC there had been a RAND report which examined a similar sort of issue regarding projected losses of F-22 Raptors during a theoretical engagement with PLA-AF fighters near/over the Taiwan Strait. That report included projections where the F-22 fighters were reduced to shooting down PLA-AF fighters with the onboard gun, because they had run out of missiles. I did not consider that a reasonable scenario (to fit down to that level of ordnance) nor do I consider a simulation involving F-22 which does not also include other supporting US forces, since the US does not fight in isolation.

You would also have the Likelihood of USN and Allied Navies launching LACMs at the same time from both Surface Ships and Submarines.

 

[hauritz]

On that subject, couldn't a wedgetail control a few loyal wingmen a couple of hundred km away and the LW be armed with bvr?

I think that is the way things will eventually pan out. Cheap, expendable AI controlled wingman acting on information provided through hubs such as manned aircraft, ships and ground bases. Each manned combat aircraft would essentially be a squadron leader barking out orders from a safe distance.

The biggest issue is probably going to to be safe and secure communication and yes, that is a big issue. This is probably why you would still need to have a manned aircraft with line of sight communication with these drones. That might be the biggest justification for a fighter version of the B-21(F-21?) It would be stealthy enough, and have the range to accompany a flight of Skyborgs deep into enemy territory.

 

[John Fedup]

This article presents some information about a recent test flight of the B-21. A few assumptions for sure have been made. Interesting observation about the engine configuration though. The guess is it is a twin engine bomber. If this is correct, which engine, a derated F135?

B-21 Raider Spotted During Test Flight

A video appears to show the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider bomber during a test flight over California. The B-21 Raider is carrying out test flights out of

theaviationist.com