The US have bases everywhere, and the Chinese don't. They can attack the Chinese mainland with bombers as is and the Chinese can't return the favor without causing M.A.D. . This is a massive advantage that enables a smaller and thus a stealthier bomber. OTOH the Chinese need to have a bomber with a long reach to deliver payloads to the CONUS, that alone is a design risk.
Enlighten us, o wise one, that we may share in your intimate knowledge of the B-21 design and its flaws.
Non sequitur, it's not qualified for ANY weapons right now. I suspect B61-12 and -13s will be among the first weapons qualified from the design.
Famous last words, I fear....
Range is unknown and likely to get greater than the B-2. Engines will be more fuel efficient, airframe aerodynamics improved, so if the fuel fraction stays the same then range will be better. Range scales to fuel fraction, not absolute volume.
Yeah, tell that to our allies in the Pacific (ie: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.).China's new H-20 stealth bomber 'not really' a concern for Pentagon, says intel official - Breaking Defense
“The thing with the H-20 is when you actually look at the system design, it's probably nowhere near as good as US LO [low observable] platforms, particularly more advanced ones that we have coming down,” said a DoD intelligence official.breakingdefense.com
“The thing with the H-20 is when you actually look at the system design, it’s probably nowhere near as good as US LO [low observable] platforms, particularly more advanced ones that we have coming down,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon today.
“They’ve run into a lot of engineering design challenges, in terms of how do you actually make that system capability function in a similar way to, like, a B-2 or a B-21,” the official added.
Asked whether the H-20 is a concern, the official replied “Not really.”
You'll notice he didn't actually give a range. It could be the most efficient, fuel-wise, aircraft on the planet and still not have long range if it doesn't carry a lot of fuel. And it doesn't help with its anemic payload.
That may be an overly optimistic assessment there, given that the prime driver of the program from the day the subsonic concept was chosen has to been to keep down procurement and operating costs no matter the trade off, which was supposed to in turn allow the B-21 to reach critical mass in terms of numbers bought, a classic quantity over quality plan that is now showing signs of the wheels coming off what with the proposal to cap procurement at a 100 airframes, only less than a week after the Air Force had supposedly negotiated a cut in the unit price with NG, presumably based on an increase in the planned order and/or changes in the delivery schedule.
Not at all. It just means it's more efficient than the B-1B, B-52, B-2, and Blackjack. It does NOT mean it has longer range.
I can't believe I have to explain this. Range has to do with being efficient AND having a high fuel fraction. He said nothing about range or fuel fraction.
What is "long range"? A fully loaded B-1B, with no aerial refueling, ain't flying 6,000 miles.
I wouldn't want to have to count on aerial refueling over the Pacific. I think we're back in a, "what do we do if Britain falls" situation.
No idea. I'd love to be wrong though.
We launched Bones to Anderson with tanks in the two forward bays and they still had to refuel to get there. Great circle on KDYS to PGUA is just under 6,200 Nm.
Physics say that the better ratio of area to available volume favours larger aircraft in this respect I think. But one must assume B-21 is designed to meet the range requirement given by the Air Force.
He still said:
It won't need logistical support to hold any target at risk. That says minimum 6000nmi combat radius to me, with a full bombload.
24klbs is anemic? 30k if you drop out the rotary launcher for a MOP?
