Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

[NeilChapman]

I am not a ex military guy, just a fan. That said what am I missing? If spirits typically travel in pairs, the logically you need 3 to 4 raiders if they travel in pairs in case more munitions are required, correct? I am not seeing how the USAF arrived at 100 smallish bombers to replace 80 spirits and bones. And the production rate is very low from all reports, so its going to take a very long time to buy 100; it will take a long time to reach the point where the bones and spirits can be retired and the bones are worn out by all accounts. Thus is our 5th stealth aircraft so with all that industrial know how, shouldn't we be able to build more rapidly a stealthy aircraft?

Who said 100 Raiders will take the place of 80 Spirits and bones?

What do you define as a low production rate?

Full rate production will not take affect until testing has completed.

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems likely that the B-21 will have a greater than 1:1 replacement rate for B-1 and B-2 and presumably will have a much greater availability rate, given the age and complexity of both those airframes. My understanding is that the B-1 fleet has a lot of variety in terms of airframe differences and that the B-2s are practically one offs. Greater availability and numbers should easily offset payload difference, especially given that neither type Is rarely employed operationally with a maximum payload. As for penetration capability, we will have to wait and see. It seems likely some kind of stand off will still be required, but perhaps even simple glide weapons will be sufficient. Most open sources theorize that B-21 will have a higher service ceiling than B-21 given its tail configuration, which would increase the range of high capacity weapons like GBU-39/53.

 

[kaiserd]

Per other contributors comments. and put as simply as possible, it’s far to simplistic to think along the lines of “it’s not as big so it mustn’t be as good”....

 

[sferrin]

@sferrin :
No,in the future it could be a C-130, or the its replacement platform.

Again, if your new bomber requires you to keep other aircraft around to maintain capability that's pretty much the definition of, "less capable".

Why keep the burden of having a bigger more expensive to sustain Bomber when the capability needed dictating the size could be offset on another cheaper platform (here the ADS is down leaving a non-stealthy bomber doing the mission)?

A C-130 1. can't carry a GBU-57, 2. can't deliver munitions to defended airspace, and 3. doesn't have the range.

There is no loss in capability but a notable increase.

There is no "notable increase" as any of these new weapons could also be carried by the B-2 and in higher numbers. By definition, if product B carries half as much as product A it has less capability.

 

[sferrin]

It seems likely that total ordnance carried compared to the B-2 will go down, at least in terms of weight. It seems to me so long as range and penetration ability is preserved, multiple aircraft could be used on a target were it necessary. There are few things that require 80 PGMs to engage, and presumably if such a mission were required two aircraft could cover it. In actual usage, the B-2s seem to travel in pairs. There also will be far more B-21s than there are B-2s, even if the minimum purchase is made. B-2s will likely be the first aircraft retired when B-21s come on line, as it is expensive to maintain and savings is maximized by retiring an entire aircraft type, and the B-2 is operated in the smallest numbers.

And provided you buy enough B-21s, and support them, to replace the lost capability that's fine. But let's not pretend one B-21 is as capable as one B-2.

 

[Josh_TN]

It seems a little early to presume anything, however given the age difference and what we know it seems likely the B-21 will be superior in every measurable way except for maximum payload.

 

[jsport]

Per other contributors comments. and put as simply as possible, it’s far to simplistic to think along the lines of “it’s not as big so it mustn’t be as good”....

in the end total volume delievered matters when it comes to bombing. So a jokish response.

 

[Josh_TN]

Total volume delivered successfully to the target set by the organization seems like a better metric. In which case absolute payload size is probably far less important than number of platforms, geographic separation of the target set, platform survival, and accuracy of delivery. Against targets spread across a wider area, a larger number of platforms clearly can service the target set more quickly with less risk. For targets closely spaced, more platforms can be concentrated. Your focus on payload at the platform level seems a little simplistic, especially considering the comparatively small carrying capacity of the total available force of 20 airframes.

 

[jsport]

Minus the mombo jumbo. The larger the payload volumn the more bombs can be carried. How simple is that.
Much like the the F-35 was the wrong answer so is the B-21.

 

[Josh_TN]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

 

[jsport]

As long standoff may be requiredd for defeating evolving IADS a C-5 size craft with ever cheaper large cruise missiles might well be a option. MTI tgts, fixed DMPIs and IADS may mix so completely one can only engage in deteremnce all at once. Many large msle/muntions deleivered as close to simultaaneous as possible. The B-21 is so far from that.

For availble resources, the only craft approaching practical is a replacement for BUFF and Bone like payloads.

 

[jsport]

The "capability" is the ability to engaged large numbers of MTI tgts but more importantly huge numbers of hardened DMPIs amoungest a distributed and increasing deadly (at longer ranges (up to 1000miles)) IADS and within a short time period . That these numbers of tgts both moving and as well as hardened stationary tgts across the Asian landmass are going to be engaged in some sort detering manner is like the furher promising wonder weapons winning WWII. .am a great fan of energetics miniaturizing muntions is great but way too few tgts will be effectively engaged.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/garm/wednesday/canaday.pdf

see previous as stated,

 

[Josh_TN]

You seem to assume that:

1). The B-21 will be ineffective at evading IADS

2). all target sets can be serviced adequately by aircraft carrying 2000+ lb class weapons costing ~ $1,000,000 (as in AGM-158B) at the low end and larger weapons of greater expense (AGM-183) at the high end.

On these points we will disagree.

I suspect the B-2 will have a significantly lower RCS compared to the B-2: more modern materials, smaller size, superior shaping (no ‘saw tooth’ tail, recessed engine inlets). It also likely will have very capable ESM and ECM systems, the latter of which will be greatly helped by the overall low RCS. I also assume that against a peer opponent IADS (Rusisa, China) it will not attempt to engage targets in a vacuum. There will supporting jamming platforms in the form of UAVs as well as supporting fires in the form of hypersonics. It seems also possible, even likely, that the B-21 will retain bays separate from its primary offensive armament for self-defense weapons (SiAW, AIM-260, or one of the more futuristic DARPA projects). Furthermore, if large low RCS bombers are not going to be effective, someone definitely forgot to tell the PLA-AF.

I also question whether launching large expensive long range standoff weapons is going to be a cost effective way of handling all target sets. Surely the intent isn’t to expend a AGM-158B class weapon against individual vehicles? (I’ll also note that the 158A variant that is most of the inventory at the moment is entirely too short ranged for the platform you are proposing). I suspect most Russian and Chinese MBTs and APCs are less expensive than a JASSM.

 

[jsport]

never close to questioning, stealth, small muntions, dew defense etc... but there is just way too many tgts across way to wide a spanse to ever meet the DMPI demands.

Super survival is not numbers of tgts engaged. Fewer aircraft can have whatever defensive system overwhelmed and anti-munitions like AHEAD rd which enage the PGM/msle directly which has been exhaustivly argued on this forum negate what they deliver anyway. Thus the need for guns on planes, a different thread.

Wide body w/.CMs was only used as an analogy for the huge amount of tgts which need to be engaged and at range.

Numbers of MTIs needing engagement go up by orders of magnitiude when lower capability mobile AAA guns join the defense of critical targets which AHEAD rds facilitates for instance.

Total numbers of tgts renders small bombers like the Raider just that, simply a Raider, not a decisive implement of deterence,

 

[flateric]

Like with any other military aircraft, weapons load is always not only a question of design abilities, but also question of a rationale. You can lost one big bomber that carry 12 alcms at once, but of two smaller with just six missiles, one can survive and accomplish the mission.

 

[sferrin]

It seems a little early to presume anything, however given the age difference and what we know it seems likely the B-21 will be superior in every measurable way except for maximum payload.

That's never been in question.

 

[sferrin]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

Hardly. What's moronic is exercising Olympic level mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince anybody the B-21 will be as capable as a B-2. It won't be. Ever. That said, what they are likely looking for is a capability. If that is achieved with double the number of B-21s to replace the B-2 so be it. Again, fleet capability has never been the issue.

 

[Josh_TN]

My post was in response to jsport who has a very different opinion concerning fleet capability.

 

[kaiserd]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

Hardly. What's moronic is exercising Olympic level mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince anybody the B-21 will be as capable as a B-2. It won't be. Ever. That said, what they are likely looking for is a capability. If that is achieved with double the number of B-21s to replace the B-2 so be it. Again, fleet capability has never been the issue.

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?

 

[jsport]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

Hardly. What's moronic is exercising Olympic level mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince anybody the B-21 will be as capable as a B-2. It won't be. Ever. That said, what they are likely looking for is a capability. If that is achieved with double the number of B-21s to replace the B-2 so be it. Again, fleet capability has never been the issue.

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?
Or maybe realism can never compete with 30 year-old Cold War fan-boy fantasy.

Refering to members of this forum as 'fan boys" is offensive and condesending and should not be allowed.

 

[jsport]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

Hardly. What's moronic is exercising Olympic level mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince anybody the B-21 will be as capable as a B-2. It won't be. Ever. That said, what they are likely looking for is a capability. If that is achieved with double the number of B-21s to replace the B-2 so be it. Again, fleet capability has never been the issue.

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?
Or maybe realism can never compete with 30 year-old Cold War fan-boy fantasy.

Speaking of fantasy, how does one know wht a B-21 wil cost in the end? Oh they dont, just blab.

 

[sferrin]

By your metric, the ideal aircraft would be a C-5. Some ‘mombo jumbo’ is required in order to make a program specification that isn’t moronic in its simplicity.

Hardly. What's moronic is exercising Olympic level mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince anybody the B-21 will be as capable as a B-2. It won't be. Ever. That said, what they are likely looking for is a capability. If that is achieved with double the number of B-21s to replace the B-2 so be it. Again, fleet capability has never been the issue.

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?
Or maybe realism can never compete with 30 year-old Cold War fan-boy fantasy.

Refering to members of this forum as 'fan boys" is offensive and condesending and should not be allowed.

If he wasn't condescending and offensive what would he have to say?

 

[fredymac]

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?
Or maybe realism can never compete with 30 year-old Cold War fan-boy fantasy.

A B-21 sized equivalent to the existing B-2 would also have a higher availability and sortie rate along with reduced support costs. The B-2 program was terminated as a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It forced the entire R&D and production costs to be amortized across just 21 aircraft which resulted in the always mentioned $2Billion unit cost.

B-2 payload history means the worst case scenario for which it was designed has been avoided. Not that the worst case scenario is no longer valid. You can also say since the B-2 has never operationally carried a nuclear payload so that means such a requirement is no longer applicable.

The B-21 program seems to have centered on an acquisition strategy of keeping the unit cost below $400M. That in turn set the size and hence capability of the aircraft. The 30 year old Cold War fantasies which drove the B-2 design requirements are making a comeback although shrunk down to meet political acceptability.

 

[Jeb]

As long standoff may be requiredd for defeating evolving IADS a C-5 size craft with ever cheaper large cruise missiles might well be a option.

Or an Ohio-class SSGN surfacing just long enough to ripple off a few dozen (or more) Tomahawks...

Wars aren't only fought with air-launched weapons.

 

[jsport]

As long standoff may be requiredd for defeating evolving IADS a C-5 size craft with ever cheaper large cruise missiles might well be a option.

Or an Ohio-class SSGN surfacing just long enough to ripple off a few dozen (or more) Tomahawks...

Wars aren't only fought with air-launched weapons.

Sub uberalles yes, but technology for sub hunting over wide spanses of ocean is getting more and more effective. Particualr mixes of muntions are need for dealing w/ particular mixes of threats, something a single sortie Lrg Bomber could del w/ especially w. all the new muntions.

Additionally reloading a submarine is more of pain than a surface ship.

A larger bomber could well house a deep magazine, Defensive DEW which affords the plane near imperviousness. The Raider is not large enough for a deep magazine DEW AND enough muntions, one or the other. Raider might be a DEW escort ship.

 

[jsport]

So bigger must be better?
So what if the B-21 has better offensive and defensive systems, as seems highly likely?
What happens if the B-21 has much higher availability and sortie rate, as would it almost have to have given the B-2 issues in this regard?
What if the B-2 seldom was almost never used in combat with anywhere near it’s maximum weapon load payload, as is the case, with weapon payloads equivalent to that carried by the B-21 being the norm?
What if the B-2 cost so much (both directly and re: support) that a large purchase was always unlikely and that the B-21 is at least affordable enough (to buy and support) to replace current B-1s and B-2s on a roughly 1-1 basis (or considerably more B-21s dependent on how the project goes)?
Or maybe realism can never compete with 30 year-old Cold War fan-boy fantasy.

A B-21 sized equivalent to the existing B-2 would also have a higher availability and sortie rate along with reduced support costs. The B-2 program was terminated as a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It forced the entire R&D and production costs to be amortized across just 21 aircraft which resulted in the always mentioned $2Billion unit cost.

B-2 payload history means the worst case scenario for which it was designed has been avoided. Not that the worst case scenario is no longer valid. You can also say since the B-2 has never operationally carried a nuclear payload so that means such a requirement is no longer applicable.

The B-21 program seems to have centered on an acquisition strategy of keeping the unit cost below $400M. That in turn set the size and hence capability of the aircraft. The 30 year old Cold War fantasies which drove the B-2 design requirements are making a comeback although shrunk down to meet political acceptability.

If the plan is "an acquisition strategy of keeping the unit cost below $400M." buy super guns and interceptors to protect them.

 

[TomS]

Or an Ohio-class SSGN surfacing just long enough to ripple off a few dozen (or more) Tomahawks...

Why would it surface to fire Tomahawks? They're meant for submerged launch.

 

[Josh_TN]

It would be interesting to see, or someday possibly know, the MTOW and ordnance loads of H-20 and PAK-DA (assuming the latter comes to pass, which seemed unlikely before and seems exceedingly unlikely now with oil racing to sub $20 a barrel). I would love to know the payload capacity the Russians and Chinese are envisioning for their projects, especially in the PLA-AF case since it seems unlikely they have engines that equal Russian efficiency, let alone US manufacturers.

It’s also interesting that both of those powers are going down the manned stealth strategic bomber route, despite dedicating weapons to engaging such targets and having no previous experience in this size and shape of aircraft. Particularly in the Russian case, it seems like they have little resources to spare and would be better served by one of their numerous strategic missile programs (IMO too numerous given their resources).

In the Chinese case it seems weird to go down that road when the US has forgot about more stealth bomber tech than they likely know, but on the other hand they can absolutely afford it and a lot of their major strategic platforms seem more efforts in mastering technology and doctrine and less about deployment of truly useful platforms. When it comes to bombers, carriers, and ballistic missile submarines they are understandably learning to crawl before they run.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Similar to how the B-2 has classified systems aboard to help it penetrate an IADS, the B-21 will too. That's what matters and something we can't really discuss due to unavailability of information. You just have to trust our leadership is making the right decision (and I'm fairly confident they are). We will need the B-21, in massive numbers, to help check China in the SCS and across the world. That's not an option right now with the B-2.

 

[jsport]

Similar to how the B-2 has classified systems aboard to help it penetrate an IADS, the B-21 will too. That's what matters and something we can't really discuss due to unavailability of information. You just have to trust our leadership is making the right decision (and I'm fairly confident they are). We will need the B-21, in massive numbers, to help check China in the SCS and across the world. That's not an option right now with the B-2.

Who was arguing effectiveness of defense aids? Arguing the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required?
If u trust the "revovling door" from Gov to industry allowed in the DoD u are living in a dream, clearly noone is paying attention to what sizes and amounts of munitions/missiles need to deleivered in short order.
It is way too expensive to build massive numbers of B-21s. Sustained SEAD against a near future distributed IADS may require something altogether in the first place in the era of advanced counter stealth and counter-munitions.

 

[In_A_Dream]

g effectiveness of defense aids? Arguing the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required?
If u trust the "revovling door" from Gov to industry allowed in the DoD u are living in a dream, clearly noone is paying attention to what sizes and amounts of munitions/missiles need to deleivered in short order.
It is way too expensive to build massive numbers of B-21s. Sustained SEAD against a near future distributed IADS may require something altogether in the first place in the era of advanced counter stealth and counter-munitions.

Maybe, maybe not. The B-21 is said to use already existing tech (F-35, perhaps RQ-180?) to help drive down production costs. That was the point of not going after the super expensive, "bleeding edge" platforms for the next bomber with difficult to estimate costs.

 

[jsport]

g effectiveness of defense aids? Arguing the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required?
If u trust the "revovling door" from Gov to industry allowed in the DoD u are living in a dream, clearly noone is paying attention to what sizes and amounts of munitions/missiles need to deleivered in short order.
It is way too expensive to build massive numbers of B-21s. Sustained SEAD against a near future distributed IADS may require something altogether in the first place in the era of advanced counter stealth and counter-munitions.

Maybe, maybe not. The B-21 is said to use already existing tech (F-35, perhaps RQ-180?) to help drive down production costs. That was the point of not going after the super expensive, "bleeding edge" platforms for the next bomber with difficult to estimate costs.

the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required. NG cannot produce enough of them to meet the mission even if costs are lower. Why is large "super expensive, "bleeding edge""? ..repeating over and over where is the Bone an Buff replacement given the limited resources?

 

[Sundog]

the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required. NG cannot produce enough of them to meet the mission even if costs are lower. Why is large "super expensive, "bleeding edge""? ..repeating over and over where is the Bone an Buff replacement given the limited resources?

The B-21 does not have limited volume for the mission required. It has exactly the right of amount set forth by the USAF mission requirements for the B-21. Once again, I get that most people don't understand this, the plane is designed to the mission, not the other way around. The B-21 is the size it is, because that's what the mission requirements, as set forth by the USAF, required. It is the only aircraft that will meet those requirements. If other aircraft could met those requirements, they wouldn't need the B-21.

 

[sferrin]

The B-21 does not have limited volume for the mission required. It has exactly the right of amount set forth by the USAF mission requirements for the B-21. Once again, I get that most people don't understand this, the plane is designed to the mission, not the other way around. The B-21 is the size it is, because that's what the mission requirements, as set forth by the USAF, required. It is the only aircraft that will meet those requirements. If other aircraft could met those requirements, they wouldn't need the B-21.

I think people understand it just fine. The point is the requirement doesn't demand a B-2's payload. That doesn't change the fact that a B-21 can't deliver the same amount of payload as a B-2. The initial claim was that the B-21 doesn't lose capability in relation to the B-2. That is demonstrably false. That it isn't required to have as much capability as the B-2 doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.

 

[Foo Fighter]

What is the expected airframe life of the B2 and is it even close to that?

 

[kitnut617]

Of course, all this arguing is assuming the B-21 is smaller than the B-2. All we've had so far, is armchair experts saying that it is. If I was in charge of security for the project, what better way for a cover is to go along with it, even to the extent of 'leaking' a couple of dubious images ------ what I'm saying is none of you actually know ----

 

[sferrin]

Of course, all this arguing is assuming the B-21 is smaller than the B-2. All we've had so far, is armchair experts saying that it is. If I was in charge of security for the project, what better way for a cover is to go along with it, even to the extent of 'leaking' a couple of dubious images ------ what I'm saying is none of you actually know ----

I believe it's already been stated it's a twin engine aircraft.

 

[jsport]

the B-21 has limited internal volumn for the missions required. NG cannot produce enough of them to meet the mission even if costs are lower. Why is large "super expensive, "bleeding edge""? ..repeating over and over where is the Bone an Buff replacement given the limited resources?

The B-21 does not have limited volume for the mission required. It has exactly the right of amount set forth by the USAF mission requirements for the B-21. Once again, I get that most people don't understand this, the plane is designed to the mission, not the other way around. The B-21 is the size it is, because that's what the mission requirements, as set forth by the USAF, required. It is the only aircraft that will meet those requirements. If other aircraft could met those requirements, they wouldn't need the B-21.

Surely ur joking. Mission reuirements oh must survive until cruise missiles from submarines attempt the job , and are mostly shot down. A Pacific campaign lost.

Even if MRs are set out they must be hedged. The deliverly of timely volumns even w. small munitions/missiles not sufficient Likewise
21 will not be able to dwell unmanned in order to accomplish SEAD against a distributed IADS over space and time. These MRs must be hedged.

 

[NeilChapman]

The B-21 does not have limited volume for the mission required. It has exactly the right of amount set forth by the USAF mission requirements for the B-21. Once again, I get that most people don't understand this, the plane is designed to the mission, not the other way around. The B-21 is the size it is, because that's what the mission requirements, as set forth by the USAF, required. It is the only aircraft that will meet those requirements. If other aircraft could met those requirements, they wouldn't need the B-21.

I think people understand it just fine. The point is the requirement doesn't demand a B-2's payload. That doesn't change the fact that a B-21 can't deliver the same amount of payload as a B-2. The initial claim was that the B-21 doesn't lose capability in relation to the B-2. That is demonstrably false. That it isn't required to have as much capability as the B-2 doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.

Neither does the B-2 have the capability of the B-21.

The B-2 shortly will not have the capability to penetrate A2/AD, release munitions and return. B-21 will. B-2 is not as capable.
The B-2 fleet does not have very high mission-capable rate. B-21 will be new. B-2 fleet is not as capable.
The B-2 fleet was not designed with an open architecture. B-21 was. B-2 is not as capable.

Why are we having this discussion? Regardless other factors, has not the decision been financial? The USAF will not support four bomber platforms. There are a handful of B-2's. The are incredibly expensive to maintain and operate. Two stealth bombers are not required. There is no other outcome possible.

B-21 to B-2: Can't fly, fight, or crow.
B-2 to B21: 2:35 You are the Pan.

 

[NeilChapman]

Any word on whether C-19 has halted production for B-21?