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

[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.

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.

I would prefer the B-21 do ALL things better (or at least not lose capability, yes Virginia, payload is part of capability) rather than just some things. By your rational the FB-111 was a better bomber than the B-52.

 

[totoro]

But there's always a trade off. Even if the new plane was able to better the old one in every single technical area - it would absolutely pay the price in financial terms. Such a plane would be so expensive that it's questionable if the program would even go anywhere.
FB-111 isn't a better bomber than B-52 for most missions, but it is better in some missions. If you wanted to deliver a nuclear bomb or perform a precision conventional bomb strike on a target in late cold war European theater up to a certain range (and there were plenty of such targets in East Germany, Poland etc) then FB-111 absolutely had a better chance of pulling it off.

Similarly, I don't think US is seeing B-21 to be just a strategic bomber. I feel they will disperse part of the strategic role to other parts of the network (various missiles), accept slight loss of efficiency in some areas to strategic bomber missions (primarily payload and to a much lesser extent range) and add so many more capabilities. Including having B-21 performing missions that would have been performed by FB-111 in late Cold war. In a sense, B-21 may turn out to be a more tactical bomber than any of the current trio of US bombers. But that doesn't mean it won't retain most of the strategic bomber capabilities.

 

[flateric]

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 ----

What qualifies you to judge who is armchair experts (so AWST staff are armchair experts) or not? So far it's you who seriously discussing two afterburner F135s on supersonic B-21 do look like school age armchair expert with zero knowledge basis and analytics skills.

 

[sferrin]

But there's always a trade off. Even if the new plane was able to better the old one in every single technical area - it would absolutely pay the price in financial terms.

Not necessarily. A B-2 constructed with modern methods and materials but off the shelf engines, avionics, sensors, landing gear, etc. would be superior to the existing B-2 in every regard and not break the bank. I think they wanted to raise the survivability bar even higher than what that would get you though, and are paying for it through sacrificed payload (which has the knock-on effect of reducing size, weight, power requirements, fuel, etc. etc. etc., making it cheaper).

 

[jsport]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

 

[flateric]

B-2 is not as capable and it's not classified because all we know what happen to DMS-M efforts.

 

[jsport]

But there's always a trade off. Even if the new plane was able to better the old one in every single technical area - it would absolutely pay the price in financial terms.

Not necessarily. A B-2 constructed with modern methods and materials but off the shelf engines, avionics, sensors, landing gear, etc. would be superior to the existing B-2 in every regard and not break the bank. I think they wanted to raise the survivability bar even higher than what that would get you though, and are paying for it through sacrificed payload (which has the knock-on effect of reducing size, weight, power requirements, fuel, etc. etc. etc., making it cheaper).

Given the accelerating counter-stealth technologies a smaller plane is an idea from more thn 10 yrs go and certainly takes ya backward in contemporary context.

 

[jsport]

B-2 is not as capable and it's not classified because all we know what happen to DMS-M efforts.

If the contractor can't get it right the first time how can they be trusted the second (B-21)?

 

[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 ----

What qualifies you to judge who is armchair experts (so AWST staff are armchair experts) or not? So far it's you who seriously discussing two afterburner F135s on supersonic B-21 do look like school age armchair expert with zero knowledge basis and analytics skills.

I just see a lot of the members here who are just like me, all opinionating about subjects which are on the highly secret list (or should be) and not in the business of aircraft manufacturing. Are you involved with the B-21 program then? I can remember all the talk about the F-117 and the B-2 before either was revealed and both came out something totally different.
But, although I'm speculating here, two F135's would provide the power for a aircraft the size of a B-2 for sure, but not the only way. But any number of the various high bypass with power over 35,000lbf would also work if you're worried about an afterburner engine.

 

[Sundog]

What's funny is, most of you arguing over what you thought the B-21 should be, don't realize you're not actually arguing about the B-21. What you're arguing about is USAF/Pentagon doctrine. If you want to understand the B-21 and it's capabilities, you'll have to inform yourselves regarding that doctrine and all of the vehicles operating within that doctrine.

However, I've been here long enough to know that that won't stop many from arguing over everything they don't know. :::shrugs:::

 

[flateric]

You should learn history a bit. Before ATB, ATF were revealed, USAF has released _official_ artist impressions of the trio. Before F-117A was revealed, Pentagon has released an official photo of the Nighthawk. While lacking some details, they were pretty accurate representation of the real vehicles.
First _official_ rendering of B-21 was revealed by USAF back in 2016. You don't need to have clearance to make 2+2 math or read some white world background info to come to certain conclusions about possible size of her weapons bay that basically dictates overall dimensions of aircraft. New renderings with two-wheel MLGs are important proof that B-21 going to be a smaller, lighter aircraft than B-2. PW9000 as LRS-B engine candidate was discussed at this forum long before 2016 but you just lazy to read it. You even don't know why high bypass engines a no-goers for a strategic bomber.

 

[sferrin]

What's funny is, most of you arguing over what you thought the B-21 should be, don't realize you're not actually arguing about the B-21. What you're arguing about is USAF/Pentagon doctrine. If you want to understand the B-21 and it's capabilities, you'll have to inform yourselves regarding that doctrine and all of the vehicles operating within that doctrine.

However, I've been here long enough to know that that won't stop many from arguing over everything they don't know. :::shrugs:::

Who's doing that?

 

[TomcatViP]

How would you know!?

 

[jsport]

What's funny is, most of you arguing over what you thought the B-21 should be, don't realize you're not actually arguing about the B-21. What you're arguing about is. If you want to understand the B-21 and it's capabilities, you'll have to inform yourselves regarding that doctrine and all of the vehicles operating within that doctrine.

However, I've been here long enough to know that that won't stop many from arguing over everything they don't know. :::shrugs:::

..worked in the Pent and under USD Acq .. What doctrine?
What ever a vendor pitches that day and whether the gov likes it enough to spend $ that day,.

Didn't some German general after WWII say the problem w/ fighting Americans is they dont follow their own doctrine.

 

[kitnut617]

. You even don't know why high bypass engines a no-goers for a strategic bomber.

I'm perfectly aware of why a high bypass isn't used on a B-52, but it could be masked if installed internally in an airframe like a B-2 has. A pair of LEAP-1B could fit in a B-2 easily.

 

[djfawcett]

. You even don't know why high bypass engines a no-goers for a strategic bomber.

I'm perfectly aware of why a high bypass isn't used on a B-52, but it could be masked if installed internally in an airframe like a B-2 has. A pair of LEAP-1B could fit in a B-2 easily.

Actually, high bypass ratio engines are very bad actors in the embedded configuration. A high bypass fan, for the most part, are very intolerant of distorted flow. Long serpentine ducts do not integrate well with high bypass fans. That is why you do not see embedded high bypass fans. Most of them are either medium (a few) or low (most) bypass fans.

 

[flateric]

Moreover, your reference to engine size is another example that you just didn't understand why high bypass turbofans are not optimal for bombers. Hint: compare operational ceilings of say 777 and B-2.

 

[jsport]

original B-2 contractor, is also the prime contractor on the next-generation B-21 bomber, so the company’s performance has drawn particular Pentagon scrutiny.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[kitnut617]

Moreover, your reference to engine size is another example that you just didn't understand why high bypass turbofans are not optimal for bombers. Hint: compare operational ceilings of say 777 and B-2.

From what I've read, there's not very much difference, 43,000 B777, up to 50,000 B-2 and B-2's have turbofans --- RB-57F over 60,000 --- it's not like turbofans can't work at these heights

 

[In_A_Dream]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

 

[NeilChapman]

This is a hoot.

I can tell that there are more people stuck at home with little to do!



Will someone tell Walden or Gen. Wilson that we're Jonesing for an update? The natives are getting restless and may begin eating their young soon.

 

[jsport]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

hey, relax, BTW for those who can read or pay attention (bloomberg post), neither has "better odds" at this point and may never. Oh. that is common knowledge.

 

[sferrin]

10,000 sheets of BW says it won't be able to carry 2 GBU-57s, or 80 500lb JDAMs. That's my only prediction. In it's wildest fantasies it will never do this:

 

[NeilChapman]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

hey, relax, BTW for those who can read or pay attention (bloomberg post), neither has "better odds" at this point and may never. Oh. that is common knowledge.

I've read the referenced article. There is nothing here the references B-21 other than the manufacturer.

To what "better odds" common knowledge re B-21 are you referring?

 

[NeilChapman]

10,000 sheets of BW says it won't be able to carry 2 GBU-57s, or 80 500lb JDAMs. That's my only prediction. In it's wildest fantasies it will never do this:

Love those videos.

Seems reasonable to me that the USAF probably had performance requirements that necessitated the smaller size using tech currently available.

 

[jsport]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

hey, relax, BTW for those who can read or pay attention (bloomberg post), neither has "better odds" at this point and may never. Oh. that is common knowledge.

I've read the referenced article. There is nothing here the references B-21 other than the manufacturer.

To what "better odds" common knowledge re B-21 are you referring?

We must not be reading the same article. No dms-m no successful mission.

 

[NeilChapman]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

hey, relax, BTW for those who can read or pay attention (bloomberg post), neither has "better odds" at this point and may never. Oh. that is common knowledge.

I've read the referenced article. There is nothing here the references B-21 other than the manufacturer.

To what "better odds" common knowledge re B-21 are you referring?

We must not be reading the same article. No dms-m no successful mission.

Or perhaps we're reading the same article differently.

As I read it, the difficulty referenced is the ability to modernize the B-2 DMS. The problem is that the USAF, rightly, wants to use modern software techniques. The B-2 DMS was not designed using modern software techniques. Therein is the rub. It's worth noting that the B-2 DMS never did work as envisioned. That's why missions were executed the way they were. This is publicly available information.

However, B-21 will be equipped with the latest sensors so that it can, independently or cooperatively, discern the battlefield threat and tactical decisions may be made in real-time. Think of how F-35 determines what threats are in its path. Additionally, B-21 was developed using an open architecture so the 'B-2 DMS upgrade problem' will not be a future problem for B-21.

So I'm not understanding how you draw the conclusion that "neither" the B-2 nor B-21 will have better odds when

1. the B-21 is clearly not referenced in the article you referenced and
2. the B-21 has an open architecture for software upgrades

 

[jsport]

To NeilChapman
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. That would be classifed so you have no basis for such an assertion.

LOL, relax. To make an assertion that a legacy stealth platform won't stay formidable against a modern IADs and that a more contemporary stealth platform would have better odds is hardly disclosing classified information, it's common sense.

hey, relax, BTW for those who can read or pay attention (bloomberg post), neither has "better odds" at this point and may never. Oh. that is common knowledge.

I've read the referenced article. There is nothing here the references B-21 other than the manufacturer.

To what "better odds" common knowledge re B-21 are you referring?

We must not be reading the same article. No dms-m no successful mission.

Or perhaps we're reading the same article differently.

As I read it, the difficulty referenced is the ability to modernize the B-2 DMS. The problem is that the USAF, rightly, wants to use modern software techniques. The B-2 DMS was not designed using modern software techniques. Therein is the rub. It's worth noting that the B-2 DMS never did work as envisioned. That's why missions were executed the way they were. This is publicly available information.

However, B-21 will be equipped with the latest sensors so that it can, independently or cooperatively, discern the battlefield threat and tactical decisions may be made in real-time. Think of how F-35 determines what threats are in its path. Additionally, B-21 was developed using an open architecture so the 'B-2 DMS upgrade problem' will not be a future problem for B-21.

So I'm not understanding how you draw the conclusion that "neither" the B-2 nor B-21 will have better odds when

1. the B-21 is clearly not referenced in the article you referenced and
2. the B-21 has an open architecture for software upgrades

from original Bloomberg article
original B-2 contractor, is also the prime contractor on the next-generation B-21 bomber, so the company’s performance has drawn particular Pentagon scrutiny.

Not sure how many times one has to quote this. It is getting old. The Bloom article mentions availablilty of programmers and conflicting sub contractors schedules for DMS. .so why would this not be the same for the 21? Some magic happens?

If open arch is the issue just replace all w OA on all 2s as mentioned by another contributor. Build more Spirits which can at least deliver more ordnance. Point of this thread is the Raider is just that, a raider as it doesnot carry enough internal stores to begin to do the JOB.

..bettin the evolving threat complexity against stealth will be rendering defensive measures largely and increasingly obsolete in the next two decades and one would have to beleive that is a serious question being asked in particular corners. Which contractor would release that problem to the public?

Sensors capability especially ESM and even MTI/SAR evolves constantly rendering decision making software based on sensors a fluid problem ie may never really be solvable for either craft.

If the new software includes AI then the problems all types of AI adds to the complexity again . There are numerous AI problems- bias, incomplete answers, answers chocked full of serious errors thus rendering software support stealth penetration even more problematic and complex going into the future..

The idea that a serious competitor which would like to see the NG fail is in fact a subcontractor for DMS is alarming in itself. A certain contractor would be fine if more fighters were purchased and the bomber thing go away all together.
so will exclaim again not sure if the 21 or the 2 defensive measure systems will ever be up to snnuff.

 

[NeilChapman]

Or perhaps we're reading the same article differently.

As I read it, the difficulty referenced is the ability to modernize the B-2 DMS. The problem is that the USAF, rightly, wants to use modern software techniques. The B-2 DMS was not designed using modern software techniques. Therein is the rub. It's worth noting that the B-2 DMS never did work as envisioned. That's why missions were executed the way they were. This is publicly available information.

However, B-21 will be equipped with the latest sensors so that it can, independently or cooperatively, discern the battlefield threat and tactical decisions may be made in real-time. Think of how F-35 determines what threats are in its path. Additionally, B-21 was developed using an open architecture so the 'B-2 DMS upgrade problem' will not be a future problem for B-21.

So I'm not understanding how you draw the conclusion that "neither" the B-2 nor B-21 will have better odds when

1. the B-21 is clearly not referenced in the article you referenced and
2. the B-21 has an open architecture for software upgrades

original B-2 contractor, is also the prime contractor on the next-generation B-21 bomber, so the company’s performance has drawn particular Pentagon scrutiny.
Not sure how many times one has to quote this. It is getting old. Issues such as availablilty of programmers and conflicting sub contractors schedules are mentioned.

Complexity for this new threat environment may well have worsened. Which contractor would release that problem to the public? Sensors capability evolves constantly rendering decision making software based on sensors a fluid problem for instance.

If the new software includes AI then ongoing tests of all types of AI showing that they displays bias, incomplete answers, are chocked full of serious errors could well make software support stealth penetration even of a worse problem.

The idea that a serious competetor which would like to see the 21 fail is a subcontractor for DMS is alarming in itself. A certain contractor would be fine if more figters were purchased and the bomber thing go away all together.

Why not rewire B-2 w an open architecture as mentioned by another contributor and build more Spirits if software is the only problem. Point of this thread is the Raider is just that a raider as it does carry enough internal stores to the JOB. These platitudes you present are not convincing.

Scrutiny is DoD's job. It doesn't carry a negative connotation. I'm confident that DoD has clear insight into the issues involved. It's always possible that some 'cover' is being given NG because of B-21. We'll have to wait and see.

I've seen no reporting for some of the assertions you are making regarding AI problems etc.

I see no reason to believe that any subcontractor would sabotage a system for B-2 or B-21 if that's what you're suggesting. NG builds major portions of F-35. It's normal for competitors to collaborate on programs.

"Rewiring" B-2 for a completely different software architecture does not seem to have been on the table. The plan looks as though the DMS-M was the program and software integration proved to be more complex than anticipated.

I believe building more Spirits would be like building more F-22's; pointless when the requirements and tech have changed so dramatically.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm confident more information will become available over time and we'll get a better handle on the decision making process.

 

[jsport]

Or perhaps we're reading the same article differently.

As I read it, the difficulty referenced is the ability to modernize the B-2 DMS. The problem is that the USAF, rightly, wants to use modern software techniques. The B-2 DMS was not designed using modern software techniques. Therein is the rub. It's worth noting that the B-2 DMS never did work as envisioned. That's why missions were executed the way they were. This is publicly available information.

However, B-21 will be equipped with the latest sensors so that it can, independently or cooperatively, discern the battlefield threat and tactical decisions may be made in real-time. Think of how F-35 determines what threats are in its path. Additionally, B-21 was developed using an open architecture so the 'B-2 DMS upgrade problem' will not be a future problem for B-21.

So I'm not understanding how you draw the conclusion that "neither" the B-2 nor B-21 will have better odds when

1. the B-21 is clearly not referenced in the article you referenced and
2. the B-21 has an open architecture for software upgrades

original B-2 contractor, is also the prime contractor on the next-generation B-21 bomber, so the company’s performance has drawn particular Pentagon scrutiny.
Not sure how many times one has to quote this. It is getting old. Issues such as availablilty of programmers and conflicting sub contractors schedules are mentioned.

Complexity for this new threat environment may well have worsened. Which contractor would release that problem to the public? Sensors capability evolves constantly rendering decision making software based on sensors a fluid problem for instance.

If the new software includes AI then ongoing tests of all types of AI showing that they displays bias, incomplete answers, are chocked full of serious errors could well make software support stealth penetration even of a worse problem.

The idea that a serious competetor which would like to see the 21 fail is a subcontractor for DMS is alarming in itself. A certain contractor would be fine if more figters were purchased and the bomber thing go away all together.

Why not rewire B-2 w an open architecture as mentioned by another contributor and build more Spirits if software is the only problem. Point of this thread is the Raider is just that a raider as it does carry enough internal stores to the JOB. These platitudes you present are not convincing.

Scrutiny is DoD's job. It doesn't carry a negative connotation. I'm confident that DoD has clear insight into the issues involved. It's always possible that some 'cover' is being given NG because of B-21. We'll have to wait and see.

I've seen no reporting for some of the assertions you are making regarding AI problems etc.

I see no reason to believe that any subcontractor would sabotage a system for B-2 or B-21 if that's what you're suggesting. NG builds major portions of F-35. It's normal for competitors to collaborate on programs.

"Rewiring" B-2 for a completely different software architecture does not seem to have been on the table. The plan looks as though the DMS-M was the program and software integration proved to be more complex than anticipated.

I believe building more Spirits would be like building more F-22's; pointless when the requirements and tech have changed so dramatically.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm confident more information will become available over time and we'll get a better handle on the decision making process.

The 21 does not carry enough. so a craft that actually replaces the Buff and the Bone needs to be a priority , The Spirit is closer to that goal. .and an upgraded F-22 w/ avionics upgrade of the F-35 w/ even better twin engines is not only not pointless but needs to be a priority. Twin engines are a big advantage only the F-22 has for the speed and maneuver needed. F-35 is a well known non replacement for F-15 and the A-10.

 

[In_A_Dream]

The 21 does not carry enough. so a craft that actually replaces the Buff and the Bone needs to be a priority , The Spirit is closer to that goal. .and an upgraded F-22 w/ avionics upgrade of the F-35 w/ even better twin engines is not only not pointless but needs to be a priority. Twin engines are a big advantage only the F-22 has for the speed and maneuver needed. F-35 is a well known non replacement for F-15 and the A-10.

I'd have to suggest for you to open your mind a little bit. Maybe the load for the B-21 was deemed adequate because it wouldn't be travelling alone into an IADS? What if there are other components to consider, say a loyal wingman bomber, that will be accompanying it? Remember what kind of technology is rumored to be in this thing. Have to take a step back and look at where we are, what we've been testing, and where we are going. And a point on the F-22, does our next AD fighter need to have a lot of speed and maneuverability when it'll be primarily be the central brain for UCAV wingmen? You could give up some of that. Our current concepts of battle are going to change.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I don’t see how building more B-2s now as hinted by some would be a viable or reasonable strategy. It’s also rather disingenuous to suggest that somehow software is the primary difference between the B-2 and B-21. Clearly, they are aiming at a level of stealth in the B-21 that’s well beyond what the B-2 can achieve. You can certainly argue that the B-21 lost capabilities in terms of payload over the B-2, but as an overall system the Raider has many other improvements that should make it much more effective.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Unfortunately, we also have to seriously consider the likelihood that the USAF/DOD have fouled up royally yet again.

 

[kaiserd]

Unfortunately, we also have to seriously consider the likelihood that the USAF/DOD have fouled up royally yet again.

I’m no great defender of or have much skin-in-the-game re: those institutions.
But much criticism above is unfocused and simplistic “I want it be bigger - like the B-2” variety, and it’s very much not clear what the USAF/ DOD is accused of getting wrong.
It probably all boiled down to some version of the USAF decision makers thinking to themselves “we want more than 20 of these, can we sacrifice a bit of payload we won’t really need/use for some cost reduction”.
Given the likely fiscal car crash after a terrible pandemic that decision has probably already saved the B-21.

 

[jsport]

Cost was pointed out some time ago (so redundant) and one could say others dont know what they are talking about as they look in the mirror.

 

[jsport]

The important thing that goes down from the previous generation of Stealth intercontinental bomber is the Weight. With a reduced T.O mass, you have less drag, hence more range. Then Planner will come to you with a mission range satisfying mission criteria and you can downsize the airframe to match that. Less size means even more weight & drag reduction. It then comes that you have a direct trade b/w payload and range where every pounds removed augments weight reduction, hence diminish airframe minimal size, reducing drag, leading to even more weight removed... hence the apparent penalty in range of downsizing.

The great inherent benefice with downsizing aside of acquisition cost (as discussed above) is also in the system design and CPFH. For example, the reduction on the number of engines will cut mass and a lot of complexity out of the design (especially with stealth), hence... (yes again) increases range.

Regarding what's the right size for the weapon bay, we have also to acknowledge that most weapon see mass and size reduction and that stealth is all about being in-range, reducing the need for bulky weapons fitted with range extensions (glide kit, rocket booster, sensor kit...).

It's then not surprising that the B-21 will be smaller. It would be however foolish to think that capability will go down.

since you went there , you have not answered sferrin yet on how less is somehow more?

 

[sferrin]

It's then not surprising that the B-21 will be smaller. It would be however foolish to think that capability will go down.

since you went there , you have not answered sferrin yet on how less is somehow more?

Still waiting myself.

 

[Josh_TN]

I can't believe people are still crying over payload. If you need more payload on one single target, ie 16 mk84s or 80 mk82s, send another plane. Which is in fact what B-2s do in practice, they run in pairs and as far as I can tell Kosovo is the only campaign where they might have actually dropped a full war load of sixteen weapons. Again, if you need more bombs, send more aircraft. The B-21 will be built in much larger numbers than the B-2, and presumably as a new aircraft with modern RAM materials will have much greater availability than the B-2's ~50%. If numerous weapons are needed per airframe, racks specifically for high capacity GBU-39/53 carriage could easily allow for 80+ weapons for large, dispersed target sets to serviced by a single aircraft. This is the last time I'll post on the payload subject; the argument is rather ridiculous compared to concerns about the over all capability and health of the program.

 

[jsport]

It is ridculous to argue for more operational risk, more lives, more money, more bombers because the payload sucks. You will not deliver sufficient payload as a deterent in the Pacfic. What part of do you not understand the need to replace the BONES and BUFFS and 2 in a world where phyisics matters. . There simply is not enough resource to pay for an endless bunch of small bombers which can only (Raid) for the millionth time, and not deliver a decisive deterent major conflict in the first sortie.
We know why.. cost. Cut corners and you lose.

If you havent read the Rand study on the projected PLA Pacific dominance numbers of targets and there incresing difficulty to neutralize we are wasting our time here. BTW .. not doing ur homework for u.

 

[TomcatViP]

The important thing that goes down from the previous generation of Stealth intercontinental bomber is the Weight. With a reduced T.O mass, you have less drag, hence more range. Then Planner will come to you with a mission range satisfying mission criteria and you can downsize the airframe to match that. Less size means even more weight & drag reduction. It then comes that you have a direct trade b/w payload and range where every pounds removed augments weight reduction, hence diminish airframe minimal size, reducing drag, leading to even more weight removed... hence the apparent penalty in range of downsizing.

The great inherent benefice with downsizing aside of acquisition cost (as discussed above) is also in the system design and CPFH. For example, the reduction on the number of engines will cut mass and a lot of complexity out of the design (especially with stealth), hence... (yes again) increases range.

Regarding what's the right size for the weapon bay, we have also to acknowledge that most weapon see mass and size reduction and that stealth is all about being in-range, reducing the need for bulky weapons fitted with range extensions (glide kit, rocket booster, sensor kit...).

It's then not surprising that the B-21 will be smaller. It would be however foolish to think that capability will go down.

since you went there , you have not answered sferrin yet on how less is somehow more?

I was simply confident that my vision of the problem had gone through. Let me rephrase it: you see more when I see less delivered on the target.

Just Imagine the Raider competing with a Galaxy (C-5), the 21 loose on the payload side at mission planning but win on the post mission debrief (except on the time spent where the Galaxy crew will zip through like on angel's wings....).

So, yes less is less: less death, less mission re-planning, a lower burden in term of logistics and way less money*. ..


*but let's admit that the C-5 will certainly come (and go) for cheap