Post - B-21 long range strike capability

NMaude said:
Not when payload consists of nuclear armed missiles, the W69 had a yield of 170 to 200KT.
Click to expand...

There was no bomber in U.S. service that had a payload that small, including FB-111. Certainly if the criticism of B-21 is payload, four weapons is hardly an improvement. With a sufficiently long enough bomb bay, ~26-28 feet, there is no reason a B-21 could not have a pair of PAL enabled SBRA and carry 32 bombs. If we assume LRSO is a 3000# weapon carried eight at a time like previous rotary launchers, 32 B-61s on a pair bomb racks should not take up much more weight, so long as the bay can accommodate 12’ weapons tip to tail.

GBU-38 is ~8 feet, so you might fit three racks of those. And I would be shocked if B-21 could not carry a hundred SDB of either type.

So you guys are really going to have to sell me on a super or hypersonic bomb truck.
 
Josh_TN said:
How much could the blackbird based bomber have carried?
Click to expand...
4x SRAM-As.



Josh_TN said:
Which is a pretty pitiful payload.
Click to expand...
Not really.

IIRC the usual FB-111 load was only 2x SRAMs. Yes, it could carry up to 6, but usually the wing pylons got fuel tanks.



Josh_TN said:
There was no bomber in U.S. service that had a payload that small, including FB-111. Certainly if the criticism of B-21 is payload, four weapons is hardly an improvement. With a sufficiently long enough bomb bay, ~26-28 feet, there is no reason a B-21 could not have a pair of PAL enabled SBRA and carry 32 bombs. If we assume LRSO is a 3000# weapon carried eight at a time like previous rotary launchers, 32 B-61s on a pair bomb racks should not take up much more weight, so long as the bay can accommodate 12’ weapons tip to tail.
Click to expand...
You cannot carry nukes as close together as conventional bombs, there's a neutron flux issue that will kill everyone in the area. Like the loaders and pilots.

Not to mention what loose neutrons will do to any electronics.

Yes, you can pack in a crapton of conventional explosives. A B-2 or B-21 only carries 8x nukes per bay.



Josh_TN said:
GBU-38 is ~8 feet, so you might fit three racks of those. And I would be shocked if B-21 could not carry a hundred SDB of either type.

So you guys are really going to have to sell me on a super or hypersonic bomb truck.
Click to expand...
A fast bomber would be doing things like SEAD/DEAD. Look at that picture again, 500nmi and 200nmi cross-range with an SRAM.

What's SA5 engagement envelope again? S400?
 
If you are starting a new program for a bomber now, you basically plan for 2035 as the earliest possible IOC date. At that point China will almost certainly have hypersonic anti aircraft weapons, be they ground or air launched. I personally think the U.S. HACM will have that capability against targets with low speed and maneuverability, or anything willing to to fly directly in a straight line regardless of speed. I also think the U.S. will be able to easily detect hypersonic, or even supersonic, bombers via satellite inside a few years and that China will quickly be able to duplicate that.

If we are talking about global detection and hypersonics with hundreds, or even thousof miles of range, I think big expensive bombers no longer work unless their payloads outrages opponents AD. And a supersonic bomber is going to be more expensive than a B-21 if you want anything close to the same payload.

I do not see the technological argument for a future supersonic or hypersonic heavy bomber. If anything, I would opt for an unmanned ISR/strike platform capable of attacking a number of soft targets with a small payload of numerous micro PGMs. But I think a B-1 or SR-71 sized platform is just far too expensive in an environment where it likely is tracked as soon as it accelerates.
 
Time to throw a cat amongst the pigeons:
df-st-83-08537-jpeg-jpg.76906
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom