Current plan is to have the B-52 stick around till the 2050s. Possible longer. Agreed on the fact that a B-52 replacement would need to be a new program whether that is for the 2050 timeframe or sooner.
Probably, A low rcs design supersonic bomber, kinda like bigger bigger b1, or russian tu160 swan.
Given that B-52 replacement in that role exists (B-1) I don't think reinventing the wheel is particularly necessary, at least in terms of the solution space. A modern implementation of the B-1 concept, maybe sized a bit better (three equal length bomb bays, for example) seems reasonable as at least a B-1 replacement (I see no particular reason to replace the B-52 outside of attrition, especially if we can keep them flying with boneyard spares / regenerate some from the boneyard to grow the fleet). 24 internal ALCM is pretty solid, and the high speed sprint + stand off makes it quite annoying to shoot the archer, while the range makes it harder to narrow down which bearings need fighters.
I wonder if something like this could do the B-1Bs mission. 4 F135s or 4 NGAP engines:
Emmmmm except for the B-1B not carrying more long range standoff weapons internally than the B-21 (only 8 if we are looking at anything longer than 4.5 meters in length, since it has to combine the front two bays, and the rear bay is not long enough), not much faster than the B-21 even in dash mode (M1.25), and probably has a much shorter range… I think it is reasonable to discuss whether a high speed standoff bomber is needed, but B-1Bs are probably just not the ones to compare with… I am pretty sure they are mainly built for low altitude penetration with stand-in weapons (SRAM), not stand-off missions…
How many LRASM/JASSM can the B-21 carry? Still 8. B-1B? 24.
This is a NG concept, the NG STAV concept is similar but with no vertical tails. High-speed theater attack.
That is a very interesting design choice indeed. It seems that the payload bay design of the B-1B is uniquely suited to 2000lbs class weapons that the bombers before or after it are not designed for. B-52 can also only carry 8 JASSM/LRASMs internally, while B-2 essentially carries double everything compared with B-21. For any other size class the difference is much smaller (2*SBRA = 40 500lbs class weapons for the B-21, while the B-1B carries 16*3 = 48 on rotary launchers).
Totally, I would expect half of B-2 to be a baseline though. It might very well be carrying more.
Considering there was a plan to somehow carry 192 SDBs in the B-2, I would consider the maximum number of SDBs carried to be at least 96 for the B-21.
I mean its a logical choice for a future secondary bomber.
Personally I would want analysis on the impact of fixed vs swing wings on alert scramble (whether for nuclear alert or because a bunch of DF-26 are heading for Guam) and cruise performance but I'm remarkably ambivalent about what it actually ends up looking like
Wasn't there also an LAP study/proposal? Basically high speed, low altitude flight, similar to what the B-1B was supposed to do?
Probably better, but that would require a new design program starting now. More or less.
They have to be informed, but there are closed sessions.
Except it originally had a removable bulkhead up front. If they really wanted to, that could be made removable again and you could stick the 8-round cruise missile launcher up there and still have the aft bay for something else. And still have 8 external hard points.
And probably would have had much less range and payload.
Can you link the document that this is from?
Except giving me my 8% GDP defense spending apparently.
I found it on the SDF like a year ago and saved it. I can look if I find the link to the specific post.
This was one of the Northrop proposed alternate high-speed, low-altitude options back at the beginnings of the ATB program. Hence the B-2 was re-designed to add the additional inboard elevons for low altitude missions which it has not to date and will not ever fly.
Well yes, carrying 4.5m+ munitions (basically 6m class ALCM/LRSO) internally would be impossible without the removable/relocatable bulkhead between the front two bays, so I always counted them in…? Even with the two front bays combined, the B-1B only carries 8 of those munitions internally, which is where my “no more than B-21” comment came from.
24x internal JASSM is pretty solid, and given that the US nuclear ALCM numbers peaked at ±1700, being limited to 8 or 16 LRSO internally and 6-12 externally wouldn't be the end of the world.
Right…then we can probably start weighing different options. JASSM-XR offers twice the range (1000nmi) but is 6m+ in length, I don’t know how expensive it will be compared with the current JASSM-ERs. Would it be better settling with a shorter standoff and a faster bomber or use larger missiles on a subsonic platform (using the extended standoff to guarantee safety). Compatibility with larger missiles also enables better capacity for potential hypersonic weapons. Doing supersonic dash is also really, really bad for signature management. Afterburners of Soviet bombers could be seen from orbit in the 1980s. Would the warning time to the opponent actually increase due to this discovered by space factor instead of decrease by speed…? Could extended supercruise be a better option since we might not want to engage the burners thousands of miles from the release point…? There’s probably a lot of maths to do here…
