B-21 "Raider" stealth bomber

GarryB wrote:Note the towed item in a few pictures... perhaps a towed jammer or decoy system... surprised they showed that.

And that by itself will compromise stealth. What do you think?

GarryB wrote:It is a delivery system that takes cruise missiles that lack the range to hit their targets from friendly airspace to a point in international waters where they can be launched safely and still reach their targets.

Why need a stealthy platform for that? Non stealthy platforms can do just the same if you are launching your weapons from friendly airspace.

GarryB wrote:It essentially makes your cruise missiles smaller and cheaper

Wait what? They are not developing any new weapon for the B-21. It will carry the same weapons that their other bombers carry.

Here we go again....
I was too opitimistic about the price...
From BMPD...

The start of delivery of the first production B-21 aircraft is now expected in 2026-2027. Initial operational capability (IOC) is expected to be achieved by 2030. The US Air Force's plans include the purchase of 100 to 200 B-21 aircraft with the aim of replacing the B-1B and then B-2A strategic bombers. Beginning in fiscal year 2025, it is planned to allocate funds annually for the purchase of six to seven B-21 aircraft, with the possibility of increasing to 15 aircraft per year in the 2030s. Thus, the US Air Force plans in the future to have a mixed fleet of strategic bombers of two types of aircraft - the new B-21 Raider and the modernized Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers.
The US Air Force plans to have a mixed fleet of strategic bombers in the future, consisting of two types of aircraft - the new B-21 Raider and the modernized Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber. At the time of the start of the LRS-B program, the target purchase cost of one production aircraft was planned at $550 million, but at present the planned purchase cost of the aircraft has not been reported, and is unofficially estimated at about $700-750 million.

Structurally, the B-21 is ideologically the same as the stealthy subsonic flying wing bomber Northrop Grumman B-2A, but has slightly smaller dimensions - the wingspan is 45 meters versus 52 meters for the B-2A.
Moreover, compared to the B-2A, the new aircraft has a greater wing aspect ratio and deeply recessed engine air intakes. New generation radio-absorbing coatings are used. The B-21 is powered by two new Pratt & Whitney engines based on the F135 (F-35 fighter) engine and is reportedly expected to have a maximum payload weight of 13,600 kg, although its weapons bays will be larger in volume than the B-21. -2A. The B-21 aircraft has an “open architecture” and modular systems, and in the future it is possible to create an unmanned version of it.

Probably the price of this plane will reach close to one billion dollars or will exceed that figure.


https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4773041.html

The B-21 is basically a low cost alternative to the B-2. It is more of a tactical bomber than a strategic bomber. This is a twin engine aircraft while the B-1 and B-2 were quad engine aircraft. But since these engines are more powerful than the older ones this bomber ends up having like 2/3rds the payload capability of the B-2.

lancelot wrote:The B-21 is basically a low cost alternative to the B-2. It is more of a tactical bomber than a strategic bomber. This is a twin engine aircraft while the B-1 and B-2 were quad engine aircraft. But since these engines are more powerful than the older ones this bomber ends up having like 2/3rds the payload capability of the B-2.

So the B-21 is probably a "make-up" variant of the B-2 aircraft.
I respect it, but I think that with the already proposed price of 700 to 750 million dollars, it is too expensive. I am convinced that the Chinese can build the Type-055 for less money.
In the US, it will soon not be possible to buy even an armored personnel carrier for less than 10 million dollars.

Pure robbery, nothing else..

I still think that a subsonic aircraft with a takeoff weight of 100 tons, more or less, is not only unimpressive, but pointless.

Making it bigger and heavier and faster just makes it more expensive.

How fast do you think it would need to fly to actually make it safe?

The SR-71 isn't safe, why do you think a mach 3 or even mach 4 bomber would be safe.

The SR-71 has been cancelled dozens of times because it is too expensive to operate, but they bring it back because it is useful against third world countries.

The range of cruise missiles is advancing at such a rate that the Russians will soon be able to target S. Francisco or LA over Vladivostok and without leaving the airspace of Russia..

But those cruise missiles will be just as slow as current bombers so just as vulnerable to interception for most of their flight range.

Before ICBMs were proven to be possible both sides had their long range cruise missiles, which were the size of small bombers or large fighters.

3,000km range at mach 3 and they could still be shot down... but ICBMs replaced them at mach 20 plus and 5,000km range plus... well even they can be shot down these days.

The point is that a large flying wing bomber can carry a decent load of missiles to a launch point that is relatively safe from enemy interference where it can launch multiple missiles from a much shorter distance to hit targets all over enemy territory with the aircraft flying back home to potentially reload and repeat.

Making missiles that fly that far means making a light plane for each missile which is relatively inefficient... plus that flying wing bomber could be used to deliver conventional ordinance using glide bombs and short range attack missiles in theatre conflicts like Ukraine or Syria (the way the Tu-22M3 has... it has not been flying supersonically in its missions AFAIK).

Supersonic speed just burns lots of fuel... most systems that can shoot down a high flying large subsonic plane can also hit a large supersonic plane too.

The problem for the American subsonic flying wings is that they are bombers, while the PAK DA and Tu-160 are cruise missile carriers in the strategic role... the former will be a bomber in the theatre role but likely even then with standoff bombs like Grom and dumb bombs with glide kits.

They can also call it a flying wing, a flying surfboard, but I wouldn't fly near the Russian or Chinese border (an even crazier idea of ​​flying over Russian and Chinese cities), as they wrote for years about the B-2.

Flying Zumwalt...

A colonial weapon to keep the damn natives in order. Wars like WWI and WWII both against the Germans were a shock to colonial powers about how ineffective their weapons are against an enemy that has such weapons too. A machinegun is devastating against pygmies armed with sharpened fruit, but against a heavily armed German with his own machine gun every bit as good as yours is a totally different situation.

And that by itself will compromise stealth. What do you think?

The F-117 and B-2 didn't have EW equipment in the form of jammers or decoys because obviously the use of either will signal to everyone nearby that you are there and stealth means invisible, but I think what they have realised is that nothing is invisible... hard to detect, yes, but not invisible... and if they send up some planes with L band AESA radars in their wings and IRST sensors there is a good chance they will detect you, and if they launch missiles at you... what are you going to do.

If they have already detected you and are launching missiles then a towed decoy can lead to a miss and you surviving, but obviously you would only deploy it when the enemy has already started launching missiles at you, by which time there is no point in trying to hide anymore.

Sounds like they have gotten off their high horses and are a bit more pragmatic now.

Why need a stealthy platform for that? Non stealthy platforms can do just the same if you are launching your weapons from friendly airspace.

A flying wing shape is actually rather naturally stealthy on its own just because of its shape and lack of bits sticking out... with the right materials and the right coatings it is rather easy to get a very stealthy design with a flying wing so why wouldn't you?

The PAK DA is for Strategic missions to replace the Tu-95MS Bear, but it is also intended for Theatre missions replacing the Tu-22M3 Backfire with conventional bombing where stealth is very useful.

Another factor is that stealth means you can fly high during an operation without the risk of being detected at max range as you would with something like a B-52 or B-1B or Tu-95. Flying at altitude means you can fly faster using less engine power and you can fly much further... plus your sensors see much further too and any glide weapons or other weapons you might launch will travel further too.

Wait what? They are not developing any new weapon for the B-21. It will carry the same weapons that their other bombers carry.

I was referring to the PAK DA flying wing. Russia has cruise missile carriers and the worlds best air defences, while the US has bombers and reasonably good fighters but not so great ground based air defences... pretty ironic really.

The US Air Force's plans include the purchase of 100 to 200 B-21 aircraft with the aim of replacing the B-1B and then B-2A strategic bombers

So the relatively new B-2s and the quite new B-1Bs are going to be replaced by a new flying wing B-2 modification, but they are keeping the B-52s which were made in the 1950s and 1960s and are older than the grandparents of the guys flying them right now.

Probably the price of this plane will reach close to one billion dollars or will exceed that figure.

By 2030 they will have cancelled it because they wont be able to afford such a white elephant that is not going to be able to penetrate the air defences of China by 2030 let alone the air defences of Russia. The EU might have turned on them by then for ruining their deal with Russia for cheap energy that they did so well out of and that made their economy work.

The B-21 is basically a low cost alternative to the B-2. It is more of a tactical bomber than a strategic bomber. This is a twin engine aircraft while the B-1 and B-2 were quad engine aircraft. But since these engines are more powerful than the older ones this bomber ends up having like 2/3rds the payload capability of the B-2.

It has half the payload of the Tu-22M3, but more range obviously... not really something to get excited about...

Pure robbery, nothing else..

That is the US MIC... and it wont get any cheaper because they wont be able to force their HATO allies to buy lots of them like they did with the F-35... and look at its price... it was supposed to be the cheap light 5th gen fighter.

lancelot wrote:The B-21 is basically a low cost alternative to the B-2. It is more of a tactical bomber than a strategic bomber. This is a twin engine aircraft while the B-1 and B-2 were quad engine aircraft. But since these engines are more powerful than the older ones this bomber ends up having like 2/3rds the payload capability of the B-2.

It's the same Dorito but only now it comes in a new exciting flavour!

New guidance system for the B-21 revealed: