Estimated comparison of B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider
Posted by bob_the_impala@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 371 comments
Posted by bob_the_impala@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 371 comments
ripped_andsweet@reddit
i always forget the B-2 has four engines, does the B-21 have four or two?
megatrope@reddit
TIL. I always assumed B-2 had 2 engines since 2 intakes.
What’s reason for 4 engines? to fit into a smaller space than 2 larger engines?
Icy_Meal_2288@reddit
B2's have four engines, and each intake splits to provide air to 2 engines each IIRC
w00t4me@reddit
Supposedly, two engines are for long-distance travel, and the two others are smaller engines with a smaller heat signature for use while over enemy territory
some_hippies@reddit
Thats unfortunately just completely wrong, it uses four identical engines because the B-2 is a fat stinky dorito bitch of an aircraft and needs all that power to take off with payload and fuel. They're fighter jet engines, they just use super spooky military ghost science to stay a stealth platform.
Source: that stupid bird is part of my job
Messyfingers@reddit
4 engines allows for more thrust without substantially more height from increased engine diameter, or from having to create ducts to provide airflow to those engines. Two pairs of side by side engines allowed the B-2 to be shorter than using 2 high bypass turbofans
ripped_andsweet@reddit
4 engines 4 more bombs maybe lol
CredibleHumor@reddit
I personally think the B-21 is a first generation platform for the adaptive engine concepts that have been floating around for awhile.
Messyfingers@reddit
You wouldn't need an adaptive cycle engine on something designed to be subsonic.
MetalGhost99@reddit
We don’t know that. Thats just guesswork based off its predecessor.
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
It doesn’t really need an adaptive cycle engine. It’s subsonic exclusively.
In all likelihood either F-35 or one of the NGADs will have them.
CredibleHumor@reddit
Maybe it is supersonic ;)
Rampant16@reddit
Not with the its aero its not.
Tyr64@reddit
TBD. They’ve been very, very careful to keep the details of the engines, including intakes and exhaust, secret for now so we don’t have any idea.
I’ve seen some compelling arguments for why it could be a 4-engine design, but we just don’t know yet.
patssle@reddit
Theoretically, if the military has a way to generate or store the power, how much heat reduction would two electric powered engines provide?
Two traditional engines for outside the combat zone, two electric engines for over enemy territory. Any benefit for that?
iCapn@reddit
Yeah, but then it’s a pain to have to carry around an adapter when you want to use Tesla’s superchargers
patssle@reddit
Tesla Tanker. Air to air charging!
nilsmm@reddit
Having a solar powered tanker that's constantly up would be damn cool.
swordfish45@reddit
If you want to look up electric aviation, there are loads of discussion about that state of the art and limitations.
Tldr the big issue is both power to weight and energy to weight, on top of the big problem that you don't burn batteries that you have consumed, unlike fuel.
And besides, b2/b21 missions are high alt level bombing where infrared sig is of much lower concern than radar.
GodEmperorOfBussy@reddit
Big question: what if it were electric gayviation and it was just dudes going to town on each other way up in the sky?
Food for thought.
KeeganY_SR-UVB76@reddit
Whar?
jaxinfaxin@reddit
Yes not just thermal but auditory noise as well.
Tyr64@reddit
That’s well outside my knowledge area, but I’d wager that the heat signature reduction would be negligible as the rest of the plane would still be generating significant heat (electronics, win resistance, etc.) that any advanced enough system would spot it. But that’s all just me giving you a WAG.
fighterpilot248@reddit
I doubt the extra weight (and subsequently range) would outweigh the lower thermal output.
R-27ET@reddit
It’s been confirmed it’s using two variants of the F-35 engine?
OompaOrangeFace@reddit
The best guess is 2 F135 engines. It's unlikely to have a totally new engine and 2 F135 without afterburner is about the right thrust.
madewithgarageband@reddit
think it has 2 engines, will use the same type pf engines as F-35 except no afterburner
disastr0phe@reddit
Holy crap. I didn't know that either. I also just googled it found it the B-2 uses the same engine as the U-2S.
mak23414235532@reddit
It stands to reason that the B21 will likely use some sort of non-afterburning variant of F-135 P&W that the F-35 is using.
R-27ET@reddit
It’s using PW9000, a variant of PW1000
OompaOrangeFace@reddit
Yes, maybe with a bigger fan section.
rlscuba_steve3000@reddit
I would assume 4 for redundancy but I donno shit
RandyBeaman@reddit
az116@reddit
Literally where this image came from.
new_tanker@reddit
Our best guess is it's a twin-engine aircraft. There's still a LOT about the aircraft that remains classified, the number of engines being one of those things.
liedel@reddit
...
insultant_@reddit
I can’t see anything… 🤷🏻♂️
noob168@reddit
The flying John Cena
Intrepid_Explorer769@reddit
what its the range of the b21??
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your acouunt age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
alliumstallion@reddit
Smaller airframe, basically same payload size, more stealthy
Orlando1701@reddit
The main thing with the B-21 is the loss of operational range. When the B-1 and B-2 are gone the B-52 will be the only true long range bomber the USAF will still have.
new_tanker@reddit
If the B-21 carries its maximum payload, it'll have to take off with a fraction of it's total fuel load. It can then be topped off in flight by a tanker. No big deal.
Orlando1701@reddit
And that’s the thing the USAFs massive tanker fleet makes this less of an issue, but still there are times where having that extended unrefuled range is handy.
patssle@reddit
If one was China planning to go to war with the US, I've wondered how successful it would be to park some submarines out where the tankers would be expected to loiter. Plus some covert "Stinger" teams near bases of tankers.
If there's no tankers, the US can't project air supremacy over the Pacific and to Taiwan nearly as much.
Ohmmy_G@reddit
On top of giving your position away using radar, radar waves do not travel well underwater so you'd have to be surfaced to use it - again revealing your location.
Willing_Fail@reddit
Targeting data would of course be acquired from ground or aircraft radar through a datalink, never revealing the position of the submarine.
MyThrowawaysThrwaway@reddit
Submarines don’t have anti air capability
Tanker tracks would be in a safe, controlled airspace
China doesn’t have Stingers
hobbesmaster@reddit
I don’t think any current submarine could handle that mission though I suppose it’d be possible albeit dumb to design one.
MyThrowawaysThrwaway@reddit
So there’s a single developmental system in the entire world lol. It’s just not a thing.
And QWs aren’t stingers, they’re an Igla derivative
ontopofyourmom@reddit
China definitely has MANPADS with the capabilities of the Stinger, it is not modern technology.
PigSlam@reddit
You should call the Pentagon and tell them about this vulnerability they overlooked.
Orlando1701@reddit
Hey guys! I thought of this thing, have you considered it? Oh… you have, like 15 years ago?
patssle@reddit
Already did, DARPA hired me at 500k / year as an Idea Vendor.
s1a1om@reddit
Hi Jeff, didn’t realize you were on here too.
afito@reddit
Only one submarine managed a submerged AA missile launch and that was a proof of concept neither of the operating countries (Germany & Norway) deem necessary so it's back on the shelf of "cool things we can do but don't have".
new_tanker@reddit
The USAF's massive tanker fleet is likely not going to be as massive, say, in 2045 than it is today. With \~385 KC-135s in service today and \~70 KC-46s (and less than 30 KC-10s which will be gone by this time next year) it's just not enough. I think the number of KC-46s, as of today, will be 179 when all is said and done. Not a good sign, in my opinion.
But that's a whole different argument.
Raised-Right@reddit
"We would love to solve that problem. For the small price of $1 Trillion dollars, we will develop the next generation tanker fleet with stealth capabilities."
-Probably Northrup Gruman
spruceMoos3@reddit
I could do it for 300 billion including procurement and maintenance
Drone314@reddit
B21 Tanker variant in 3...2...1
LefsaMadMuppet@reddit
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-launches-new-stealthy-tanker-program-with-delivery-projected-for-2040/
GhoulsFolly@reddit
How is NGAS pronounced?
vagasportauthority@reddit
N -gas (No I am not saying a slur I am answering his question)
NefariousnessTop8716@reddit
Carefully
HOLY_GOOF@reddit
“I know the answer but I don’t think I’m supposed to say it!”
CreamyGoodnss@reddit
I wouldn't even be surprised if the USAF eventually automates the entire tanker fleet, or at least have one "mothership" or control craft for a fleet of smaller drones that could fuel up an entire squadron at once
quesoandcats@reddit
There’s an old movie called Stealth that explores this a bit. The USAF have massive autonomous tanker derigibles that just hover on station near a specific area
McFlyParadox@reddit
Now, listen here you little shit...
quesoandcats@reddit
It came out like 20 years ago!
McFlyParadox@reddit
And when I was your age, I didn't call Top Gun an "old" movie.
HackFish@reddit
Oh the old one from 40 years ago?
Professional_Cry5706@reddit
I’m dying laughing because I thought the same thing, who the hell is this little shit saying STEALTH is old🤣🤣🤣🤣 thank you for the laugh!
CreamyGoodnss@reddit
Seriously that hurt to read
Shamr0ck@reddit
Lol I felt this.
spazturtle@reddit
That is what they are doing with the MQ-25.
ErrantIndy@reddit
They absolutely are. They’re experimenting with camera operated boom operating instead of an operator looking out a window. The supposition is this is a step towards automating the refueling process. Perhaps, drone flown tankers with an operator controlling the boom remotely anywhere in the world from a trailer in Nevada.
KypAstar@reddit
That's already happening.
The newest mid-air refueling systems utilize cameras specifically so they can train models to eventually automate the process.
iwhbyd114@reddit
That's what the Navy is looking at.
StormTrooperQ@reddit
shut the front door
vagasportauthority@reddit
Again you are joking but apparently this may have actually been suggested
vagasportauthority@reddit
You are joking but they are working on the KC-Z (next gen tanker)
GOD-PORING@reddit
The B-21 now with USB-C
Kind_Ordinary_8959@reddit
Hey, that trillion dollars will employ at least 7000 workers, so it's amazing for the economy.
Ohmmy_G@reddit
I wouldn't be suprised if one already exists - no one knew about stealth helicopters.
US lost some war games because the "bad guys" were targeting their air refueling tankers.
SeaManaenamah@reddit
You could call them enemies to avoid the whole moral stance thing.
Ohmmy_G@reddit
Quotes because in war games, they're usually US or allies playing the role of the bad guys.
badpuffthaikitty@reddit
God damn Mig-28s.
SuperFightingRobit@reddit
Plus, the pentagon has been talking about how big of a problem it's been with china's scary long range AAMs for how long now?
raven00x@reddit
"It's also vitally important that all of our contracts are cost-plus without limits. you don't want to be soft on national security, do you?"
Kjartanski@reddit
The navy drone thing is stealthy and capable of A2A refueling
jaxinfaxin@reddit
It’s certainly lower observable but mq25 isn’t that stealthy with its tails and straight wings. Plus it carry’s a fraction of the fuel a 135 or 46 do. Good for tactical f18/35 carrier ops but not going to cut it for a strategic bombers needs
osageviper138@reddit
No probably, it’s actually. AMC has been salivating for a stealth tanker for the last 10-15 years.
NotPresidentChump@reddit
The MIC has been salivating at the thought of a stealth tanker or transport contract.*
osageviper138@reddit
You say potato, I say tomato because I’m nailing headshots with my 45, just like Gen Minihan told me to.
memori88@reddit
In a future Pacific conflict, tankers are going to be a huge and unstealthy target. It seems like they’re leaning towards a decentralized, lower individual capacity but more highly distributed tanker strategy—possibly even using drones or an attritible CCA type solution.
crazydrummer15@reddit
I believe they’re building a stealth based tanker.
vagasportauthority@reddit
They are planning on creating a newer generation of Tanker, look into the KC-Z program.
Also, I doubt Congress will allow the USAF to fully retire older tankers if they don’t have a replacement.
USA_A-OK@reddit
Eh we'll get tanker drones soon enough
Creative_Funny_Name@reddit
Soon enough meaning within the next year or two. It's already fueling things now in testing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
DownwindLegday@reddit
16k is not a lot of fuel for the mobility the air force needs. 16k will gas up 2 fighters maybe once. Any bomber or cargo would need way more gas.
fireandlifeincarnate@reddit
Also that’s a probe and drogue design, not a boom design, which means the Air Force can’t use it regardless.
Creative_Funny_Name@reddit
IIRC the drone is much cheaper and easier to operate they can have many of them. So instead of one tanker to fuel many jets they can have many drones
Plus the drone is stealthy so it can refuel in places the tankers can't
I'm sure they would use some combination of tankers and drones to get the distance they need
nikhoxz@reddit
The problem is that you use more fuel to operate 10 small drones than 1 big drone.
We should make big tankers drones.
new_tanker@reddit
The way I picture it is this. The drone is perfect for the Navy since it can now free up Super Hornets to do their true multirole missions. I read somewhere that 25% of a Carrier Air Wing's Super Hornets were dedicated to the tanker role when they were out on mission.
Yeah, it's great having the Super Hornet as a tanker platform but that's all it can do. It's got four external fuel tanks and one centerline buddy store and right then and there you're maxing out it's maximum takeoff weight, or coming damn close to it.
Royal_Complaint_5418@reddit
Yes that would be efficient but defense contractors don't get extra points for efficiency.
zzguy1@reddit
They don’t but they do get money if the contract specifies efficiency as a requirement
new_tanker@reddit
The problem with the Stingray is its size limitation. It's sized just a bit smaller than the E-2 Hawkeye, which is currently the largest aircraft on a carrier. That'll also limit the amount of fuel it can carry and offload to receivers.
crewof502@reddit
You're neglecting to remember the rapid development of NGAS.
PublicfreakoutLoveR@reddit
B-2 Stealth Tankers
Pretend_Beyond9232@reddit
Woah there Uncle Sam, your tanker fleet is larger than my countries entire air force 🫡
East_Resident3316@reddit
This is not close to being remotely true. They are thinking far bigger than you. They are working on unmanned ai drone fleets for this and many other pairings to their bombers/fighters. Same way we have less horses and swords than time ago.
elFistoFucko@reddit
Drone tankers of varying size are on the horizon I would think.
MQ-25 stingray is just the beginning.
trophycloset33@reddit
There are 3 different next gen tanker platforms in development. Likely not even in competition, I think one is for navy one for Air Force and the last for army.
ManaMagestic@reddit
What about all the proposed/in service tanker drones?
carl_pagan@reddit
And there's no way they would spend money to replace them, as the US military is famously averse to buying things
SignificantJacket912@reddit
I have a feeling drone refuelers are going to become a thing relatively shortly. The Navy has one that’s nearly operational so the tech is already there, it’s just a matter of upscaling it.
blindfoldedbadgers@reddit
B-21, fill the bomb bay with fuel tanks, replace the crew with the control system of an RQ-170.
USAF, Northrop: I take cash, cheque or bank transfer.
theaviationhistorian@reddit
The KC-135s will be severely reduced & KC-10s fully retired by that time with no replacement. The fact tht the B-21 has shorter legs than the strategic bomber force puts the same issues we had to get the KC-10. Our global commitments hamper whenever we're involved in a war. And we have to admit that we are a warring nation so another conflict in the future isn't farfetched. Add experience we have with Operation Nickel Grade, El Dorado Canyon, etc. to understand that missions either require larger payload tankers or a waypoint line of tankers akin to the RAF's Operation Black Buck.
Only_Razzmatazz_4498@reddit
Drone refueling will be a thing by then. /s
LarkTank@reddit
Lack of stealth tankers makes flights to western pacific more challenging though
new_tanker@reddit
You have to consider one the B-21's role is that of deterrence.
There is a B-2 documentary that mentioned that B-2 pilots "stealth up" the aircraft when they need to; how it's done and what's done is still classified.
Suppose you have a flight of B-21s going from the mainland to a hypothetical region where their presence is needed. They'll likely need to hit up a tanker a few times. The tanker needs to know where their receivers are, and there's one instance the B-21 does not need to be stealthy. I suspect the B-21 will have the range and endurance to get to where they need to after a refueling and then come back to a tanker to top off and go where it needs to go.
Unless there's some miraculous technological breakthrough, I cannot foresee a stealth tanker. You could make it stealthy but once it's time to perform its mission to pass gas, there's too much stuff (boom or hose/drogue/probe) that's now exposed and your stealthy tanker is now no longer stealthy.
MattBDR427@reddit
This didn’t age very well!
Polyifia@reddit
The B-21's role will not be just deterrence. They are going to build at least 100 of them, probably more. They are to replace B1's, B2's, and some B-52's. They will be used in conventional bombing runs frequently. They will also be used as an intelligence collection platform, battle manager, and interceptor aircraft according to the Air Force.
steveamsp@reddit
Assuming they follow through on the full order. Part of the reason for the insane per-plane price for the B2 was that they cut back from 132, to 21. So, a lot of the economies of scale got thrown out the window, not to mention spreading the huge R&D costs over so few planes.
Polyifia@reddit
They will build more of these than the B2’s no doubt. They are replacing 3 different bombers with it. They already have 6 being built right now. These didn’t have quite the amount of R&D required as the B2’s did. The B2 was a radical new aircraft. This is just the next generation.
steveamsp@reddit
Oh, I completely understand that this doesn't have the R&D required of the B2. So much learned experience FROM the B2 went into the new design. Just hoping they don't cut back the procurement like they did with B-2 and F-22 in particular, we need to get some newer bombers replacing the old platforms.
hobbesmaster@reddit
Are there more details on this? I have a soft spot for how delightfully insane the B-1R pitch was so an air to air B-21 sounds silly.
Polyifia@reddit
There are not many details, but essentially it will operate somewhat like the F35 does now. The B21 wont be an air superiority fighter, but it will be able to fire air to air missiles from beyond visual range. It will have superior radar and infrared tracking allowing it to see enemy air craft from a distance.
It's main mission will bombing and battle management. But it will somewhat be able to protect itself. It will still likely fly with air superiority fighters when on bombing runs though.
hanzuna@reddit
getting eve online battleship vibes
Polyifia@reddit
I don’t know what that means
Only_Razzmatazz_4498@reddit
Stealth tape all over the plane.
LefsaMadMuppet@reddit
It only needs to be stealthy to a point, like to be able to loiter 200 miles out to stay hidden from long range SAMs.
PigSlam@reddit
I don't think the plan is to refuel over contested areas. Fighter planes like the F-22, etc. exist to keep variable locations safe for that sort of activity. If stealthy planes suddenly "stealth down" for 10-15 minutes, do their thing, then stealth up again, your enemy would need the ability to spot you wherever you could appear, get there in the time you're visible and make the kill. If they can't do that in the refueling period, who cares. If they can to do that in that period of time, then you're doing it in the wrong place.
tdacct@reddit
MQ-25
new_tanker@reddit
These things are too small and are not equipped to refuel anything with a receptacle.
The B-21 is going to have a receptacle for aerial refueling. It's going to need a tanker with a flying boom; the B-21 won't be stealthy when it's connected to a KC-46 or KC-135. If it took fuel from a drogue, you're talking about drastically increasing the amount of time it'd take to refuel.
Eauxcaigh@reddit
MQ-25 uses navy hose and drogue though
even if you could use it with a B-21, USNI says the goal for MQ-25 is "about 15000lb" of fuel give which is not a lot for a bomber like this, maybe it can fill up the tank by 20%
Also the pod on the MQ-25 is not "stealthy", you would have to go clean wing to get those benefits.
elFistoFucko@reddit
It basically doesn't even fully fill fighter aircraft, but close.
I think MQ-25 is just the first of its kind with bigger, better tanker drones to follow in the future.
canttakethshyfrom_me@reddit
KB-2, hose retracts into bomb bay. Orbits roughly over Guam all day.
But then you might as well have made more B-2s.
brineOClock@reddit
Isn't a stealth tanker drone in testing? I've seen multiple videos of a drone hooking up to refuel an F-35 and it looks pretty stealthy.
new_tanker@reddit
It's still in the research and development and testing phase.
Currently the only Navy tankers are Super Hornets equipped with four external fuel tanks and a buddy store.
MisterCplMeeseeks@reddit
That's a navy tanker, it's equipped to support naval air refueling method, which is probe and basket. It simplifies the hardware requirement on the tanker end and enables multiple aircraft to tank from a single tanker if the tanker is large enough to carry more than one basket and reel, but give up on things like offload rate. For big boys like bombers and transports, you need high flow rate because of how big their fuel capacity are, which is why USAF uses the boom method.
brineOClock@reddit
That's super cool! Thanks for clarifying! If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly that it would take something more like the x-47 in size to be able to handle to boom, flow rate, and volume of fuel required?
MisterCplMeeseeks@reddit
Not sure how small you can package a boom, but advances in automated boom control has helped. You still get more for the buck with larger platforms holding more fuel, so going up to something X-47 in size would help, but may still not be quite enough.
brineOClock@reddit
I'm sure someone at DARPA, Lockheed, or Northrup has a plan. The X-47 B was smaller than I thought. It's only got a max takeoff weight of 44,501lbs which includes its own fuel so once you add a boom you probably aren't getting too much extra capacity.
PedroGigaPascal@reddit
MQ-25s are in production.
moxtrox@reddit
Next on the order list, stealth autonomous tankers.
theaviationhistorian@reddit
Until you realize the entire fleet relies on the KC-46 with the KC-10s sunsetting without a replacement. The 767-200 airframe has decent range & payload, but comparable only to the KC-135. It be an interesting operation if an operation similar to El Dorado Canyon occurs or one with long ranges over contested airspace (like Chinese territory or eastern Russia).
Lore-Archivist@reddit
New tanker fleets will be made, but the B-21 also has a range of 6000 miles, it can fly from Guam, bomb Beijing and go home without refueling
zackks@reddit
What niche did the kc-10 fill that the 46 doesn’t?
new_tanker@reddit
The KC-10 came about after the Vietnam War when the USAF realized they needed a tanker with a greater payload capability than the KC-135.
The KC-46's original intention was to replace the KC-135; the KC-46 can carry a smidge more fuel than the -135. You're talking about 200,000 to 215,000 pounds of fuel. The KC-10 can carry more than 350,000 pounds of fuel. The A330 tanker I think splits the difference, but only slightly more than the KC-46.
The KC-10 can also be refueled in flight by another KC-10 or a KC-135. It can also carry a greater amount of cargo since it is a bigger plane.
When you see F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, F-35As, and A-10s deploy from the US to Europe, suppose you have 12 of any of those aircraft. You typically will also have three or four KC-135s flying with them to provide them the fuel to get across. With the KC-10 you can cut that down to two or three KC-10s to do the job; the KC-10s can also carry the cargo and personnel while also tanking the smaller planes (and get refueled themselves, if needed).
dsdvbguutres@reddit
Come up and get your drink
HoneyInBlackCoffee@reddit
Does the USA really need that range in 2023 though? Especially in more than one air frame. The USA has bases all over the world, and long range missiles. No real reason for it from what I'm seeing. And I love the b2
dorkstafarian@reddit
Whatever country houses those bases, when they are used to wage war with, becomes a target. Or they may restrict operations like what has happened with Incirlik in Türkiye. Or they may require a lot in return, like Qatar. Way easier to just launch from Diego Garcia.
jeb_hoge@reddit
This thing is designed to hold China under threat. Full stop. And China is BIG.
Orlando1701@reddit
Makes force projection much easier. There’s a reason why the B-52 is a flying gas tank.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
No..we know the B-21 will have a longer range than the B-2.
"Warden said that the B-21's internal operations were "extremely advanced compared to the B-2" and that the B-21 was slightly smaller than the B-2, with a longer range.[41]"
Apprehensive-End6577@reddit
How could know it will be that significant without anything being known?
Mid_Atlantic_Lad@reddit
From what we know it’s supposed to be the longest range bomber yet.
Orlando1701@reddit
I severely doubt given it’s small size even with modern tech it’s going to meet the range of the BUFF especially once it gets its new engines.
Mid_Atlantic_Lad@reddit
That’s not what I’ve heard. When the aircraft was first unveiled Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated that the aircraft will not have to be stationed in theater, meaning that it likely has the range to strike targets overseas in one capacity or another.
iboneyandivory@reddit
It's crazy that we now regard the B-52 not as a stepping stone to some next thing, but more like a permanent resource.
regaphysics@reddit
Not much to improve upon with such a simple mission - it’s just a flying bomb bay.
little-ass-whipe@reddit
Imagine a Wright Flyer pilot looking down his nose at the retirement of the Concorde like "yeah, for 5 generations we've been telling them ailerons were a flash in the pan, wing-warping is here to stay baby!"
That's gonna be BUFF pilots by the time that thing is taken out of service.
Orlando1701@reddit
The BUFF: “I always have been and always will be! Buhahahahah!”
Whiteyak5@reddit
We still don't know the range of the B-21 yet.
It could very well be that it goes for a smaller payload for more fuel and range.
new_tanker@reddit
Honestly, if the B-21 can be refueled in flight, there's no real reason to talk about range anymore.
Aerial refueling has done wonders for the USAF, USN, and USMC, as well as the Air Forces of all other nations who are able to utilize aerial refueling to their advantage.
Because of aerial refueling, damn near everything the USAF has (with few exceptions) is capable of going to just about any two points in the world. Remember, B-2 crews could not do those 40+ hour missions to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. without meeting up with KC-135s or KC-10s several times.
OompaOrangeFace@reddit
We likely never will.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Physics means an airplane can only carry so much weight, but a smart aircraft designer gives it big tanks and big cargo capacity.
While it will never be able to take off with full tanks and a full load, that's the point. The increased flexibility of being able to adjust payload and fuel ratios for each mission enables a lot more possibilities. It can be a short-legged heavy bomber or a long-legged light bomber depending on the mission requirements.
AggressorBLUE@reddit
“You’re right, we should get more money for tankers!” ~The USAF
Orlando1701@reddit
I mean the KC-10 is being retired and the KC-46 is having teething problems.
6547N16901W@reddit
The KC-46 is itself a teething problem. Airbus won, had a better product, and Boeing Cried. and HEREEEE we are.
I'm all for supporting the home team companies, but Boeing needs to just do better.
Orlando1701@reddit
I still don’t understand why we didn’t just go with the KC-767 the Italians and Japanese have been using, we had to reinvent the wheel.
trophycloset33@reddit
There are ICBMs and space based missiles.
SteadfastEnd@reddit
Wait, I thought Austin (SecDef) said the B-21 will have longer range than the B-2?
Nasmix@reddit
So range is a curve. At max payload it may well have lower range than the B-2 - but with more b-21s available the operational plan may well be trading off max payload for max range with a lower payload.
So both things can be true depending on how you slice it
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
Max range with different weights of internal weapons is fairly close unless you have a setup like the B-1 where you can put an extra tank in one of the weapons bays.
External weapons are the primary effector of range seeing as they massively contribute to drag.
Nasmix@reddit
Sure external stores have additional drag as well as weight - but internal stores certainly makes a big difference as well
Weight not needed for munitions can be used for fuel. And the fuel burn is lower as there is less weight. A virtuous circle.
Cadet_BNSF@reddit
Internal stores also increase the weight of the aircraft, which increases the amount of lift the wings need to generate, which increases the amount of induced drag produced, which makes the engines work harder to maintain airspeed, thus affecting range
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
They do make a difference, just not a massive one.
For most purposes you likely aren’t loading up enough to sacrifice fuel. Something like a MOP would though but that’s hardly a typical mission.
Nasmix@reddit
That depends on the size of fuel tanks and payload capability - and since we don’t know a lot about the b-21 it’s hard to be definitive
But a 30,000 pound internal capacity gives a lot of trade off for fuel vs payload assuming it’s not fuel volume limited
Orlando1701@reddit
Exactly. Range isn’t just a single fixed number it changes with flight profile, weapons load, operating environment. For example the B-52H has a published range of 8,800 miles but you’re not going to get to 8,800 if you’re flying low level, in weather, with fully loaded external stores vs. flying at 45,000 ft, clean, above the weather.
Also, given that China and Russia are listening I’m sure publicly Austin is going to say the B-21 can go Mach 3 while carrying 500,000lb of bombs.
Submitten@reddit
Yes. That guy is wrong, it will have less than half the payload with the intention to have more range.
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
This is at the very least speculation most likely it is completely false.
Secdef Loyd Austin
This doesn’t imply a shorter ranged aircraft, quite the opposite in-fact. The specific mention of logistical support bring aerial refueling to mind and that it doesn’t need it.
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
How do you even know that?
Orlando1701@reddit
A lifetime of in and around aviation. There’s just no way it’s got a internal fuel volume especially when combined with the fact that it’s still going to have 30,000+ lb of useful payload according to what’s publicly available means there’s just no way that with reduced internal fuel volume and that kind of payload it’s going to get close to the publicly published 6,000 mile unrefuled range of the B-2, much less the 8,800 mile range of say the B-52 which will only increase once the BUFF gets it new engines.
Basically, less internal fuel volume while still carrying 30,000-45,000lb of useful weapons load the back of the envelope math says even with better material science and a lower drag coefficient the B-21 just isn’t going to have the same legs as the B-2. Realistically the B-21 is going to be closer to the FB-111/F-111G in terms of ranger and payload than it will be the B-2.
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
So you don’t actually know. Got it. You don’t know how many engines it has, how efficient they are, at what altitudes it will fly at, etc. You’re jumping the gun.
Newbguy@reddit
With the basic pictures we have it's clearly two engines. We can talk about engine efficiency but for what is currently available based on the most modern engine technology actually flying right now in and out of the military the math isn't that far off. Of course these are all rough estimates based on available data, but it's a pretty sound tough estimate.
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
Look at a size comparison between the 787 and the 747. And then look at their ranges.
The 787-8 and the 747-400 have identical ranges despite the 787 having two engines and being 25% smaller.
Granted the 747 carried more people but that was a space limitation, not a weight limitation.
You also don’t know if the B-2 payload was based on weight, or if it was literally volume limited. So it’s totally possible for the B-21 to be much lighter, much more efficient, with a similar bomb bay, limited by weight and not space.
Big_al_big_bed@reddit
But the 747 also carried 90,000 L more fuel as well to get that slightly less range. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
…that bigger does not necessarily mean farther.
Big_al_big_bed@reddit
But the 747 has four engines? Do the comparison again but with an aircraft that has the same number of engines, and were built within 20 years of one another. I guarantee the one with 90000L more fuel will have better range
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
What does that have to do with the point?
Big_al_big_bed@reddit
I'm saying that your argument that bigger doesn't mean better range doesn't make sense, becuase the two aircraft you are comparing are vastly different
Orlando1701@reddit
It has two and are almost certainly F135 non-after burning turbofans. Which have a well know fuel burn rate, which then combined with we generally know what the fuel load would be based on the physical size, and we useable load of the aircraft again we can do back if the envelope math and get a ballpark number for the useful range.
TelephoneShoes@reddit
I’m in no way knowledgeable on this topic, least of all seemingly compared to you; but your link does say that the B21 will have a longer range than the B2. For whatever that’s worth.
At the unveiling, Northrop CEO Kathy Warden said that the B-21 is designed with modular, open systems architecture to allow easy upgrades[a] and, potentially, the ability to export components to foreign buyers.[29] Warden said that the B-21's internal operations were "extremely advanced compared to the B-2" and that the B-21 was slightly smaller than the B-2, with a longer range.[26]
Orlando1701@reddit
I mean maybe it will… to use the language of my previous career I asses with moderate confidence everything I’m saying. It’s all based off OSINT so yeah, I could be wildly wrong but I don’t think I’m that far off.
Tell you what save this thread and in ten years when we know more if I’m wrong you can tell me so.
TelephoneShoes@reddit
Deal! Lol
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
Nonsense. There’s a lot you wouldn’t know about the engine that can change its fuel burn.
You don’t have anywhere near enough information for that. What would your math tell you the 787’s range is compared to the 747-400 with that kind of limited data?
Orlando1701@reddit
Sure. Well I’ve given you my methodology and some reference material and all you’ve been able to come up with “nu-uh” so I’d welcome some background on how you arrived at your conclusion.
HolyGig@reddit
You posted a wikipedia article and the specs of a plane from 50 years ago as "reference material." Comparing the B-21 to an F-111 is nothing short of ridiculous. Just because the other guy has nothing to counter your arguments with isn't somehow evidence that your arguments make any sense.
The B-21 may very well be using F135's. My guess is that it is using an adaptive engine with an F135 core, a prototype version of which was first successfully tested in 2017. That alone could provide the efficiency boost to get it in the same ballpark of the B-2. They have balked at applying adaptive engine technology to the F-35 for a variety of reasons, none of which would apply to the B-21.
Further, the B-2 was compromised by the rather stupid requirement for low level penetration missions which means it wasn't as good as it should have been at high altitude. The B-21 has no such compromise, it was specifically designed solely for high altitude operations
Orlando1701@reddit
I mean if you’ve got something to add nows the time to do it. If you’ve got something to add to the conversation I welcome it.
And let’s be realistic the modifications to allow the B-2 to do low level penetration didn’t compromise that range that badly. It was basically expanding the trailing edge of the aircraft to give more control surfaces.
And I mean everything I have here is entirely OSINT so it’s 100% possible there’s stuff going on I’m unaware of, but 3,000 mile range with 35,000-40,000 of useful payload does generally line up with current estimates of the B-21s abilities based on public information, which in fact does make it generally in the same category as the FB-111, just less cool because the Vark was supersonic on the deck. Also with internal instead of external ordnances the B-21 would be far less impacted by increasing the weapons load out vs. the FB-111.
Like I said above homie, if you’ve got better information share it. If I’m wrong I’m wrong.
HolyGig@reddit
More control surfaces means more drag. More surface area means more drag. Two engines is more efficient than four. Curved surfaces modeling was in its infancy in the 1970's which is when the faceted F-117 was also produced. Today it is extremely well understood. Modern engine technology is vastly superior to 1970's and 80's engine technology and adaptive engine technology, if I am right about its inclusion, is expected to add another 10-25% boost on top of all that.
You don't have information you have speculation, which is also all that I am offering too. There is no right or wrong here. However, the B-21 with a 3,000 mile range doesn't even make sense as a platform that the USAF would want, its a strategic nuclear capable bomber that will largely be based in the continental US. Feel free to look at a map and see how far 3,000 nmi gets you from Missouri. If the actual range is even a hair less than 5,000 nmi I will eat my shoe
passporttohell@reddit
I want to hear a cited response too. It seems the only ammo the person responding has is bluster and bullshit. You, on the other hand have made a logical argument for what you have said.
CheesecakeMedium8500@reddit
I applied your methodology to the 787/747 comparison and your methodology would say the 747 can go much farther.
So no, it’s not simply “nuh uh.”
SteveDaPirate@reddit
Where are you getting the idea the B-21 would have the same payload as the B-2? It's single bomb bay is the same size as ONE of the B-2's bomb bays. Giving it approximately half the payload volume. Which in turn leaves lots of room for gas.
Cleeecooo@reddit
Surely we can't say for sure? The engines could be significantly more efficient, which could make up for the reduced fuel.
Also, we don't know whether they've managed to make weight/space savings on the internals. Either could also offset a smaller fuel volume.
sweetcinnamonpunch@reddit
Maybe that's a sign they're no longer seen as necessary.
icedrussian6969@reddit
the B-52 was originally designed for nuclear deterrance "doomsday" scenarios, icbms launched from subs or silos currently fulfill the deterrance/MAD role and are harder to detect and/or intercept, and newer hypersonic missiles/stealth drones/shorter range B-21 style bombers can, god forbid we ever come to it, fulfill the tactical nuclear role more effectively than a big long range bomber, esp with a robust logistics network of carriers and tankers. I kinda see long range strategic bombers going the way of the battleship in the not so distant future. think, a big, expensive, high value platform that is gradually being replaced by cheaper/more flexible options.
cecilkorik@reddit
Sounds like it's time for a B-1 replacement with supercruise next.
Orlando1701@reddit
Or we reopen the B-52 line. Coming new for 2025, the Boeing B-52!
tambrico@reddit
I'm holding out hope for the B52MAX to start production
JustaRandomOldGuy@reddit
Is the re-engine plan for turbofans still alive?
studpilot69@reddit
Yes, the B-52J.
Fragrant_Chapter_283@reddit
B-52neo
gnartato@reddit
I mean technically we are on the NEO now.
sublurkerrr@reddit
We have no idea about the operational range of the B-21 other than Secretary Austin mentioning the B-21 could hold "any target at risk" in the world while taking off from CONUS.
Technically any plane can do that with tanking support but to explicitly mention makes it seem that the B-21 has significant transpacific range.
studpilot69@reddit
What loss of operational range?
Orlando1701@reddit
Follow the thread bellow.
studpilot69@reddit
Nah. My point is, no one in this thread above or “bellow” knows the operational range of the B-21, and probably doesn’t know the range of the B-2 either. And if they do, they can’t and won’t post it here. Source: I work closely with both of these platforms, and am a B-52 pilot
Orlando1701@reddit
Yup. I used to be in your orbit too. And again follow the thread.
batmansthebomb@reddit
What is aerial refueling?
Orlando1701@reddit
Type it into PornHub and find out.
No, don’t actually do that.
Wikipedia.
alreddy-reddit@reddit
Given how gov contracts work, I figured they’d target something to be deficient in and the only way to overcome it is to build a million of them
fly_Eagles_fly81@reddit
Could you elaborate on what government contracts you're basing that off of? If the USAF wants Northrop to develop the B-21 to have certain characteristics, then it should work by having it be in the Request for Proposal, the effort required to complete it would be proposed, and be a requirement of the completion of the contract. For the production of the planes, Northrop would need to build to the requirements and pass any tests that are contractually required. If the plane does not pass those tests, the issue has to be resolved.
Tyr64@reddit
All of the public comments so far have suggested that they anticipate the B-21 to exceed the LRS-B range targets.
Orlando1701@reddit
Not really… the USAF with its massive tanker fleet the B-21 having a shorter range is less of an issue.
Submitten@reddit
It’s designed to have less than half the payload size.
Sleasyyy@reddit
Yeah the payload size is definitely not the same. Not sure why he got so many upvotes
ExplanationEnough134@reddit
Veja esse exmplo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-7iorgev8o
ExplanationEnough134@reddit
As técnicas de guerra mudaram muito durante os anos, grande exemplo é a guerra da Ucrania, em grande feita por drones. Um bombardeiro hj em dia não precisa ter 20/50 bombas, se vc não fizer o serviço com 8/12 de precisão simplesmente não vai fazer...
regaphysics@reddit
It’s half the payload…
dloc2@reddit
The b-21 was only to be equipped with only 1 of the b-2’s weapons bays hence the smaller size. Maybe it some extra smaller bays for self defense missiles like aim-120d which would be smart!
Hourslikeminutes47@reddit
They plan to produce more B-21's than they did B-2's.
Hyperi0us@reddit
IIRC current production estimates are for a fleet of 250 block I aircraft, with possible orders down the road of upgraded versions for EWar and as drone command and control platforms.
Hourslikeminutes47@reddit
It's supposed to replace the B-52H and the B-1/B-2 bomber fleet
Hyperi0us@reddit
Eh, at this point the B-52 is gonna be dropping antimatter warheads on Tau Ceti 3b during the 3rd colonial systems war of 2965.
Hourslikeminutes47@reddit
I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to keep them in service indefinitely
oopls@reddit
It’s like the PS5. They shrank it.
BraceIceman@reddit
Always thought payload is a strange expression when used for bombers.
pipboy1989@reddit
And because it doesn’t have a low-level requirement, they went back to the W shape the B-2 was originally designed. They added the more jagged shape due to needing an extra pair of ailerons for lower altitude manoeuvrability
Ohanka@reddit
Major reduction in capabilities for much higher costs, as usual. Nationalise the arms industry.
MysticDaedra@reddit
The B-21 is a US jet made by a US company. If you folks want a bigger stealth bomber, you can make one yourself.
bob_the_impala@reddit (OP)
Source: Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week - The B-21 Raider: Designed For Low Risk
Another story: B-21 Raider bomber will be much smaller than the B-2, report estimates
Recoil42@reddit
Real talk, and I don't know if anyone here can really answer this: The B-21 has a vaguely similar mission profile to the B-2, so why are we seeing a whole new airframe, rather than an upgraded variant of the B-2?
Think F-15A vs F-15E — why was an iterative approach avoided here?
CredibleHumor@reddit
B-2 was a MASSIVE leap in technology for its era, a true sky “shoot for the moon” project with the associated costs.
The B-21 is a platform that gets all the benefits of 25+ years of B-2 experience while also integrating all new and existing technologies for a better more adaptive platform. Something that will be usable for decades to come and more reliably upgradable. The B-2 is 30yr old tech at this point, trying to completely modernize it would only be a half solution, the B-21 give the USAF a next generation bomber platform.
Recoil42@reddit
This doesn't really answer the question being asked, so let me rephrase it:
Why does the B-21 have a 40ft-shorter wingspan than the B-2, and why does it aim for a presumed weapons load half that of the B-2?
CredibleHumor@reddit
Bigger is not always better, you can achieve more at a strategic level by having more stealth bombers to hit targets with. PGMs almost always only need to hit once, so having more sorties over more targets is a very good thing. USAF is preparing for a peer war against China.
Day #1 will require strikes on nearly all major CnC, large radar, power supply, and missile yards in the country. x20 B-2s will never be enough, a 150+ of the less costly and more capable B-21 can handle that mission load.
Recoil42@reddit
Not the claim being presumed, nor the question being asked. The question being asked is what has changed in the mission profile or requirements to prefer a smaller size, and especially so much so that a new airframe is required.
Yes, which is one of the reasons we now see the one-two punch of the F-35 and UCAVs like the RQ-180 on loiter duty with precision munitions. With that in mind, it's worth asking whether the B-21 becomes entirely redundant to local deployments of multirole aircraft doing PGM drops.
Brief reminder that the B-21 is estimated at >$1B per unit.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
Didn't the B-2 cost over 2 billion?
CredibleHumor@reddit
The B-21 is being ordered in mass, the project is currently under budget and ahead of schedule. It will be another F-35 situation where people panic over uneducated journalists putting big numbers out there and then it ends up being superb just and under cost.
As for your whole “give me detailed information on the USAF thinking” gtfo PRC
Recoil42@reddit
My guy, this is literally a community for discussing aircraft, and I am discussing aircraft. If you can't handle it, r/kittens is thattaway. ➡
mmiski@reddit
If the aim here is stealth, reducing size helps with that...
I think that partly has to due with the diminished need for bombers in modern combat. Why have a bomber capable of doing carpet bombing runs with a massive payload when modern munitions can deliver an equally devastating strike with greater precision. Combine that with the fact that drones now carry out a lot of those ground attacks with far less risk and operational cost.
Illustrious_Crab1060@reddit
I thought with the correct design, the size of the object actually doesn't really have any effect on the RCS?
Lore-Archivist@reddit
Not really, smaller is always better for stealth, design and shape is important too but smaller is always better
Recoil42@reddit
Yes, a reduced RCS could absolutely be a factor, especially if it's projected that Gen6 technology won't be able to stay ahead of next-gen radar.
Absolutely — but then why build a large $1B bomber at all? I totally agree with this notion that UCAVs and precision munitions are stepping in where we once had B-52s doing carpet runs, but then the B-21 seems redundant to a squadron of F-35s and an RQ-180 on loiter duty.
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
Squadron of F-35s and an RQ-180
Both of those require either in-theater basing or tons of tankers in support.
Much about the B-21 has emphasized its range. It’s meant to be able to head out and strike from distant bases and perform long penetration missions behind IADS.
AlfredoThayerMahan@reddit
Both of those require either in-theater basing or tons of tankers in support.
Much about the B-21 has emphasized its range. It’s meant to be able to head out and strike from distant bases and perform long penetration missions behind IADS.
Wyoming_Knott@reddit
Size = $ and the goal of this program is affordability, especially compared to the B-2
bob_the_impala@reddit (OP)
The F-15 has been in continuous production since the seventies. Production on the B-2 ended after 21 airframes were built in the early nineties. I rather doubt that the production tooling for the B-2 is still around to build more of them, upgraded or not.
Miserable_Law_6514@reddit
The molds for the B2 (and the B1) are in the Tucson boneyard.That said, good luck building them again with all that experience gone and the massive technology increases since then.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
The expertise is never lost. New generations of engineers were trained by the old, and all methods were kept on encrypted files.
Recoil42@reddit
Usually production tooling for programs like this are kept, not disposed of. However, retained tooling wouldn't even really be my main source of concern — I'm thinking more about design validation. Starting from a known base is usually a lot less effort than starting from scratch even if you would have eventually thrown out the avionics, power units, and a number of other primary subsystems.
I'm mostly wondering if there's a drastic change to the mission profile / requirements anywhere that just made the B-2 a non-starter as a base.
dynamoterrordynastes@reddit
The requirements are indeed different.
HumpyPocock@reddit
Similar, but different. Last minute change to the B-2 was change from high altitude to low altitude flight profile. Note the extra flight surfaces on the B-2 (elevons?) as well as the V on the intake and the extra geometry toward the centre — all of that was due to changing the flight envelope. Also sounds like the sensor suite and flight control software, as well as the stealth coatings are significantly more robust.
Recoil42@reddit
Interesting, thanks, this was the kind of thing I was looking for. Presumably B-21 has changed back to high altitude?
What precipitated the change with the B2?
I expect there's a significant shift towards Gen6 UCAV ideologies with the B-21. If they expect future loyal wingmen derivations with loiter capabilities, that could explain the size change.
GaBeRockKing@reddit
Presumably radar avoidance-- towards the middle and end of the cold war there was a doctrinal shift in the airforce away from "high and fast" (SR-71, Valkyrie, the original plans for the B-1 lancer) to "low and stealthy" (the B-1 lancer, sort of, the B-2).
I don't know enough about military technology to definitively say why the air force decided to switch from low and stealthy to high and stealthy, but it's probably some combination of:
Rampant16@reddit
Yeah what you wrote is almost entirely bullshit. B-1B was forced to switch to lower altitudes for penetration missions because it was neither stealthy nor fast enough to avoid air defenses at higher altitudes.
B-2 is stealthy enough. Altitude is advantageous to B-2, it helps with range and as you mentioned keeps it further away fron radar. Engines capable of flying at higher altitudes are not a brand new invention. B-2 uses the same engines as U-2 and the U-2 can fly at 70,000 feet.
GaBeRockKing@reddit
So you're saying that the B-1B was designed is such a way that, in operation, it would be hard to detect. What one might reasonably call "being stealthy" 🤔
Rampant16@reddit
Bruh, it was insufficiently stealthy. That's why it had to fly at low altitude, so it could hide below the radar horizon. Stealth is a spectrum and the B-1B is nowhere near a B-2.
GaBeRockKing@reddit
So you're saying, they took an approach designed to make it hard to detect by flying it at low altitude. Which one might reasonably call, "being low and stealthy."
Rampant16@reddit
Any plane is hard to detect if you fly it low enough. That doesn't make it stealth in the same way a purpose built stealth aircraft is.
If you fly a F-16 50 ft off the ground and there's a hill between it and a radar site than it won't be spotted. That doesn't make the F-16 a stealth fighter.
GaBeRockKing@reddit
But the b-1b: was purpose-built. Not in the sense that it was designed to be low-observable and radar absorbent, but in the sense that it was created with a requirement for intrinsically stealthy low-altitude mission, as opposed to relying solely on high-altitude speed.
Thus, it at least partiaally fits into a doctrinal change towards being low and stealthy, in a way the B-21 doesn't, because the B-21 is part of a new paradigm of being high-and-stealthy.
cubicle47b@reddit
I think the size of the B-2 was a problem for the Air Force since they have to be stored in hangers (for multiple reasons) and that limited where B-2s could be based out of.
dynamoterrordynastes@reddit
B-2 is intercontinental.
liedel@reddit
Why buy a Tesla when a 1991 Ford Taurus can fit the same mission profile?
Recoil42@reddit
Moving past the snark: Because Tesla and Ford are different companies, making different offerings. That is not the case with the B-2 and B-21. Ostensibly, the B-21 could very much be an evolution of the B-2, just as — to borrow your analogy — the 2023 Dodge Charger is still built on the same LX platform it has been based on for the last two decades, derived from the 2002 Mercedes W211.
liedel@reddit
The differences between B-21 and B-2 are greater than the differences between a Tesla and a Taurus.
Recoil42@reddit
We all know they're different aircraft, that's the very point of this post. I'm delving more into that, asking why they don't share a direct, physical linear heritage, inviting others to speculate on what might have changed with the mission profile, and/or what has necessitated a significantly new airframe design.
Like cars, aircraft typically do not change much unless they have to do so, and when they do change in form, there are typically good reasons for those changes.
liedel@reddit
And I'm answering you, you're just more set on arguing than understanding. Literally everything but the shape of the airframe (and even that...) is generations ahead. From the architecture to the materials to the electronics to the openness of its architechture...
Recoil42@reddit
We all know these are different generations of aircraft. We all know the materials are different. We all know the electronic architecture is different.
What we don't know is why one has a significantly smaller wingspan than the other — the F-15 and F-22 were dramatically different generations of same-role aircraft, and yet have very similar wingspans and payload capabilities.
LightTankTerror@reddit
I presume there’s been a change in requirements and updating the B-2 won’t do. So it’s new plane time.
Anyone who is in the know shouldn’t say and so it’s gonna be speculation from anyone who does say anything.
walterchagasjr@reddit
O B21 por ser menos, ele é mais discreto que o outro além do fator mais cruicial: O custo! A hora de voo dele é quase a metade da hora de voo do B2 e os custos de manutenção e operação também. O B2 é um bombardeiro tão caro de operar e de voar que ele só é posto no céu em missões que justifiquem o custo das mesmas. A ultima operação dele, se não me engano, antes do bombardeiro ao Irã, foi na ocupação americana no Iraque a mais de 10 anos atrás
Isitpartytime@reddit
I just saw a B2 at the airforce museum in Dayton and I was blown away by how big it is but also how thin. What a cool museum.. (drove 9 hours from jersey for a phish show- had some time to kill before shakedown street)
ThinkinFlicka@reddit
two of my favorite things as well, heady jam bands and military aircraft lol
GravityReject@reddit
I was lucky enough to see a B-2 flying directly overhead one time (this was very near to a major USAFA base), and it looked extremely surreal. It was a clear bright day, and it appeared as a weird angular black void sliding across the sky, as if the sky had some large dead pixels moving across the screen.
Rdc-121974@reddit
The B2 was designed for a ceiling of 60K feet until low level flight mods were made dropping it to 55K feet. This is a smaller lighter stealthier version with much more powerful engines and no low level kit. 55K is listed as the ceiling. I think that is a VERY conservative number. Like the F22's 60K feet number.
tirken@reddit
i want to add my uneducated opinion on the b-21. for starters, i don't like it.
it's not fast enough, it doesn't have enough range, and it's not big enough, nor does it fly high enough.
well ... how DO we know the range?? anyone may correct me at anytime, but the only thing i've been able to find on the range is based on an order that australia was putting in for several of them, and the versions they were getting were only 2500 mile range. Australia actually cancelled the order and decided to upgrade its existing f-35's.
We know that some of the F-35's that were sold to other nations were basically hindered versions of the US f-35. Like the F-35, there are handful of nations that contributed to the R&D, and i believe these nations will be "entitled" to the "full version" of the b-21. Australia was not one of these nations, although the US military did offer it to join the program during that business deal. This, along with a statement by a senior US military official that the b-21 would have the "longest range of any bomber in the fleet." would suggest it can at least out-fly a b-52. So, are there two versions of the aircraft? Some sources are claiming the B-21 to be a super long range bomber, with new engines that have a "high bypass fan" that enables them to fly much further than the b-2. And, other sources, including a new youtube video by a popular creator, are suggesting this 2500 mile range reported through the Australia deal.
The other option is, it really IS a low-range bomber. That same military official that stated it would have "more range" than any other of our bombers, also stated that this aircraft is an "international effort" (like the f-35, other nations are helping build it). Currently, all B-2 missions have literally taken off from one place, Missouri. They take off, fly across the planet, re-fuel, and continue their mission. These b-21s are smaller, easier to maintain, and easier to configure, and so can therefore much more easily take off from other airports, effectively giving it more range if you consider we may have them stationed across the globe at our and our allies' bases.
As a side-note, currently there's no unmanned b-21s in production or use, but the goal is to eventually have them be un-manned, although they kind of announced that and then sort of kept it hush hush, but that has to be the ultimate goal, or else we'll be paying for another bomber program before 2050, for unmanned bombers.
Regardless of range, the comments others are saying is true. We need more bombers, more range, more stealth, and more tankers. If not, we're going to be greatly overtaken by the East within the next 20 years. 100 low-range strike bombers added to an already low number of f-35s won't cut it if sh*t REALLY hits the fan.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
That is not correct. The B-21 actually has a longer range than the B-2, at over 6,500 miles.
"Warden said that the B-21's internal operations were "extremely advanced compared to the B-2" and that the B-21 was slightly smaller than the B-2, with a longer range.[41]"
tirken@reddit
Ok. First of all, you don't know that. Secondly, i mentioned that sources say the range is either 6000 miles OR 2500 miles. Where do these numbers come from? Well, the 6000 miles comes from an article by The National Interest. If you google it, all mentions of 6000 miles, including the Gemini AI response, will refer back to this article. The article itself states that this is merely speculation based on my above mentioned quote by that senior military official who claimed it would have the longest range of any aircraft. However, the only official documents mentioning its range are from that Australian report (i'm really just repeating myself here. did you even read my entire OP?) that says the range is 2500 miles. Things confirming its 2500ish mile range:
Australian order report. This is official. You cannot debate this. The only debate is that Australia was getting "weaker" versions of the aircraft, which is somewhat common, but never mentioned in the report, although Australia DID cancel their order, so it could be possible that the US version will have more range.
Northrop Grumman is developing the plane. In order to save money, they are currently using the F135 engines in the B-21. These engines have a 1200 mile range, approximately. There will be no more than 3 of them in the B-21, but most likely 2, which would give it no more than about a 2000-3000 mile range. Dang, 2500 fits right in the middle of that doesn't it?
Northrop Grumman is also developing the X-47B, a strike-fighter stealth unmanned aircraft which is being developed alongside the B-21, and while i'm speculating here, so were the sources where your 6000 miles came from... but, one of the main purposes of the X-47B is air-to-air refueling. One of the main purposes of the B-21 is to be an airborne command station which commands unmanned vehicles, in addition to being a strike bomber. I have a feeling they're intending on using these in-concert to create a global "network" of these planes to keep the B-21 in the air basically at all times. They could do this with long-range engines which don't currently exist, or they could do this with the current engines and another plane which is designed in-part to help refuel it.
Regardless, both the B-21 AND the X-47B are designed to be upgradeable in the future, so we could at any time see newer engines or even different versions with different engines in order to achieve the 6000+ mile range. I should mention that there's also another article claiming that the B-21 has "7000-9500 miles of range." But i don't think it's a credible source. The only credible sources are either 2500 or 6000. (i also saw 6500 somewhere, but whatever).
---------------
TL;DR: I'm not saying you're wrong, i don't want to argue. But, you are saying i'm wrong, and i'm not. No one knows the range of the B-21, but it is either 2500 or 6000 approximately. I hope it's 6000. You can look up the article on The National Interest by searching "B-21 range National Interest" and you can google "B-21 Australian order report" to find that info about the 2500 mile range.
ithappenedone234@reddit
And cost to combat effects provided?!? ~0.
Certainly when the main mission set of long range strike is done faster and cheaper by ballistics.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
Ballistics cannot really truly be stealthy, and thus you will always know it's coming and be able to intercept it. With stealth, you don't know it's coming until you blow up.
ithappenedone234@reddit
Sure thing! You know all the systems in the world opposing us that can effectively shoot down a volley of ballistics! You know, ~0 systems!
Also, bonus points for completely ignoring the threat to the crews! Nothing like civilians preferring systems that needlessly risk the lives of of combat troops because you just don’t care if we live or die. Ignoring the cost factor is also a gem.
Lore-Archivist@reddit
I mean, regarding your second point, we are on the cusp of unmanned aircraft, the B-21 is modular, it could in the not too far off future be turned into an unmanned bomber.
ithappenedone234@reddit
And the fact that it is optionally manned makes it heavier, slower and bigger than it needs to be. The fact that the purchase price is $700 million means that the range is cut in ~half by the need to return. For the cost of just the purchase price, we can buy and field ~350 ballistics that will provide the same effects. Legacy systems coming from legacy thinking, just don’t make sense.
Forgetting the $65,000 per hour operational cost, the maintenance costs, ground systems support costs, infrastructure costs etc., while ballistics remain the cheapest option.
So the B-21 needs ~12 hours to get from MO to Afghanistan, to repeat perhaps the B-2’s most famous mission if the B-21 took the short route, plus the time to slow down for refueling, when a ballistic can provide the effects in ~30 minutes. Have you ever been to combat that you think those are at all comparable? You want to
jwlmkr@reddit
Why use big plane when small plane do trick?
Lore-Archivist@reddit
More bombs, and with those angles big plane can be as stealthy as small plane
Lore-Archivist@reddit
We know for a fact that the B-21 will have a longer range than the B-2 does.
"Warden said that the B-21's internal operations were "extremely advanced compared to the B-2" and that the B-21 was slightly smaller than the B-2, with a longer range.[41]"
Tokyo_Echo@reddit
The B1 will always be the coolest though
404VigilantEye@reddit
B-1A was a beast. Supersonic punch.
The B-1B could never be as cool. The A model was like if the Concorde and XB-70 Valkyrie had a baby.
Tesseractcubed@reddit
B-1B is faster on the deck though?
They took the B-70 away from us, we can agree on that.
pcweber111@reddit
You take that back you bastard!
404VigilantEye@reddit
The cancelled Bone A was gonna be a faster plane. Just felt like the B-1B had to trade a ton off
pcweber111@reddit
But it looks so cool!
The_Forgotten_King@reddit
XB-70 >
new_tanker@reddit
The B-1's days are certainly numbered. Probably won't get to see sights like this at airshows anymore. Ellsworth AFB, I believe, is going to host the B-21 FTU once the aircraft comes online.
Will the USAF need another supersonic bomber? I mean, Russia has the Tu-160 Blackjacks and the Tu-22 Blinders, I'd say yes but at the same time weapon technology has grown in leaps and bounds since the B-1B first flew to where I don't think we need supersonic bombers when we can deploy weapons that can go much faster than the bombers and inflict more damage than an A2A missile going the same speed.
TheTenDollarBill@reddit
Any reason why they chose exactly 35 degrees for so many of the angles on the old and new plane?
K6GSXR1000@reddit
The B21 is more F117, than B2. The F117 should have been called B117.
K6GSXR1000@reddit
It's more F117 than B2, kinda a mix of them.
badpuffthaikitty@reddit
A single B-21 for when you don’t want to be seen. A flight of B-52s when you want to be seen.
Sunlight_Life@reddit
This is what we like to think. The Chinese tech is advancing fast and who knows what they'll come up with to detect this new USAF toy.
RedditFuckedHumanity@reddit
50 social credit points have been added to your account
BrosenkranzKeef@reddit
It’s common knowledge that detecting stealth airplanes is fairly easy and universal. Targeting them is not however. Targeting radar operates at different frequencies and higher refresh rates than detection radar so stealth planes are designed to counter that type of radar specifically.
Sunlight_Life@reddit
I appreciate your reply, this is something I had not thought about. Detection is one thing but targeting, locking on and sending a weapon to it that will be able to track it is a another game altogether.
On a other note how was the F117 shot down in Europe during Balkan War? I need to read up on that.
badpuffthaikitty@reddit
The USAF had air superiority over most of the globe. When that happens don’t have to drop bombs on people if you don’t need to. Just fly a flight of B-52s over your enemies head. Ask the Iraqi Army.
TallNerdLawyer@reddit
Lol. I understand that China has had some advances, but the PLAAF is still largely Soviet derivatives. Large quantity, meh quality.
MoeSzyslakMonobrow@reddit
And they don't have anything they haven't copied from us anyway.
jodudeit@reddit
Why leverage homegrown Chinese tech when stolen Western tech will do the trick?
RedBaronII@reddit
I don't disagree with your point, but just as we dont know what China and Russia have developed, we don't truly know what our R&D have cooked up either. We know of the B-21, but we really don't know about the B-21. It's certainly not just a smaller B-2.
snubdeity@reddit
People used to make these same jokes about the Soviets/Russians.
As we've seen lately, hyping someone up to compete with American tech is a lot easier than actually doing it.
jbouser_99@reddit
They should probably work on getting enough food for their people amd stopping their little genocide
T65Bx@reddit
Nothing we aren’t already anticipating counters to in Area 51 and the Skunk Works.
sicknig19@reddit
A massive zepeling for when you want to be remembered
Hyperi0us@reddit
Park a Venerator above their capitol when you want to become a legend
MoggX@reddit
Does anyone know if this picture of B-21 is accurate after the leak of a picture the past day?
Anyway to tell if B-21 has any features to reduce low frequency radars? My understanding is 6th is expected to reduce this.
siouxu@reddit
35 degrees is radar magic
Engelbert-n-Ernie@reddit
I’m an idiot, could you elaborate?
good_pupper@reddit
radar is scared of acute angles
MoeSzyslakMonobrow@reddit
Well, they are pretty adorable.
Agitated_Signature_@reddit
that pun was a sin
WeirdTalentStack@reddit
You’d have to be obtuse to not get the joke.
Hyperi0us@reddit
Real answer is that at the wavelength most search and track radar operates, 35° tends to bounce radar away from the scanning dish rather than back at it. There is still some radar return on a stealth platform, the difference is that it is being reflected away from any dish that can pick it up.
It'd be like shining a flashlight at a mirror offset on a 45° angle. The light will end up to the side of the mirror, not back at the person holding the light.
The radar absorbent paint, and the overall geometry help even more to absorb the radar return, so it's forward-observability is next to zero. For an airspace penetration system you only really care about the frontal observability, since if you're employing these as strategic bombers in very well protected airspace, you're likely going for SEAD-strikes. Once the AD is dead, the fairly trackable side profile radar return isn't as bad an issue, but it's still nowhere near that of something like an F-15 or B-52.
100PerfentMe@reddit
To be honest I am questioning if the speed will stay the same or not cause thats pretty important for stealth. Ya know
DarkDrakeX123@reddit
As someone who has worked on it y'all's comments are very entertaining =D.
thiccancer@reddit
I wonder why the rear of the fuselage has a different angle from the trailing and leading edges of the wing. Isn't edge alignment fairly important for stealth? Why change it from 35 to 28 degrees back there?
jodudeit@reddit
The B-21 did the unheard of by coming in on-schedule and under-budget.
54H60-77@reddit
To be fair, Im sure a lot of design and engineering, as well as systems integration was already done in paying for and maintaining the B-2. Theyre so similar in design philosophy Ive got to think theres a lot of crossover and were not having to pay for that learning curve that we did on the B-2.
thunderclogs@reddit
You're a bit early. Building is one, passing all tests is another.
Acceptable_Tie_3927@reddit
I wonder how stealthy B-21 actually is? (The hindi mastermind behind B-2's cloaking systems is held for life in federal Supermax and the new "twinjet B-2" doesn't seem to bring much novelty to the table regarding shape.)
When Vlad has the "Avantgard" prompt global strike hyper-glider and the Skyfall "nuclearly nuclear" cruise missile, this seems too little and too small.
Professional-Break19@reddit
Wasnt the kinzhal supposed to be unstoppable only for Ukraine to shoot them down with 30 year old patriot systems ? 🤣
SiBloGaming@reddit
The Kinzhal is just a glorified air launched ballistic missile, the kind the US tried out in the sixties and decided that they are not worth it.
But yeah, anything regarding vlads Wunderwaffen should be taken with a boulder of salt.
Nightblood83@reddit
.... Still claiming DPG...
SoberSeahorse@reddit
DPG?
MinimealCo2@reddit
The B-2 is still sexier IMO
mondobobo01@reddit
Yeah. The windows on the 21 are my main gripe.
Eirikur_da_Czech@reddit
Does it still have the kitchen and toilet for long flights?
Mint_JewLips@reddit
I like the guy with the mustache
dynamoterrordynastes@reddit
The rear center sweep is wrong on the B-21. They're all identical.
nsharma2@reddit
It'd be amazing to see one of these up close!
Kershiskabob@reddit
Bro you gotta feel like a superhero flying this thing, like how could you not?
MIKE-JET-EATER@reddit
Dorito plane go zoom
Flaky-Adhesiveness-2@reddit
Should help with gas milage....
Firefistace46@reddit
+25 HP
SecretProbation@reddit
Can’t wait for the B-21 to show up on war thunder, and some enterprising airman is baited into giving up airframe secrets lol
jodudeit@reddit
I don't fear the man who has access to the pilots manual. I fear the man who has access to the ground crew maintenance manuals.
jofgi@reddit
Hey! I worked on engineering this thing.
TheDrBrian@reddit
Senior Peg intensifies
Sea_Perspective6891@reddit
Looks like they took allot of notes from the X-47B
Diplomatic_Barbarian@reddit
35° is the magic angle, so it seems.
RedBaronII@reddit
40.23m is pretty damn precise for an estimation lmao
ChartreuseBison@reddit
Yes, it's precisely what the feet guesstimate is in meters
RedBaronII@reddit
Plus a significant figure. 132ft is still pretty precise regardless
SpacemanSpiff1200@reddit
Huh, I didn't think this was a War Thunder forum/ discord...
SuperFrog4@reddit
Hmm seems like we are buying a extremely more expensive, smaller and less capable replacement. Sounds about right for the military.
Hawtdawgz_4@reddit
It's significantly cheaper per unit.
SuperFrog4@reddit
I will believe it when i see it. DoD has been really good a hiding the true cost of projects. Just look at the JSF. Supoosedly $80 million a copy but that does not account for the long development time which cost billions more plus all the parts and the proprietary maintenance or technology costs.
I would not at all be surprised if the B-21 tops over 2 billion after all is said and done.
Unable9451@reddit
The cost of the JSF program was absolutely represented in the unit price. Early-lot airframes cost about $300 million, while later lots have come down to as low a number as $80 million per unit. Export versions are usually the later lots, and so benefit from the lower prices.
8BallSlap@reddit
Dimensioning the half-span and labeling it with the span is mildly infuriating. Makes it look like from the centerline to the wingtip is farther than it really is.
No-Baby4667@reddit
Steve jobs would have been a better president than Donald Trump. But it's a silly comparison really, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
bob_the_impala@reddit (OP)
Oh look, one of those comment karma farming bots.
Woahwoahwoah124@reddit
Their account was created today and it only has 31,600 karma. Seems perfectly normal to me 🤷🏽♂️