B-2 Replacement

[Goose489]

How is the B-21 going to replace the B-2?

[Mr_sukebe]

It’s bigger by 1

[Monarch]

Can you expand on your question? What do you mean by "how"?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 12/23/2023 at 1:08 PM, Mr_sukebe said:

It’s bigger by 1

I think you'll find it's bigger by 20, actually.

Sources cited: me, I can count to 20 without taking off my shoes!

[sirrah]

On 12/31/2023 at 3:12 PM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I think you'll find it's bigger by 20, actually.

Sources cited: me, I can count to 20 without taking off my shoes!

And yet, it is actually smaller  

[Dragon1-1]

It'll hopefully be cheap enough so they can have more than 20 or so. That would compensate for its smaller size. Being a stealth bomber, raw payload isn't the objective, that's for B-52s and the like.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 1/2/2024 at 5:31 AM, sirrah said:

And yet, it is actually smaller  

Well, it's space-age, innit?

It's like a TARDIS.

[Rick50]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:07 PM, Goose489 said:

How is the B-21 going to replace the B-2?

 

Well, last I  heard was the B-2 wasn't going to be retired by the B-21, but that it might soldier on alongside the Raider for a decade maybe. However... realities of budgets and maintenance headaches will probably change that.

 

Sure,  it's smaller in size and payload. But instead of buying just 21 Spirits,  the first order is for 100 Raiders, and the plan as it exists now, calls for 175 to  200 Raiders. 

There were/are several goals with the Raider: 

 

- much longer combat radius.  They are not giving much hints... just that it'll  be able to reach anywhere in the world. Also hints that could be considered a possible  adversary. Talk that if needed, could be operated from less capable airfields, such as found in the South Pacific... 

 

- much faster simpler and cheaper to maintain the stealth coatings/ surfaces. Operating costs are a big factor,  considering this takes a HUGE portion  of the USAF  budget for normal  planes, and the Spirit is very expensive to keep  running.

 

- a LOT more ELINT and EW features, collecting data about the enemy is a major focus, just as it is with the F-35. They are talking about sometimes sending Raider on a pure "spy plane" mission, implying not carrying bombs or weapons on occasion,  but to collect SAM site emissions, radio intercept and such. There was even speculation that there might be a dedicated purpose-built "spy" version.... but I suspect all of that capability will end up on all Raiders, just my opinion. Why? Because that's  how the  leading edge of air combat theory and development is evolving. See Reapers  and F-35's, among others

 

- it won't "JUST" be a "bomber". It'll be so adaptable to different kinds of missions, even ones not yet imagined. There is talk of arming it with long range air to air missiles.  Also HARM type weapons,  and possibly very capable EW to defend from S-400 SAM systems

 

- will allow for easy integration with UCAV's  like "Loyal Wingman" and other programs

 

- though  I've not seen this yet, but I'm sure someone at USAF will really  talk up  the benefits of artificial  intelligence into the Raider

 

- there is talk of making some or all of them "optionally manned". Meaning, you might not send it on a mission with a crew every time... you might keep the crew at home and fly it like Reaper pilot operators do from a container in Nevada. It's not clear if this capability will remain in the program

 

- data networking comms will be a major part of the Raider program, to communicate with distributed sensors, Loyal Wingmen, manned wingmen,  and assets in the kill chain that  might be on different continents

 

- the Spirit, after all this time, is still not anywhere near being obsolete. The Raider's capabilities and concepts are apparently  largely the result of successful  testing on Spirits the last 10 years. The Raider builds on the success and lessons learned by it's "Dad"

 

[Rick50]

It's also worth considering that the B-52 will soon be getting an engine replacement. Yes, that's right, this slow very old tech, that has precisely zero stealth, is intended to fly on in service until it sees 100 years of active duty!  

 

Sure, it'll need heavy EW even for long distance standoff wps deployment, but this IS the  plan. Meanwhile, once the B-21 comes into service, they'll terminate the B-1B Bone, as it's maintenance costly and doesn't offer significant advantage over the B-52 or B-21.

[Dragon1-1]

B-52 has a simple role which hasn't changed in 100 years: low threat delivery of a massive load of bombs. There's no magic here, you need a great big plane, a great big bomb bay, and... that's basically it. You don't deploy the B-52 where you expect it to be shot at by anything, instead you surround it with enough fighters and SEAD that even though the enemy knows you're coming, they can't do a damn thing about it. It is, by far, the most efficient way of pounding the enemy into submission once air defenses and fighter bases had been taken down, possibly by B-21s.

Another role it fulfills is a long range cruise missile boat, shared with similarly old Tu-95. It's rarer to see it do this, but it can. All you need is a big plane with big racks capable of hauling a lot of mass. Once again, B-52 delivers, and you don't need to fix what isn't broken.

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

the most efficient way of pounding the enemy into submission o

Except that it never works.

https://northernstories.no/books/125-bjorn-berge-a-pacifist-s-guide-to-bombers

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Except that it never works.

Yeah, it never works, except in ODS and OAF, when it did. When you're targeting an airfield, a military base, or any sufficiently large gathering of conventional forces, a B-52 strike tends to be rather effective.

You seem to be confusing destroying the enemy's ability to fight with breaking the enemy's will to fight. The latter is kind of hard to destroy with bombs, but when facing a regular army, the former is very much doable, and made much easier by being able to deliver a lot of big explosives. US loses like Vietnam and Afghanistan were against guerilla movements, which require a more comprehensive approach to fight.