dark sidius said:
I realy don't think it will be a mini B-2, more something else with new capacity.
Well...Perhaps it depends on how folks think of the B-2.
The threats are well documented. The response with near peers and regional actors with sophisticated A2AD assets requires the door to be kicked down to neutralize the A2AD threats so sustained sorties can continue until the threat is removed.
Global Strike takes into account the realities of the geopolitical environment;
- concern about casualties (civilian and military)
- necessity of coalitions and allies
- access limitations to airfields (even those of partners) based on politics, length, width, strength or load classification number - including wartime landing performance limitations
- stringent rules of engagement
- A2AD
- need for sustained sorties
Dealing with these issues, it seems like the US Air Force has decided that the global strike requires capabilities that were too expensive to sit in one platform, hence no NGB program. So what capabilities are necessary for global strike to be successful? Wasn't that question answered with the "family of systems" revealed of which B-21 and B-2 are part - and also necessary to leverage and enable the Air-Sea Battle Concept?
The family of systems has been said to include and integrate ISR; survivability techniques - think Electronic Attack and ESM; and C3 assets. "The right ability applied across a family that gives us not only the access we want, the time and choosing we want, but the survivability we also want, and mission execution," according to RCO's Randall Walden.
We've seen the stand-up of the X-37, which is now on it's fourth mission. The US's ability to mitigate threats to space assets is critical to global strike. It's been reported that X-37 is performing a variety of missions including support of the AEHF satellites, HAL thrusters and testing various materials in space and "other space technologies the US want's to buy down risk on" (RW). AEHF is critical for global strike.
We've heard about the RQ-180. Perhaps a likely candidate for the ISR job. Electronic Attack is said to be incorporated into B-21, perhaps it's been matured via RQ-180 for B-21?
Mr Walden stated that B-21 is about "minimizing any invention, maximizing capabilities we've had today. And if you think about it, it's been about three decades since we fielded the B-2 so one can imagine there's been a lot of work behind the scenes over those three decades to improve on that particular flying wing capability of yesteryear."
The RCO is also working on the Common Mission Control Center (CMCC). Perhaps this is the C2 function mentioned in the family of systems.
---
Today, kicking down the door includes F-22's and B-2's. The B-21 is the follow-on for B-2 in that mission set. It might also be the replacement for 80 other bombers in the inventory. The interesting part of the question is how have the capabilities been maximized? What will be necessary to kick down the door? Will a supersonic capability (F-22) be necessary w/B-21 as it's been important for B-2? Will LRSO development meet the need?
Will a hypersonic missile negate the need for supersonic aircraft (PCA - think F-22) as part of the B-21 strike package? Will the tech maturity not be there for hypersonic such that a follow-on manned, supersonic PCA airframe be required for F-22?
My perception is that the Air Force has already determined that a replacement for F-22 is necessary. It's the PCA paragraph in the 2030 Flight Plan published. The 2017 AoA for the PCA capabilities has been set. The US Congress has asked for F-22 restart costs/issues/requirements/risks/etc report with a quick turn around time for the document/hearings set. If they decide they need a supersonic airframe as a PCA replacement for F-22 to compliment B-21 we'll see a B-21 like (minimizing any invention, maximizing capabilities - RCO-led) program for the new PCA - perhaps optionally manned like B-21.
---
So - is the B-21 a mini B-2? Well, it's a unique flying wing configuration that serves as a multi-role bomber that flies long missions for which stealth is important. Perhaps, to your point, with a host of enabling technologies including 30 years of advancement in stealth, flying wing tech, EA, ESM, sensor fusion and C2 integration to leverage all US Military assets. Is that a different airplane? It's certainly a different asset - it just looks pretty darn similar.
Hopefully folks will look past the similar "look" to the transformational capabilities that come with the "family of systems."
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com
about.bgov.com
www.mitchellaerospacepower.org
www.dvidshub.net
www.executivegov.com
