Post - B-21 long range strike capability

I bet it will be some B-21B version with all the goodies the USAF wanted in the original version but couldn't get due to price.
 
Desertfox said:
I bet it will be some B-21B version with all the goodies the USAF wanted in the original version but couldn't get due to price.
Click to expand...
They are already looking towards 2030+ and saying they want something more advanced.
 
There's a room for a non-stealthy cruise-missile carrier, something that's significantly cheaper than the B-21B and has the job of carting cruise missiles from an airbase at a safe range to the launch point and heading home.

The B-21B takes a huge cost and complexity hit for ability to penetrate air defenses. If you're ok attacking targets at the edge of the defended area, something less stealthy might be sufficient.
 
bobbymike said:
If you believe this single congressional hearing marks the definitive policy of the USAF for the next 20+ years from the lips of a single general then…..
Click to expand...
History seems to keep repeating itself. Time will tell I suppose
 
DrRansom said:
There's a room for a non-stealthy cruise-missile carrier, something that's significantly cheaper than the B-21B and has the job of carting cruise missiles from an airbase at a safe range to the launch point and heading home.

The B-21B takes a huge cost and complexity hit for ability to penetrate air defenses. If you're ok attacking targets at the edge of the defended area, something less stealthy might be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Can't believe we are still reading such, a week after the Great Turkey shot over Jordan.

SIAW is definitely the only sustainable way to have a massive first strike.
 
Last edited:
DrRansom said:
There's a room for a non-stealthy cruise-missile carrier, something that's significantly cheaper than the B-21B and has the job of carting cruise missiles from an airbase at a safe range to the launch point and heading home.

The B-21B takes a huge cost and complexity hit for ability to penetrate air defenses. If you're ok attacking targets at the edge of the defended area, something less stealthy might be sufficient.
Click to expand...

The B-52 already fills that role.
 
Josh_TN said:
DrRansom said:
Hansblix said:
They are already looking towards 2030+ and saying they want something more advanced.
Click to expand...

There's a room for a non-stealthy cruise-missile carrier, something that's significantly cheaper than the B-21B and has the job of carting cruise missiles from an airbase at a safe range to the launch point and heading home.

The B-21B takes a huge cost and complexity hit for ability to penetrate air defenses. If you're ok attacking targets at the edge of the defended area, something less stealthy might be sufficient.
Click to expand...

The B-52 already fills that role.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking, the B-52... planned replacement 2040+, so its replacement needs to begin development no later than 2030.
 
TomcatViP said:
Can't believe we are still reading such, a week after the Great Turkey shot over Jordan.

SIAW is definitely the only sustainable way to have a massive first strike.
Click to expand...

SiAW does not exist yet and I would be surprised if it was any cheaper than AGM-158. The real advantage of B-21 would be employing glide bombs and guidance kit bombs, which cost a fraction of the price and can be carried in larger numbers. There also are some ISR advantages, as well as the ability to carry heavy and super heavy penetrators.
 
I think that the USAF should concentrate on designing the follow up to the B-52, something that has the stealth of the B-21 the speed of the B-1B (if not faster) and the weapons carrying capability of the B-52 (all internal). Considering that 2040 is about 20 years away they had better get started.
 
FighterJock said:
I think that the USAF should concentrate on designing the follow up to the B-52, something that has the stealth of the B-21 the speed of the B-1B (if not faster) and the weapons carrying capability of the B-52 (all internal). Considering that 2040 is about 20 years away they had better get started.
Click to expand...

We tried that -- the iteration of contract before the B-21 was roughly this, and it was unaffordable.

A realistic design approach will be "Supersonic, large, stealthy, pick any two"(or maybe even any 1.5). Given the likely proliferation of fast missiles plus an acceptably large force of stealthy B-21s, I think a stand-off B-52 successor bomber can afford to be large (B-1 payload, which is actually larger than the B-52) and only moderately stealthy (not to B-21 levels) but relatively slow and economical.
 
FighterJock said:
I think that the USAF should concentrate on designing the follow up to the B-52, something that has the stealth of the B-21 the speed of the B-1B (if not faster) and the weapons carrying capability of the B-52 (all internal). Considering that 2040 is about 20 years away they had better get started.
Click to expand...

That was the program that predates the LRS-B/B-21 and it was cancelled due to the immediate development costs of meeting all those requirements. I would argue it is too early to know what future requirements will entail. Supersonic may be a total nonstarter once there is an opposing network of missile/hypersonic detection satellites. Bombers themselves may be outmoded as too large and expensive compared to cheaper UAVs. Delivery via spacecraft might become cost effective. Who knows. The rate of technological advancement is accelerating, making prediction ever more difficult.
 
Josh_TN said:
That was the program that predates the LRS-B/B-21 and it was cancelled due to the immediate development costs of meeting all those requirements. I would argue it is too early to know what future requirements will entail. Supersonic may be a total nonstarter once there is an opposing network of missile/hypersonic detection satellites. Bombers themselves may be outmoded as too large and expensive compared to cheaper UAVs. Delivery via spacecraft might become cost effective. Who knows. The rate of technological advancement is accelerating, making prediction ever more difficult.
Click to expand...
IMHO I don’t think we’ll see a large stealthy “supersonic” heavy bomber at least in my lifetime (hoping I have 40 years left).
 
bobbymike said:
IMHO I don’t think we’ll see a large stealthy “supersonic” heavy bomber at least in my lifetime (hoping I have 40 years left).
Click to expand...

I don’t think one will ever exist, because high thermal loads at high altitude will no longer be stealthy with the proliferation of IR systems in LEO.
 
I do wonder about the JetZero flying wing. The current concept is not anywhere near as stealthy as the B-2 or B-21, but keeps getting mentioned as part of USAF's plan for a "reduced signature" tanker/air lifter. Could we see a variant of the KC-Z which takes over the missile truck job for B-52?
 
A BWB would be a great replacement for the B-52 and possibly the KC-46.

I wonder how expensive a stripped down B-21 would be without all the fancy stealth coatings and ECW. Dont need all that to replace B-52s as ALCM carriers and would still be orders of magnitude more stealthy.
 
Last edited:
Desertfox said:
A BWB would be a great replacement for the B-52 and possibly the KC-46.

I wonder how expensive a stripped down B-21 would be without all the fancy stealth coatings and ECW. Dont need all that to replace B-52s as ALCM carriers and would still be orders of magnitude more stealthy.
Click to expand...

The avionics of the B-21 likely drive costs more than materials. It also not sized well for internal volume of large cruise missiles. A new from scratch platform is like required, though perhaps future tanking and SOW delivery might share a basic plane form.
 
Moose said:
I do wonder about the JetZero flying wing. The current concept is not anywhere near as stealthy as the B-2 or B-21, but keeps getting mentioned as part of USAF's plan for a "reduced signature" tanker/air lifter. Could we see a variant of the KC-Z which takes over the missile truck job for B-52?
Click to expand...
I think that makes a ton of sense, if you have a new reduced signature tanker air lifter platform, why can't you make a 3rd version for a bomber? Saves on some common part costs, and saves a decent amount on airframe delevopment. If done right you might even be able to turn the new bomber version into an emergency tanker or air lifter version in a crisis.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it is more likely they just are not willing to commit to a larger buy if it occurs ten years out, rather than any specific capability they see on the horizon. Technology might change too much over that time span. I suspect if Congress threw enough money at them, they would increase the production rate.
Click to expand...
Given new airframe development timelines to IOC, wouldn't they have to begin a new program in a few years if they are looking at a late 2030's capability? Unless they are looking at a B-21 version 2.0 refresh to integrate any new capability.
 
DrRansom said:
There's a room for a non-stealthy cruise-missile carrier, something that's significantly cheaper than the B-21B and has the job of carting cruise missiles from an airbase at a safe range to the launch point and heading home.

The B-21B takes a huge cost and complexity hit for ability to penetrate air defenses. If you're ok attacking targets at the edge of the defended area, something less stealthy might be sufficient.
Click to expand...
Rapid Dragon looks like it's filling that role in some capacity. Why reconfigure a large aircraft for cruise missile deployment in a costly manner when you can just use palletized munitions?
 
4decaa said:
Rapid Dragon looks like it's filling that role in some capacity. Why reconfigure a large aircraft for cruise missile deployment in a costly manner when you can just use palletized munitions?
Click to expand...
From what?
 
4decaa said:
Rapid Dragon looks like it's filling that role in some capacity. Why reconfigure a large aircraft for cruise missile deployment in a costly manner when you can just use palletized munitions?
Click to expand...

There's definitely a lot of merit to that, given the sheer quantity that a C-17 can carry and the ubiquitous nature (and rough field capability) of C-130s. Clearly those aircraft would probably be in great demand in their primary roles, but on the other hand even reserving a half dozen C-17s for missile operations would probably give you a sustainable hundred missile a day delivery rate.
 
Desertfox said:
A BWB would be a great replacement for the B-52 and possibly the KC-46.

I wonder how expensive a stripped down B-21 would be without all the fancy stealth coatings and ECW. Dont need all that to replace B-52s as ALCM carriers and would still be orders of magnitude more stealthy.
Click to expand...
I’ve been a proponent of a BWB arsenal plane for a very long time with enough posts here to probably annoy the members.

It’s seems like a great solution so probably why it won’t be pursued by the DOD.
 
bobbymike said:
I’ve been a proponent of a BWB arsenal plane for a very long time with enough posts here to probably annoy the members.

It’s seems like a great solution so probably why it won’t be pursued by the DOD.
Click to expand...
the advantage offered isn't enough to spend R&D on a dedicated platform. However your dream may be realized once air force adopt a BWB tanker/transport/gunship. Hanging cruise missiles isn't much of a development cost once you already have the aircraft.

I hope jetzero go somewhere. Robert Liebeck a great professor
 
Perhaps they are already designing the LO theatre strike aircraft but this time in the Black World Hydroman? That would be the best option for such a technologically advanced aircraft. I wonder if they could use the FB-23 as a starting point especially to keep the costs down.
 
FighterJock said:
Perhaps they are already designing the LO theatre strike aircraft but this time in the Black World Hydroman? That would be the best option for such a technologically advanced aircraft. I wonder if they could use the FB-23 as a starting point especially to keep the costs down.
Click to expand...
And an ending point. ;)
 
Hansblix said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Allvin: USAF Sticking to 100 B-21s as It Considers Something New

USAF may not buy more than 100 B-21s as something better may be developed by the time those aircraft are built, CSAF Gen. David Allvin said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

I called this last year and got a ton of shit for it.
Click to expand...

Reading the article as well, as comments above here re the unmanned wingman being axed....

Interesting qoutes from article

'The Air Force isn’t looking to buy more than 100 B-21s because it may come up with something better by the time all those aircraft are built, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 16.'

'Allvin did not elaborate on what other technologies the Air Force is considering to “augment” the B-21 force.'

So what else is bubbling underneath then I wonder ....more importantly has something been developed in parallel...

cheers
 
RavenOne said:
Reading the article as well, as comments above here re the unmanned wingman being axed....

Interesting qoutes from article

'The Air Force isn’t looking to buy more than 100 B-21s because it may come up with something better by the time all those aircraft are built, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 16.'

'Allvin did not elaborate on what other technologies the Air Force is considering to “augment” the B-21 force.'

So what else is bubbling underneath then I wonder ....more importantly has something been developed in parallel...

cheers
Click to expand...
AFRL is researching manned hypersonics, so that's a possible future capability.
 
FighterJock said:
Perhaps they are already designing the LO theatre strike aircraft but this time in the Black World Hydroman? That would be the best option for such a technologically advanced aircraft. I wonder if they could use the FB-23 as a starting point especially to keep the costs down.
Click to expand...
You know FighterJock, even though Paul Metz came out with his YF-23 book, everyone notices there is not a lot of info available, no other books, ATF dem/val videos/images, etc, YF/F-23 is still kind of a ghost, not much for public release, really just tidbits. Same for our competing ATA (mini-original B-2 and B-21), hence look at the B-21 configuration but nothing of any substance to our ATA accept two book images of a model. I would assume there have or has been a theater strike platform demonstrator built and flown but it also has to have value to move the program forward. Now with that said, if it was found to have game changing capabilities, you could produce and operate in the black, makes sense. Same for a let's say Mach 5 vehicle, if we could fly the Blackbird family to 3.5+ in the 1960s, I would assume m5 may have already flown 20 years ago. 100 B-21s to start with and we'll see where it goes from there.
 
sferrin said:
And an ending point. ;)
Click to expand...
I am quite fond of the idea of an aircraft of that sort. A genuine fighter-bomber with VLO stealth and the ability to supercruise. To different extents both the FB-22 and FB-23 were to leverage the work done on the ATF/F-22 program. I know the FB-22 would have used many components and structure from the F-22 which was still in production at the time. Since the production line for the FB-23 would have to be newly established anyway, the design wasn't as constrained by those considerations. But I wonder, if you were starting with a clean sheet of paper with the same set of goals, would there be anything worth changing about the basic configuration?

While I'd love to see an air-breathing hypersonic strike/reconnaissance aircraft, I'll believe we can achieve that when I see it. Thus far the demonstrators for such a potential hypersonic aircraft have been pretty limited, not much larger than a cruise missile at best.
 
what_is_that said:
AFRL is researching manned hypersonics, so that's a possible future capability.
Click to expand...

Hmm, perhaps back to the future and looking at the Advance Technology Bomber concepts of the 1980s, which looked more supersonic or at times like a manned missile!!. As it wasin the end with the Northrop B-2 flying wing design winning...

cheers
 
Colonial-Marine said:
While I'd love to see an air-breathing hypersonic strike/reconnaissance aircraft, I'll believe we can achieve that when I see it. Thus far the demonstrators for such a potential hypersonic aircraft have been pretty limited, not much larger than a cruise missile at best.
Click to expand...
hypersonic and reconnaissance are mutually exclusive due thermal and shockwave effects.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom