I don't see any reason why B-21 needs better T/W ratio than B-2, so would presume it's MTOW is going to be 75 to 80% that of B-2. If the payload is 50% of B-2 (as initial sources indicated), then internal fuel load should be greater than 75 to 80% of B-2. If B-21 is at 75% of B-2's weight, fuel tank could be 90%. Range is one thing I don't think USAF would sacrifice, because that would reduce operational flexibility. It would also not work with their phrasing of " The B-21 Raider is expected to operate with an ability to hold any target at risk, anywhere in the world, anytime,"
I mean, I've heard that B-21 is intended to be capable of carrying one MOP which is a 14t bomb.
Maximum estimated payload for B-2 is supposedly 23t, which is some 61%.
I'm not sure what the requirement for T/W for the B-21 will be compared to B-2 -- for example a Boeing 737 has a slightly higher T/W ratio than Boeing 747. In the case of B-21, perhaps they have slightly more ambitious airfield takeoff requirements than B-2 which may demand a slightly higher T/W ratio.
My understanding of B-21's ability to strike anywhere in the world, is that it is intended to be so numerous and be able to deploy at such a large number of international airbases, that it can reach multiple targets in the globe from those air bases -- i.e.: thus having a lower demand of the aircraft's own inherent internal fuel range compared to B-2.
I don't think I'm arguing against all of this. There is no question H-20 should be able to perform the role you talked about. However, I'm not sure you'd want to put H-20 in an high intensity environment as more of an EW and C4ISR asset when other less valuable assets could do the same role. If you don't have to do long range strikes (and if it doesn't put itself in great danger by operating in high intensity air combat environment), then that's a different story. I'd expect each H-20 to require significant down time after each strike mission based on what we know about other stealth aircraft. So even when they have a lot of H-20, block hours are important.
So, what I'm saying is that all of the "roles" I described, are all things that H-20 will have to perform as part of a "standard" bombing mission against a high intensity foe.
H-20 of course has the ability to perform those missions for standalone sorties if needed -- but the ability to support AEW&C level command/control, to perform EW/ECM level electronic attack and jamming, to command UCAVs in a complex fashion, to act as a high bandwidth data node, are all things that it will have to do as part of any sort of proper bombing mission against a high intensity foe.
Such a mission will not just be "take off, get into launch range of target, drop stand off long range cruise missiles, and RTB".
Instead, it'll be "take off, datalink with dozens if not hundreds of other simultaneously airborne manned and unmanned air superiority, strike, EW/ECM, AEW&C, ELINT aircraft in the entire hemisphere of the planet, provide and receive commands and data in a distributed fashion, provide handover and receive target information for many other friendly cruise missiles/ballistic missiles/HGVs that might be en route in the air at the time.... and then get to launch range of your designated target, and drop stand off long range cruise missiles (with datalinking and EW/ECM support and coordination from all of the aforementioned friendly assets, including to your long range cruise missiles), and then RTB while doing all of the same above.
IMO, what I described will be a very "bog-standard" normal future bombing mission for a high intensity conflict for an aircraft of H-20's generation.
To utilize the great data fusion, command/control, EW capabilities of each H-20 block hours, you'd need UCAVs that can fly as far in high subsonic speed and maintain same level of stealth. So if we come back to next gen UCAV, that would mean a large flywing type of UCAV with maybe 1 WS-10 and much great internal payload than what we've seen with GJ-11. I'd be curious what GJ-11's range and loiter time is. And you'd want UCAVs to require less downtime than H-20.
I wouldn't focus too much on GJ-11 -- the trend towards developing larger, more stealthy, larger payload, longer range UCAVs, is one that is going to be with us for a long time.
For H-20, its data fusion, command/control, and EW, IMO should not be viewed as a unique set of capabilities that will be sortie specific, but as a set of capabilities that will be utilized in every mission as part of a theater wide multi-battlespace conflict involving hundreds of friendly manned and unmanned assets in the air simultaneously, many/most of which would be stealthy.
That is the kind of datalinking, command/control and EW environment your aircraft needs to seamlessly operate in.
====
As for the issue of "engines powering lasers" -- I'm going to continue the discusison in the 6th gen thread, see here:
Check Han laser . However the world leader is trumpf and ipg photonics. Han's Laser makes laser systems, and procures laser sources primarily from IPG photonics; they're not direct competitors, but different parts along the supply chain. Raycus is China's domestic competitor to IPG photonics...
www.sinodefenceforum.com