broadsword
Brigadier
They are still great for bombing non-peer adversaries.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
They are still great for bombing non-peer adversaries.
@Blitzo I think it would be better for my post to be moved here instead/as well, as part of the response.
There are some who are rather dimissive of the B-21, claiming that the B-21s are just toned-down versions of the B-2s, similarly to how the Virginias are like to the Seawolfs.
However, I beg to differ. There are several things to consider:
First, the numbers - Unlike the prohibitively expensive B-2s, the B-21s are meant to be procured in the 100s (some in the USAF even want that number to go as high up as 200). This would present a systematic challenge to China's air defenses across the whole Pacific frontier (and even the Himalayan frontier in case the Indian government permits the passage of B-21 through Indian airspace to strike targets deep within China's interior), as the PLA would not be dealing with only 20 stealth bombers, but more than 100 stealth bombers as we are going into the second half of the 2020s and 2030s.
Second, the design - It is clear that the intakes are designed to be much slimmer and tapered to the wings and fuselage of the B-21 compared to the B-2. Seemingly the B-21's wings are also much tapered compared to the B-2. Although we would never know the true overall design of the B-21 for at least a couple more months or years, I think it is valid to assume that such design features would enhance the stealth capability of the B-21s better than the B-2. This definitely poses a greater challenge for the PLA in detecting and hunting them before they could drop their payload.
Third, the system and technological level - Remember that the B-2s were designed using technology from the 1970s and 1980s. Compare this to the B-21s, which were designed using technologies and systems from the 2010s and 2020s. That period of technological leap should never be ignored, as the designers of the B-21 would have a much better and more powerful design and engineering tools to them compared to the designers of the B-2. Similar analogy would be like one doing graphic design using Microsoft Paint, and another doing graphic design using Adobe Photoshop.
Fourth, experience - The US has a wealth of design, engineering and operational experience of the B-2 for the past 4 decades, of which all those can be utilized for the design and engineering processes of the B-21. Similarly, the team of designers and engineers who have worked on the B-2 can also be called upon and referenced upon for when the team of designers and engineers are working on the B-21. This is a huge bonus for Northrop Grumman and the USAF because this is something that no other country has ever possessed.
Finally, viability of cost - Don't forget that the USAF and Northrop Grumman have experience on the financial side of things as well. When claiming that B-21s are Viginias to how B-2s are Seawolfs, this question should follow: Do the Virginia-class SSNs suck? The answer is no. The Virginias are still respectable and formidable underwater foe for the PLAN, despite being a step down compared to the Seawolfs. Therefore, the PLA hould expect and be prepared that even if the B-21s are just downgraded versions of the B-2s, they are still a pretty viable stealth platform for conducting bombing and strike operations in the Pacific.
There are some who are rather dimissive of the B-21, claiming that the B-21s are just toned-down versions of the B-2s, similarly to how the Virginias are like to the Seawolfs.
However, I beg to differ. There are several things to consider:
First, the numbers - Unlike the prohibitively expensive B-2s, the B-21s are meant to be procured in the 100s (some in the USAF even want that number to go as high up as 200). This would present a systematic challenge to China's air defenses across the whole Pacific frontier (and even the Himalayan frontier in case the Indian government permits the passage of B-21 through Indian airspace to strike targets deep within China's interior), as the PLA would not be dealing with only 20 stealth bombers, but more than 100 stealth bombers as we are going into the second half of the 2020s and 2030s.
Second, the design - It is clear that the intakes are designed to be much slimmer and tapered to the wings and fuselage of the B-21 compared to the B-2. Seemingly the B-21's wings are also much tapered compared to the B-2. Although we would never know the true overall design of the B-21 for at least a couple more months or years, I think it is valid to assume that such design features would enhance the stealth capability of the B-21s better than the B-2. This definitely poses a greater challenge for the PLA in detecting and hunting them before they could drop their payload.
Third, the system and technological level - Remember that the B-2s were designed using technology from the 1970s and 1980s. Compare this to the B-21s, which were designed using technologies and systems from the 2010s and 2020s. That period of technological leap should never be ignored, as the designers of the B-21 would have a much better and more powerful design and engineering tools to them compared to the designers of the B-2. Similar analogy would be like one doing graphic design using Microsoft Paint, and another doing graphic design using Adobe Photoshop.
Fourth, experience - The US has a wealth of design, engineering and operational experience of the B-2 for the past 4 decades, of which all those can be utilized for the design and engineering processes of the B-21. Similarly, the team of designers and engineers who have worked on the B-2 can also be called upon and referenced upon for when the team of designers and engineers are working on the B-21. This is a huge bonus for Northrop Grumman and the USAF because this is something that no other country has ever possessed.
Finally, viability of cost - Don't forget that the USAF and Northrop Grumman have experience on the financial side of things as well. When claiming that B-21s are Viginias to how B-2s are Seawolfs, this question should follow: Do the Virginia-class SSNs suck? The answer is no. The Virginias are still respectable and formidable underwater foe for the PLAN, despite being a step down compared to the Seawolfs. Therefore, the PLA hould expect and be prepared that even if the B-21s are just downgraded versions of the B-2s, they are still a pretty viable stealth platform for conducting bombing and strike operations in the Pacific.
Last edited:
B21 looks like the economy class of B2.
The us defence & national budget is nearing its limits very fast.
We will see if they can actually keep costs down while moving to mass production. But a large number of stealth bombers as cruise mssile trucks is a pretty credible threat against Chinese naval assets.
B-2s, was meant to be procured in the 100s, Congress slashed plans to purchase 132 bombers to 21...We will see the fate of B-21 too but right now, they need to replace numbers so maybe it will have a better future than B2. But it will be a credible threat to any country even if it end at 50.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
B52 have a role. It’s a rather odd role but one that B52 and other old bombers like it can do. They are flying Missile launchers. You put a large number of externally carried hypersonic missiles on them and fly them out to a distance between you and the enemy airspace yet still well away from his homelands and let fly.
B1 was a penetration bomber. Its speed was supposed to allow it to enter and exit a peer’s airspace in that era before the Soviets and Russians intigrated their air defenses. Once those happened B1 was forced to fly in very low and place a lot of stress on itself to try and survive.
B2 was and is the worlds only true penetration bomber. It can fly in at altitude and release conventional or non conventional payloads before the enemy knows what happened. Yet because of the small numbers and age of it’s technology is aging faster than hoped. It’s what happens when you have a small fleet in high demand.
B21 was designed to replace these with a modern aircraft in numbers. Yes it makes compromises yet that’s fine when it’s role is unique. It doesn’t need the largest payload in the world that’s what numbers allow. and some of its payloads are nuclear.
It’s expected combat range already is enough to take it just about anywhere on the planet. Air to air refueling can allow such a craft to circumnavigate the earth multiple times until the crew needs to land.
This bomber is smaller than B2 yet that doesn’t mean inferior, it’s cost may be targeted to be less yet that doesn’t mean it’s any sort of technical downgrade. Remember the phone in your pocket is smaller than a PC in the early 1990s and has substantially more power. Many of you I am sure have heard the saying “Quantity has a quality all its own” well I posit to you gentleman. Quality in quantity isn’t impossible and B21 is supposed to be both and will be both.
When you don’t have any true peers. China is the “pacing threat” yet its reach is primarily regional. Vs the Global reach.
broadsword
Brigadier
B-1s or B-2s are more likely to be used. Whether B-52s will be used remains to be seen.
I don’t understand how people are already criticizing a design which we know nothing about. It is almost certainly more capable in many aspects than the B-2, and it is still superior to anything else out there in its class, although I guess you could argue it’s the only thing in its class.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
If it’s against a sophisticated air defense? B2 maybe B1 would be relegated to supporting friendly fleet. B21 aims to replace both.
B52’s function is clear it’s the same job it has done in other conflicts hurl missiles from long range. Stealthy cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles just hurl long range missiles and RTB. That’s what it’s good for. Same for old Tu95s and H6. Take off fly and hurl long range missiles. It’s the only job they are good for in a conventional military conflict. They and B1/Tu22/Tu160.
Attachments
-
CF59A4DC-4D1C-4765-9D88-4C32620EF851.jpeg