Posted on 07/04/2018 9:24:26 AM PDT by Mariner
“Taken together – 120 combat-coded bombers, 20 trainers, and 24 planes for backup and attrition planning purposes – the minimum buy would be 164 aircraft."
Why 100 Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers Might Not Be Enough
Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider stealth bomber is rapidly approaching its critical design review (CDR), when a Pentagon review team will determine if the new aircraft is meeting the technical requirements set forth in its requirements documents.
If the design passes its CDR, the B-21 team will be cleared to build, integrate and test the aircraft before its next hurdle: the production readiness review. The idea is to ensure that the B-21 will meet its stated performance requirements within cost, schedule and risk tolerances.
“We haven’t done CDR yet, we are on our way to critical design review,” Randy Walden, director and program executive officer for the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office—which is responsible for B-21 program—said during an speaking engagement held at the Air Force Association’ Mitchell Institute on June 25.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
And it's STILL the best bomber in the world today.
Plans to retire them early are sheer folly. Even IF we get the 164 B-21s.
Always need a conventional bomber, if even not for standoff nukes like the B-52; which is always an option. The B-52 can’t get there like the B-1 can.
Mach .92 at 75ft above the deck, or through mountain passes with the computer driving, and 125,000 lbs of ordnance with external hardpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
FAR more payload and speed than the B-52 and the airframes are 30 years newer.
The author’s analysis is flawed.
The idea that we could undertake a strike with 200 heavy bombers against either Russia or China...without going full-on nuclear...is ludicrous.
Such an event is certain to precipitate strategic nuclear war.
Whilst we can assume the B-21 model has flown in a CFD ( Computational Fluid Dynamics ) environment, the question begs what if any have been flown in the real word aka scale man carrying and we all know where that could have been done. My point being w/ NG owning Scaled Composites and their personnel at NG and SC being top shelf, I have no problem with the possibility of the B-21 passing the critical review and the real prototype once flown, meeting it's design numbers and possibly even exceeding it. Build 200 or more of them, let us not do what we did with the B-2 and F-22, and oh yes moth ball the tooling after your done, and don't pull a Dick Cheney destroy all of it.
President Ike said it all,” Beware of the defence companies” we just dont need that many new bombers. Its all BS just jobs for retired USAF Generals. The same jerks who caused us to waste billions of dollars on bombers cut up at ARAMARK in the desert....Somebody better get in charge uts crazy millions for upgrades to the B 52 fleet, billions for new stealth bombers that have to have external hard points to cary enough bomb load who is the fing jerk in charge of this mess?????????????????
Yep. The Russians would pretty much be pushing the button once they saw American bombers pushing inside.
At the very least.
Well sign right up bucko. Maybe you can fly a B-52 that is older than your grandfather too.
BTW you sorely misquoted Ike.
Not sure why we need to develop new nuclear bombers for maybe another decade or two. Three generations are still in the air, the B-52, B-1, and B-2. Even if we finally ground the B-52, there’s still a lot of punch available.
Wow. A new fleet of B2 variants? They should be ready to go operational at right about the time that manned heavy bombers are finally completely obsolete.
Each country pretty much has fully automatic rifles with multiple 100 round loaded magazines.
Corporate Defense responds by ramping up to manufacture more shotguns.
Lobbyists?
I’ve read that the Bones were an unheralded workhorse during the campaign to take down the Taliban in Afghanistan post-9/11. Lots of payload, long loiter time, could scoot across the country quickly for a just-in-time delivery.
At the very least.
Into their homeland, sure. Into a theater adjacent to them? Not so likely. It's good to have a continuum of useful options short of actual nukes.
And I know it is expensive, but at one time an upgrade was proposed to put the Pratt and Whitney F-119 ( super-cruise, Low By-Pass Turbofan ) out of the F-22 into the Bone. It was reported the pilots were ecstatic as it opened the door for super-sonic again for the bird. later engines, probably lower TSFC for even greater loiter, that would have been sweet...
As things move on, things stay the same. We will always need a robust conventional military and be able to fight a two front war yet I believe the military space race is the future.
Yep. The Russians would pretty much be pushing the button once they saw American bombers pushing inside.
Mach .92 at 75ft above the deck, or through mountain passes with the computer driving, and 125,000 lbs of ordnance with external hardpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer
That is mind Boggling! And the B-1 in its nuclear role was to fire off SRAM-2 supersonic (at least) thermonuclear missiles from 200 miles away! Or B-83 megaton class gravity bombs,,, or both.
Was the MIG-31 really that good? Was the Mainstay AWACS that good? And today is the S-400/500 as good as advertised?
I have wondered for a long time if the B-1 really was that vulnerable thirty years ago if it is really a good idea to rely on any sort of non-standoff nuclear weapon, stealth or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.