Jump to content
Baseops Forums
HuggyU2

B-21 Raider

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another potential partner for new LO attack platform to give Allies regional power projection / deterrence.

Just saying.... the unrefueled distance required to launch from Israel and range all of Iran and the distance from say.... Lakenheath to Moscow are nearly identical....

 

Edited by Lawman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Just saying.... the unrefueled distance required to launch from Israel and range all of Iran and the distance from say.... Lakenheath to Moscow are nearly identical....

Yup...that's about the same range as Northern Australia to cover all of Indonesia or Spratly Islands.

An LO platform that as a singleton that could deliver the A/G effects of 2 x F-35 without AR across a theater (I define that as 750 NM) is what were talking about IMHO.  

Develop a platform to compliment the F-35 to continue the strategy of raising the capes of capable allies to keep the strategic competitors deterred. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That, with an emphasis on a smaller logistics tail than the strategic bomber fleet... That combined with unrefueled range lends itself to dispersability and unpredictability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

^ That, with an emphasis on a smaller logistics tail than the strategic bomber fleet... That combined with unrefueled range lends itself to dispersability and unpredictability. 

Yup, expeditionary/dispersed capability built in from the wheels up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

Edited by Sketch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

Yes but LO is mostly a matter of shape so form follows function.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

Wasn't part of the deal with the B-21 using existing technology to keep the budget manageable and shorten the development timeline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

But come on?  No ball turret or waist gunners?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

To be honest since we didn’t buy enough of them the first time, I’d be completely good with the ignore the obvious and just take a 21st century technology infused into what is basically the B-2. 
 

Modify the technology and add in all the decades of new stuff we have made common place. Evolve the airframe from a maintenance perspective with MSPUs and other sensors to make maintaining it and operational capability more viable, and use the 30 years of knowledge in “keeping/feeding” we have learned with the 4 stealth aircraft we have actively used in the fleet.

Combine that with a new engine for the B-52 and holy crap it’s 1993 again and we have bought a bomber fleet with 30 years in it until we need another major infusion or cash.

great success everybody, now can we please invest in a new modular 767 or other platform to absorb all those jobs we currently use aircraft constructed during the Carter admin to accomplish.... because time is ticking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

I get that a good chunk of the Raiders' advantages over older platforms will be internal and logistical, but I just can't help but think the design philosophy behind the aircraft was to innovate as little as possible because the DOD has essentially given up on trying to purchase new designs in large quantities. We've seen so many botched acquisitions programs over the last 2 decades (F-22 buy, CV-22, KC-46, light attack, of course the biggest offender the F-35, and even the original B-2 buy being so small to name a few) that is it even worth trying to purchase new aircraft from scratch anymore?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sketch said:

I get that a good chunk of the Raiders' advantages over older platforms will be internal and logistical, but I just can't help but think the design philosophy behind the aircraft was to innovate as little as possible because the DOD has essentially given up on trying to purchase new designs in large quantities. We've seen so many botched acquisitions programs over the last 2 decades (F-22 buy, CV-22, KC-46, light attack, of course the biggest offender the F-35, and even the original B-2 buy being so small to name a few) that is it even worth trying to purchase new aircraft from scratch anymore?

Don't be too quick to dismiss "what's new" in this airframe, as I think we'll see some surprises once everything is "out."   Just a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 10:42 AM, Clark Griswold said:


5.7 billion for a wall that directly protects the security and sovereignty of ‘Merica vs 15 billion for what exactly in continuing the Syrian mission? 45 billion per year for Afghanistan? X billions per year deterring aggression for Germany with the 4th largest economy in the world?
Spending a modest amount to keep out illegal aliens (some from hostile nations and/or members of TNCOs) is well worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

On 2/5/2020 at 8:20 PM, uhhello said:

But come on?  No ball turret or waist gunners?  

Ball or waist turret laser cannons.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...