4 ms·

That's the thing, I am pretty sure sure it's entirely evolutionary, without knowing anything about the project. B-2 with better stealth, engines, software, and

That's the thing, I am pretty sure sure it's entirely evolutionary, without knowing anything about the project. B-2 with better stealth, engines, software, and hopefully lower maintenance costs. Still more than any other country accomplished, but this is built on a solid foundation, without much departure. If anything, it's a mature, modernized B-2.

anovikov 3y ago
That would be too good to be true. It's in fact a smaller airframe with less range. Medium strategic bomber, not a proper one. Will still be good to go because new tankers will provide it with enough range and are available in large numbers.
- euroderf 3y ago
  > new tankers will provide it with enough range and are available in large numbers. Plenty of tankers ? That's unheard of. Like plenty of strategic airlift.
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  I think that was a calculated move based on what you described and the fact that the US has based these in allied countries during operations, so the full "strategic" range isn't really needed.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  That is exactly what is needed. The B-2 is too big, too expensive, and too few. The B-21, two thirds the size, is much more useful for modern warfare. The US is planning on buying 100 of them instead of the 21 B-2, and replace the B-2s, B-1s, and maybe the B-52s. The B-21 has the same range as B-2, it is the B-2 that is shorter range than B-52. Smaller bomber is much more flexible. Most missions don't require B-2 or B-52 size when carrying a few cruise missiles or guided bombs. If do need more, than can send two of them and those are available.
  - hondo77 3y ago
    > The US is planning on buying 100 of them instead of the 21 B-2... The Air Force wanted to buy over 100 B-2 but Congress said "no". We'll see what happens this round.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Nope. Smaller airframe yes, but a design that benefited from decades of advances in both algorithms and computing power. It most likely has a much better lift-to-drag ratio than B2, and more efficient engines too. It will at least match B2's range. Though the Raider’s true range remains classified, estimates place it at approximately 6,000 miles of range without refuelling, highlighting the platform’s extraordinary global potential. [1] https://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/b-21-raider-usaf-northrop-grumman/?cf-view https://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/b-21-raider-usaf...
mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago
It's completely evolutionary! To add context here. The B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180, which is an extremely stealthy flying wing. Coupled to existing engines (widely believed to be F-35 engines possibly with an increased bypass ratio). The B-2 had this huge problem where the original design (called "Senior Ice") was a stealthy high altitude bomber - like the B-21. But, at the last moment, the B-2 was completely redesigned to have low altitude flying capabilities - greatly increasing the cost of development and timeline. With the B-21, Northrop reverted to the original (Senior Ice) design. Building on top of all the technologies proved out by the RQ-180. And with a development team at the Strategic Capabilities Office organized to prevent anyone from adding or changing requirements. Evolutionary design + proven subsystems + focused and stable requirements. Likely the best managed DoD acquisition program in the last one to two decades.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chasd00 3y ago
  > the B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180, that's interesting, i wonder if that's where the unmanned mode of the B-21 comes from. Being able to fly unmanned would be useful in very high risk scenarios.
- thunderbird120 3y ago
  >the B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180 No it's not. The RQ-180 as a HALE drone with no weapons. The B-21 is a dedicated bomber. Despite both being flying wings with roughly the same basic shape the airframe requirements are completely different.

anovikov 3y ago

That would be too good to be true. It's in fact a smaller airframe with less range. Medium strategic bomber, not a proper one. Will still be good to go because new tankers will provide it with enough range and are available in large numbers.

euroderf 3y ago
> new tankers will provide it with enough range and are available in large numbers. Plenty of tankers ? That's unheard of. Like plenty of strategic airlift.
throw1234651234 3y ago
I think that was a calculated move based on what you described and the fact that the US has based these in allied countries during operations, so the full "strategic" range isn't really needed.
ianburrell 3y ago
That is exactly what is needed. The B-2 is too big, too expensive, and too few. The B-21, two thirds the size, is much more useful for modern warfare. The US is planning on buying 100 of them instead of the 21 B-2, and replace the B-2s, B-1s, and maybe the B-52s. The B-21 has the same range as B-2, it is the B-2 that is shorter range than B-52. Smaller bomber is much more flexible. Most missions don't require B-2 or B-52 size when carrying a few cruise missiles or guided bombs. If do need more, than can send two of them and those are available.
- hondo77 3y ago
  > The US is planning on buying 100 of them instead of the 21 B-2... The Air Force wanted to buy over 100 B-2 but Congress said "no". We'll see what happens this round.
credit_guy 3y ago
Nope. Smaller airframe yes, but a design that benefited from decades of advances in both algorithms and computing power. It most likely has a much better lift-to-drag ratio than B2, and more efficient engines too. It will at least match B2's range. Though the Raider’s true range remains classified, estimates place it at approximately 6,000 miles of range without refuelling, highlighting the platform’s extraordinary global potential. [1] https://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/b-21-raider-usaf-northrop-grumman/?cf-view https://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/b-21-raider-usaf...

mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago

It's completely evolutionary! To add context here. The B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180, which is an extremely stealthy flying wing. Coupled to existing engines (widely believed to be F-35 engines possibly with an increased bypass ratio). The B-2 had this huge problem where the original design (called "Senior Ice") was a stealthy high altitude bomber - like the B-21. But, at the last moment, the B-2 was completely redesigned to have low altitude flying capabilities - greatly increasing the cost of development and timeline. With the B-21, Northrop reverted to the original (Senior Ice) design. Building on top of all the technologies proved out by the RQ-180. And with a development team at the Strategic Capabilities Office organized to prevent anyone from adding or changing requirements. Evolutionary design + proven subsystems + focused and stable requirements. Likely the best managed DoD acquisition program in the last one to two decades.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chasd00 3y ago
> the B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180, that's interesting, i wonder if that's where the unmanned mode of the B-21 comes from. Being able to fly unmanned would be useful in very high risk scenarios.
thunderbird120 3y ago
>the B-21 is an manned version of a drone called a RQ-180 No it's not. The RQ-180 as a HALE drone with no weapons. The B-21 is a dedicated bomber. Despite both being flying wings with roughly the same basic shape the airframe requirements are completely different.