4 ms·

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

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...

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...