US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber

[FLYBOYJ]

Right now we're looking at about 100 B-21s, I have't seen anything about the production run and when the first ones will enter service, but it would seem like once their numbers start hitting USAF tarmacs, the B-1s and B-2s should start going away. Amazing that the article mentions that a 257 bomber force is unsustainable!

 

[soulezoo]

Then think about the 1000 bomber sorties in the ETO...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Then think about the 1000 bomber sorties in the ETO...

Exactly!

 

[Zipper730]

the ejection seats kill women pilots..."

Ejection seats have a higher probability of killing female aircrew?

The B-3, and others, are part of the secret force that the military does not want the public to know about.

Who knows these days, I wouldn't be all that shocked: Admittedly it raises questions why we have the force we currently have in public. Some kind of modern day "Wunderwaffe"?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ejection seats have a higher probability of killing female aircrew?

You need to read up on the "alleged" issues with the F-35 ejection seat. Google, google, google....

 

[vikingBerserker]

At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.

I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.

I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.

That's a pretty wide debate. With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews and it seems the B-21 will retain a 2 man crew. I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area, or have this portable highway overpass dropping scores on precision weapons on the enemy.

 

[buffnut453]

That's a pretty wide debate. With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews and it seems the B-21 will retain a 2 man crew. I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area, or have this portable highway overpass dropping scores on precision weapons on the enemy.

In the latter scenario, each weapon could be independently guided to the target by real-time updates from offboard sensors and platforms. Frankly, in this scenario, I see little need for the "bomb truck" to be a manned platform.

 

[swampyankee]

If the USAF gets rid of the B-52, they'll need to come up with a new line to replace the one about pilots flying planes older than their grandfathers. They get a lot of mileage from that in budget battles, keeping money from any bureaucracy's true foes, other government agencies, like the army, navy, or NSF

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the latter scenario, each weapon could be independently guided to the target by real-time updates from offboard sensors and platforms. Frankly, in this scenario, I see little need for the "bomb truck" to be a manned platform.

Exactly! And I think the general public really don't understand how accurate this technology has become.
Another option is to have these bombers as weapons standoffs where another weapons platform can utilize the bomber's payload after expelling its own. This scenario has been discussed here before. US Air Force plans to upgrade the B-1B aircraft in the Fighter/Interceptors - Defence Blog

 

[vikingBerserker]

I remember seeing something about the B-1's being used to carry missiles that would fly back behind the F-35s and once the F-35s had expended it's munitions, the B-1s could launch theirs and the F-35s would take control of them. That I think is an awesome idea!

 

[buffnut453]

Yeah...but not as cool as one of these:

Now THAT's what I call a flying bomb truck!!!

 

[Zipper730]

You need to read up on the "alleged" issues with the F-35 ejection seat. Google, google, google....

Weight issues...

With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews

Never knew that until now...

I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area

Yeah, but if that unmanned bomb-truck saturates an area due to a glitch in it's programming people will be pissed. I'm worried about when it becomes timed to couple automated systems with nuclear weapons to automated control systems that direct wars...

 

[buffnut453]

Yeah, but if that unmanned bomb-truck saturates an area due to a glitch in it's programming people will be pissed.

There's no more risk of that happening in an unmanned platform than there is in a manned platform. In all modern combat aircraft, the pilot interacts with the computer and it's the computer that does EVERYTHING. A bug in the code is a bug in the code, and a carbon-based pilot can't do much (anything) to solve the problem in the heat of the moment.

 

[Walrus]

Hmmm...not sure this will go down too well with the negative-laden press. I'm just waiting for the first headline to read "B-21 - Looks Just Like a B-2" - looks the same, must work the same so why are we paying so much for this shiny new thing? All this and it can't manoeuvre with an F-16. Bound to be a failure!

TBH I was just thinking that it looks like a B-2 with a one stuck on the end.

Don't worry about the Albino Dumbo going over cost, Uncle Donny will just increase the Military budget to 70% of GDP.

 

[Zipper730]

There's no more risk of that happening in an unmanned platform than there is in a manned platform. In all modern combat aircraft, the pilot interacts with the computer and it's the computer that does EVERYTHING.

Yes, but with a person removed, an error has that much more a risk of being disastrous. In some cases a person could tell the computer effectively "NO WAIT!!!"

 

[buffnut453]

Yes, but with a person removed, an error has that much more a risk of being disastrous. In some cases a person could tell the computer effectively "NO WAIT!!!"

Firstly unmanned does not necessarily mean autonomous (ie the bomb truck could well be remotely piloted). Your second point is, I'm afraid, pretty bogus. Currently, weapons release ALWAYS involves a human-in-the-loop (even on UCAVs) to confirm the target before the ordnance is pickled. Per my previous point, if the human initiates weapons release then the weapons will release...and there's nothing he/she can do about it. Computers operate in milliseconds whereas humans take 1-3 seconds to react. There's no way to beat the computer.

 

[Zipper730]

buffnut453,

Yes, but there have been desires to have computers operate without a person in the loop

 

[buffnut453]

buffnut453,

Yes, but there have been desires to have computers operate without a person in the loop

Desiring a capability is one thing. Turning into a viable reality in a complex operational battlespace is something entirely different. For now, we're still talking very much about human-in-the-loop. Sadly, even if we went to "human monitoring the loop", if there was a bug that caused inadvertent weapons launch, there's little the human could do about it. The ordnance would be off the rail before the human realized anything had happened. This is why any flight/mission critical software receives such stringent attention to ensure safe operation. As stated previously, humans no longer fly aeroplanes. Computers fly aeroplanes. The human just makes the decision of where to go and what to do once they get there.

 

[davparlr]

At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.

I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.

Each B-2 can carry 80 precision guided weapons, 20 B-2 can attack 1600 separate targets. Each 500 lb JDAM cost $25k or $40m per 20 missions . Each tomahawk cost $1,000,000 or $1.6B per 1600 missions. After about 13 missions, total cost expenditures would be equal to B-2 fleet cost. And the B-2s can be reused, tomahawks cannot. B-2 are also far more flexible for mission planning. While I agree that manned bombers should become obsolete, large platform stealth drones carrying attack weapons are not. This is strickly a thumb nail estimate but does show that cruise missile cost is driver in procuring weapons and can't be dismissed.