US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber

davparlr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Additionally, from what I understand, the B-2's operational life isn't so much based on airframe stress rather than the man hours required to maintain the aircraft (surface coatings).

The modification of the B-2 from a high altitude bomber to a low level terrain following bomber caused extensive redesign and affected altitude and cost, both of which I suspect the AF would like back. However, because of that, and the fact the B-2 will likely always be a high altitude bomber, the airframe will probably last forever!

davparlr said:

The modification of the B-2 from a high altitude bomber to a low level terrain following bomber caused extensive redesign and affected altitude and cost, both of which I suspect the AF would like back. However, because of that, and the fact the B-2 will likely always be a high altitude bomber, the airframe will probably last forever!

Click to expand...

So help me out here. How many times, as defensive technology evolves, has the US gone from high altitude to low altitude back to high altitude and then back again?

If the BUFF can still get it done (high altitude), then we need to keep the BONE and bring back F-111's (low level terrain followers). What's old is new again! Oh wait... as long as I don't have to maintain those suckers. ANYTHING swing wing is a hydraulic nightmare!

I'm wondering about possible modularity of payload accomodaiton. Everything is going multi-role these days, and that's why a manned plane and not just a big UCAV. It's billed as a future controller and ELINT platform and AAW missile-carrier.
Maybe crew access back into the payload bay area, since it has crew of two, special gear would mean more space avaialbel for people. Possible insertion of parachutist or delivery of payload other than drop-able bombs as well.
The B-2 was the only thing that can carry the MOP, and I can't imagine them being comfortable without that capability being retained. No Tomahawk can fill that role. That's different from carrying a lot of 500lb JDAMs, and even nukes are pretty small in comparison to big conventional or penetrating bombs

....and before you know it, we're back to....