Link

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said the B-21 Raider stealth bomber will finally be revealed to the public later this year, unveiling an aircraft that has been shrouded in secrecy since the program began in 2014.

Rounds, the only elected official in a classified visit July 15 to the B-21 Raider production facility in Palmdale, California, said the project is also on track for a first flight in 2023.


"While much of the information I received on my visit is classified, I am pleased to report the B-21 is on time and on budget," Rounds said in a Tuesday press release from his office. "The public can expect the B-21 to be revealed later this year."

To date, the public has seen only realistic artist renderings of the next-generation stealth bomber, but a spokesman for Rounds' said an image of the B-21 itself should be coming soon.

Last year, the U.S. Air Force released a rendering of the B-21, showing the long-range stealth bomber taking off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, where it will someday be tested before taking on worldwide operations.

Ellsworth Air Force Base, just outside of Rapid City, South Dakota, was selected last summer as the first installation to receive the aircraft.

"The B-21 is one of the most advanced aircraft to ever be developed," Rounds said. "We are getting closer to bringing this state-of-the-art platform home to Ellsworth Air Force Base."

The B-21 is being manufactured by Virginia-based Northrop Grumman. Budget documents show that producing the B-21 will cost around $20 billion through 2027.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spoke on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, saying he's aware that six B-21s are being developed and stressing the need for Congress to pass the annual defense spending bill because it also includes construction projects for Ellsworth to support the aircraft's mission.

The South Dakota Republican is pushing for more resources, overall, to accommodate an influx of service members who will come to the area along with the new B-21.

"I worked to include in this year's NDAA an extension of an authority for the secretary of defense to adjust Basic Allowance for Housing rates if an installation is experiencing a sudden increase in the number of service members assigned there," Thune said. "This will help ensure that families at Ellsworth and elsewhere will have the resources they need to secure appropriate accommodations."

Thune added that "as many as 250 people per year, including 100 dependents" could be moving to the Rapid City area to support the B-21.

quote:

"The B-21 is one of the most advanced aircraft to ever be developed," Rounds said.

Well, yeah, I certainly hope so.

I'm sure the B-21 will be more capable in every way, but hard to match the pure Cold War bad assery of the B-1B.

Another good article from Airforce Mag:

https://www.airforcemag.com/ar...es-out-of-the-black/

I look forward to seeing and hearing them overhead. The "sounds of freedom" are commonplace here with my proximity to both Ellsworth and the Powder River (multi-State) Training Complex (airspace) frequented with a variety of military aircraft beside the Bones.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Another good article from Airforce Mag:

https://www.airforcemag.com/ar...es-out-of-the-black/

They better stop screwing around with the production numbers. That's how we ended up with 21 now 19 B-2's. And we are going to need more bombers if they are planning on retiring the B-1 and the B-52 in a couple decades.

This is a retread / upgrade (maybe) of the B-2.

I wouldn't use it to replace the B-52. That's been operating as a non-penetration bomb truck / cruise missile carrier. That role has proven useful. It may not be possible to do this when they finally decide the BUFF has had enough, but I'd replace it with a bomberized version of the 747-800F. Give it two huge bomb bays, and wing hardpoints, extra fuel tanks, in flight refueling gear, all the necessary electronics and countermeasures, etc., and put it in the same role. Of course the 747 line is shutting down, so they might not get the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Another good article from Airforce Mag:

https://www.airforcemag.com/ar...es-out-of-the-black/

They better stop screwing around with the production numbers. That's how we ended up with 21 now 19 B-2's. And we are going to need more bombers if they are planning on retiring the B-1 and the B-52 in a couple decades.

Anyone know why the B-21 was designed to only have a payload that is 1/2 that of the B-2 (30,000 lbs vs 60,000 lbs respectively).

With a smaller payload and presumably fewer planes, based on its cost, it seems like we are going backwards on overall Air Force capability. And that is without taking into account the future retirement of the B-1 and B-52.

It seems like we are spending more and more money on increasingly complex systems such that we can only afford fewer and fewer numbers. The USS Ford and now the B-21 come to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is a retread / upgrade (maybe) of the B-2.

I wouldn't use it to replace the B-52. That's been operating as a non-penetration bomb truck / cruise missile carrier. That role has proven useful. It may not be possible to do this when they finally decide the BUFF has had enough, but I'd replace it with a bomberized version of the 747-800F. Give it two huge bomb bays, and wing hardpoints, extra fuel tanks, in flight refueling gear, all the necessary electronics and countermeasures, etc., and put it in the same role. Of course the 747 line is shutting down, so they might not get the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Another good article from Airforce Mag:

https://www.airforcemag.com/ar...es-out-of-the-black/

They better stop screwing around with the production numbers. That's how we ended up with 21 now 19 B-2's. And we are going to need more bombers if they are planning on retiring the B-1 and the B-52 in a couple decades.

I don't think they are planning on getting rid of the B-52's anytime soon. But those planes still flying will probably be 70 to 80 years old when they retire them (airframe will be 100 years old). They will need something to fill the void and I haven't see any proposals yet.

They played with the idea of turning the 747 into a bomber years ago (or maybe it was to launch ICBMs). But like you said they are shutting down the line. I wonder how the 777 would work?

I found this video of the B-52 several weeks ago on the upgrades and some of the history.

We used to call the USCG HH65 in the above video, the “whistling shitcan” due to the sound the rotor makes. These were the only helo that could land on our ships. The newer “Jayhawks” (a marine Blackhawk) was too heavy for any ships in service when I was in…not sure if the newer Cutters can handle the weight of them.

Little known fact is that every CG helo and fixed wing aircraft goes thru the only and largest airbase in Elizabeth City NC for annual inspection. They literally tear down each helo to its frame and rivets to inspect them for corrosion and certify them. I’m not sure what the fixed wing planes rotation is because they don’t get dunked of sprayed with seawater.

/drift

The AF, and military in general, has been moving away from brute force to high precision. 15 tons of precisely placed ordinance can do much more damage than 30 tons of lower precision ordinance. And for nuclear delivery 15 tons is more than enough, considering the AFs standard nuclear bomb is 750 lbs.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Anyone know why the B-21 was designed to only have a payload that is 1/2 that of the B-2 (30,000 lbs vs 60,000 lbs respectively).

With a smaller payload and presumably fewer planes, based on its cost, it seems like we are going backwards on overall Air Force capability. And that is without taking into account the future retirement of the B-1 and B-52.

It seems like we are spending more and more money on increasingly complex systems such that we can only afford fewer and fewer numbers. The USS Ford and now the B-21 come to mind.

No. They're talking about reengining the B-52s (again)

The could replace it with an airframe based on a twin engine airliner (for he role I described before.) And twin engine would be more efficient. But four engines would give it more redundancy.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is a retread / upgrade (maybe) of the B-2.

I wouldn't use it to replace the B-52. That's been operating as a non-penetration bomb truck / cruise missile carrier. That role has proven useful. It may not be possible to do this when they finally decide the BUFF has had enough, but I'd replace it with a bomberized version of the 747-800F. Give it two huge bomb bays, and wing hardpoints, extra fuel tanks, in flight refueling gear, all the necessary electronics and countermeasures, etc., and put it in the same role. Of course the 747 line is shutting down, so they might not get the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Another good article from Airforce Mag:

https://www.airforcemag.com/ar...es-out-of-the-black/

They better stop screwing around with the production numbers. That's how we ended up with 21 now 19 B-2's. And we are going to need more bombers if they are planning on retiring the B-1 and the B-52 in a couple decades.

I don't think they are planning on getting rid of the B-52's anytime soon. But those planes still flying will probably be 70 to 80 years old when they retire them (airframe will be 100 years old). They will need something to fill the void and I haven't see any proposals yet.

They played with the idea of turning the 747 into a bomber years ago (or maybe it was to launch ICBMs). But like you said they are shutting down the line. I wonder how the 777 would work?

The B-21s are for deterance/nuclear first strike capability against top tier level enemy targets where air superiorty is contested or non-existant for the US. The B-1Bs and B-52s are used in theaters where the US has air superiority or where the weapon deployed (air launched cruise missiles, etc.) from the aircraft places the lauching aircraft safely away from enemy fighters/SAMs.

No need really to replace them. There really isn't ever going to be anything "better" at that specific role (much like the broadsword) until you get space based precision conventional bombardment capability.

B-21 will have the capability to fly either manned or, unmanned; a giant leap in options for theater commanders looking to get a sizable amount of ordnance onto a contested target. The other feature that many are looking forward to, is it's networking capability and sensor suite. Like F-22 and F-35, the electronics are very impressive and the future of warfare, 150-200 mile air-to-air kills are just around the corner and networking is going to be key. Having a sensor node of some sort, deep inside enemy territory and being able to guide-in stand-off weapons or, provide a variety of electronics intelligence will be evolutionary.

B-1 will be retired in 10-years, maintenance issues have resulted in problematic readiness rates, as the pipeline for parts continues to shrink, same also for the B-2; USAF wants to start building the infrastructure for the B-21. Hard to believe but the B-2 has been in service over 30+ years, today it still looks a leap in design as when it debuted. The B-52 and its robust design, will carry-on in its role as a bomb/missile truck into 2050 and will be the primary launch platform for hypersonic weapons; it just recently got approval for new Royal-Royce engines along with upgrade sensors and radar.