B-21 Raider hype thread. When will it be revealed? Will it include

>>32333517
>Will it include lasers?
Maybe. Probably not though, considering that the USAF is focusing it's efforts on getting lasers onto Next Gen Air Dominance.

>>32333517
>How big? Roughly F-111 sized, a nice beefy fighter bomber.

>Waste of money?
Decidedly not. B-52 needs to go, and B-21 is gonna use proven tech and components developed via F-35.

>>32333873
Can't wait to hear Mr.Sprey go on about how the B-52 is better and shouldn't be replaced.

>>32333873
>How big? Roughly F-111 sized
That's pretty small actually... I like it. It opens up possibility of carrier wings since the R Ford will have an EM catapult.

>B-52 needs to go
I would agree if you guys actually did anything more than bomb brown people in sandistan country #8.
In a weew war B-52's would be downed in swathes before they even got close to where they needed to be to drop munitions, but they're fantastically cheap long range bomb trucks for "every day sandistan use".

The B-21 is obviously going to fare pretty well now that most of the R&D work has been done by the JSF but does it really fit the role? Is carpet bombing really a dead meme? Are small interval precision strikes better on the whole to large dump-em' strikes?

>>32336312
>In a weew war B-52's would be downed in swathes before they even got close to where they needed to be to drop munitions,

In a WEEEEW war the B-52 would be a cruise missile/MALD truck and nothing more because the airforce is not fucking retarded.

B-52 can carry, at least, a dozen 1000 km JASSM-ERs.

>>32336352
Obviously they'd exclusively be used as standoff platforms but using them exclusively for this purpose would significantly cut the operating fleet of B-52's.

MALD trucks for what, strato tankers and air warning or fighters / deep strike bombers?

>>32333517
When will it be revealed? Not for a few years I think.

Will it include lasers? Not initially (MOTS and cost saving is a big factor), but I think it's likely in the future.

How big? I think it'd be bigger than an F-111, more like a 2/3 sized B-2; something in the 50 ton empty weight class, with a wingspan of 35 to 45m.

Will it be useful? Definitely; B-2s are too limited in number and it'll be very useful to have something sized to be VLO against VHF.

Baked RAM coating.

Will improve immensely compared to the b-2 maintenance.

>>32333517
Looks like an upgrade to the b-2. Neat.

>>32336402
>cut the operating fleet of B-52's
What does this even mean?
Each can carry 12 ALCMs on pylons, and 8 internally. There's around 80 B-52s still operating.

>>32333517
It will be the size of a small ship with operational range of anywhere in the world with scram jets so fast it can go into orbit and nack again

Be able to touch any where in the worl with in 20 mintues and it will have tropy like sustem to take out any threats it will be a flying fortress

>>32338765
That's all they'really good for, because they can't safely get close enough to use anything else against a near-peer force. The planned fleet of between 175 and 200 B-21s would be able to deliver similar total payloads spread across a higher number of smaller, much more useful aircraft.

>>32338816
There isn't much wrong with using B-52s to deliver 200 ALCMs though. Saturation attack against any air defense network, forcing the defender to either turn on and emit radars and get killed, or keep them off and lose valuable resources/facilities/sites.

>>32338860
There really isn't, but B-1B does that better. The only reason that B-52 was even kept on is because B-1s are maintenance whores and B-2s are pricier, more exclusive maintenance whores.

The Gray Lady ages, though. The biggest problem is that it's a fucking miracle she isn't just as tough to keep airworthy as the other strategic bombers. They're wonderful for hauling JASSMs and MALDs, but they're just not gonna last much longer, and are unacceptablely vulnerable to all the things Russia and China develop to counter our back-field assets.

>>32338948
Also worth noting that the trend towards sensors and sensor sharing heavily favors a bigger fleet of smaller aircraft. Raider is going to have an enormous sensor and networking presence that another full sized bomber wouldn't do justice.

Really, to me it seems that Raider replacing B-52 is almost a complete coincidence. The stuff that we'rea cooking with these days just so happens to favor a medium weight aircraft, and the strike aircraft that are most in need of retirement just happens to be a full figured bomber.

>>32338948
The B-52 has actually been more expensive per flight hour than the B-1 for several years at this point. As it turns out, age matters a lot for aircraft maintenance.

>>32339048
The difference though is that the B-21 will likely have to be capable of carrying special ordnance such as the MOP, not to mention capable of flying several thousand kilometers (possibly >10,000km like the B-2) without refueling. Those requirements imply something large.

Considering that the USAF's NGAD (F-22 replacement) is expected to be larger than the F-22 (for longer range mainly), I think the B-21 being a small bomber like the F-111 wouldn't make too much sense.

>>32340415
I won't challenge you on that. Care to make a guestimate at a payload?

>>32333517
I hope they will have a budget limit with the b21 though.

We definitely don't want a f35 spending thing going on again.

>>32333873
There's pretty much no way the B-21 is going to replace the B-52. Anything that's either supersonic or stealthy is going to be too expensive, too maintenance-intensive to beat the B-52 at its strengths, namely being a dependable way to get large amounts of payload over a poorly defended target. The B-52 obviously is starting to show signs of age, but so far there isn't really anything in development that would be a suitable replacement. It doesn't seem to be a high priority right now.

>>32333517
Will they be developing any new standoff nuclear weapons for it?

>>32340415
>is expected to be larger than the F-22
How big do they want it?
The f22 is already huge.

In another note I've heard rumors it will be yf-23 based.

>>32340781
Not necessarily, the b21 is rumored to use modified F135 engines.
If that's true, mantience won't be expensive.
At least on the engine side.

By the time the b21 is even built, the new variable bypass f35 engine will be up and running so that's probably what the b21 will use.

>>32340826
It's a strategic bomber. It's not going to be fighter-small. Period.

>>32341084
I believe that fag was referring to a significantly larger bird with the same general layout as YF-23.

>>32340781
The B-52 was originally a deep strike strategic nuclear bomber. THAT niche is one the B-21 can fill. The B-52 will continue to do bomb truck runs for undefended airspace for another twenty years.

>>32333517
>B-21 Vista

I would have thought they would have pulse jet 5000 knot bombs with active camo and COIL lasers

>>32342128
*bombers

>>32333517
Chinese OSINT shoo-shoo.

>>32340855

That would kind of make sense. The F-135 is already optimised for high-subsonic flight in a stealth aircraft, so would be an ideal starting point (presumably they want a non-afterburning variant)

Since the B-21 is supposed to be significantly smaller than the B-2, two of these F-135 derived engines should be adequate.

>>32340548
Maybe 30,000lb?

>>32340826
It's still early days, but it's likely they'll be aiming for something like a 800-1200nmi combat radius for NGAD. It'll probably be roughly F-111 sized.

man just make the b-1R. AAMRAM-spam everywhere

Or >>32336352
>B-52s carrying loads and loads of cruise missiles
>escorted by B-1s carrying a shitton of long range A2A missiles

>>32333517
>B-21
>Not B-3

This makes me extremely angry.

Same as

>F-35
>Not F-24

>>32343502
>>32340548
Yeah, it has to be big enough to fit bunker busters and such. I guess >25,000 pounds.