AIR FORCE NEWS
Comments (6)
Do we need to continue developing stealth bombers, the answer is yes. Do we need more stealth bombers, the answer that question is also yes. Is the B-21 "Raider" the answer to the first two question, the answer to that question is no one really knows. The reason no one can answer the first two questions with the B-21 is that the past record of weapons development hasn't be stellar and there's no way of predicting if or when the B-21 will actually be ready. Sad to say, the secrecy in weapon systems development use to be about hiding its development from potential enemies. Today the secrecy is more about will the system actually make it to the flight line, the fleet or out to the troops in the field.
Brian Foley at 12:39 PMIs it just me, or does it seem like this program is taking 1/10th of the time it normally does to go from clean sheet to service? They're unveiling a flying prototype next year? It took the F-22 16 years to go from RFP to prototype, and the F-35 eight.
Incredulous at 1:04 AM
Given the funding, production runs, costs, and associated teething issues, I'd be very surprised if 100 or even over 100 B-21s "Raiders" are built. That in itself is a staggering engineering feat.
The odd thing is that B-21 "Raiders" have no variants. They're purely stealth bombers. Can they be made into Supersonic Transports? Can they be made into AEW/ECM/Cyber planes? Can they be made into stealthy tankers? Can they be made into stealthy SEAD or AAM-only missile carriers? Can they be made into cheaper Mothership drone carriers? Has the USAF actually explored cheaper and wider variety of non-stealthy or semi-stealthy B-21 "Raider" variants and derivatives?
P-18 “Spoon Rest-D” long-range surveillance radar was able to provide a rough track of Nighthawks within a 15-mile range when tuned down to the lowest possible bandwidth—so low, in fact, that NATO radar-warning receivers were not calibrated to detect it.
PJRiter at 11:22 AMMight be great to keep up with defense news.
Ronald Goppold at 11:10 AM
NGC spent many years honing their design before the RFP came out using IR&D and many false starts by the USAF like NGB, etc. But the biggest leg up “Incredulous”, was they got a USAF commitment to NO requirements creep. And all those iterations survived in the 3D design tools they employ nowadays. Many experts forget that NGC was hit with a major B-2 design change from High altitude to Low altitude penetration and NGC didn’t charge the USAF ( a big mistake in hindsight), so keeping requirements stable is a huge help to maintain schedule.
Been There at 4:11 PM