B-21 Raider Thread

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 15 Apr 2019, 02:12

f-16adf wrote:B-21. I call it that because I would like to see if President Sanders, Biden, or Harris build it to the proposed numbers.

Given that none of them has a snowball's chance in hell, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.

knowan · by **knowan** » 15 Apr 2019, 02:42

f-16adf wrote:Judging from the above articles, sounds like the USAF wanted more jets past the 187 number. Obama and his democratic controlled House and Senate said no. So the program died-

From what I've read, the Democrat controlled Congress only gave up on more F-22s after Obama threatened to veto any bill that funded more planes, so the Democrats in Congress apparently were in favor of more planes up until that point.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 15 Apr 2019, 02:54

Yup, that was the big fight back in 2009. Dems controlled Congress wanted 7 more F-22s for $1.75 billion. McCain said no. Obama agreed with McCain calling the F-22 "outdated and unnecessary". History is 20/20.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 15 Apr 2019, 10:16

weasel1962 wrote:Yup, that was the big fight back in 2009. Dems controlled Congress wanted 7 more F-22s for $1.75 billion. McCain said no. Obama agreed with McCain calling the F-22 "outdated and unnecessary". History is 20/20.

I wrote and spoke to Senator McCain about it during the period. He believed the money was better spent on the JSF (F-35) Program. That we couldn't afford both programs (F-22 and F-35) and the former could jeopardize the latter.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 15 Apr 2019, 14:41

I'd have to go back and check. But you guys have already said (as did the above articles): Obama said no. So in the end, that's where the buck stops.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 15 Apr 2019, 14:54

In 2009 the Dems had 59 seats in the Senate.

Here is the Senate vote on the resolution:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ ... =00235#top

afjag · by **afjag** » 15 Apr 2019, 19:02

If you think the harm that recent democrats have done to national security through budget cuts outweighs the destruction of the rule of law by the current administration then you seriously have a case of permanent hypoxia. Budget cuts are one thing, but an “America First” doctrine is so corrosive to national security it will take decades to earn back the trust of some of our allies.

crosshairs · by **crosshairs** » 15 Apr 2019, 19:35

afjag wrote:If you think the harm that recent democrats have done to national security through budget cuts outweighs the destruction of the rule of law by the current administration then you seriously have a case of permanent hypoxia. Budget cuts are one thing, but an “America First” doctrine is so corrosive to national security it will take decades to earn back the trust of some of our allies.

Every president, with the exception of the super hero - Captain Zero - has essentially been an America First policy president. Yes we have had some bad legislation from both parties.

Bush 2 became the first prototype apologist, first kissing up to China and "expressing regret" or sorrow over the death of the Chinese pilot who stupidly rammed our aircraft with his Chinese piece of junk. Zero picked up that football and ran with it apologizing to the world for America being a great country while at the same time trying to dismantle the US military to its weakest level, ever. He tried to kill the US energy industry. The man was truly treasonous in his actions.

If our "allies" are not paying their share of their defense of Europe, then what good is it to call them allies? Most of Europe does not take its self defense seriously as they have lived under the USA's golden umbrella. The US doesn't need allies that aren't willing to stand up for themselves. That isn't being an ally; that is called being a burden.

Pakistan got behind the US during the cold war as an ally. What did they do? They kept UBL in comfort and safety next to their version of West Point. Yes you're right, we need to go back to apologizing to the world and "leading from behind" because it's corrosive to put your country first over Belgium and France and Mexico.

But back to point, it hardly matters which party gets elected in the case of the B-21. The US has no other options and its B-52s and B-1s are beat to hell. The elected leadership kicked the can down the road for decades and not time's up. Either buy a new bomber or eliminate the nuclear triad and eliminate long ranged conventional strike off the USAF menu.

The president isn't a king or queen and you also have to deal with congress. Congress may want to axe the B-21.

afjag · by **afjag** » 15 Apr 2019, 20:17

I am all for a massive capital infusion for the military. But at what cost? We do not have the unlimited capacity to continue to run massive deficits. Nor are we in position to slash many domestic programs. So I ask you what programs can we shift money from to keep paying for this massive military rebuilding? How about farm subsidies? Or college loan programs so that only the wealthy can afford to go to college?

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 15 Apr 2019, 22:16

I really doubt B-21 would ever be cancelled as it would be the state of art in stealth bombing but then again so was the B-2 at the time and its numbers were severely reduced. I think the only thing in doubt about B-21 is the ultimate production number and that would depend on who controls the Presidency and Congress going forward and their overall priorities as guided by their voters. B-52/B-1/B-2 are all getting long in the tooth now and will all need replacing this century so something has to replace them all in time.

p.s. Biden looks the most likely Democrat candidate and militarily he is no shrinking violet. Sanders and in the long run AOC are the ones for the military to avoid.

blain · by **blain** » 18 Apr 2019, 21:36

Looks like confirmation of flight testing inn 2021.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -Size.aspx

Assembly in 2019/20. If they go the roll out route will likely be in 2020. Production around 2024.

Can't wait.

blain · by **blain** » 22 Apr 2019, 19:59

Maybe the B-21 will not be smaller than the B-2. Since they are going to cost $500 million I certainly hope it will include two weapons bays.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... bers-53627

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 22 Apr 2019, 20:17

blain wrote:Maybe the B-21 will not be smaller than the B-2. Since they are going to cost $500 million I certainly hope it will include two weapons bays.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... bers-53627

Pretty sure it's smaller than B-2.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2015/09/02/lrs-b-details-emerge-major-testing-risk-reduction-complete/

blain · by **blain** » 10 Jul 2019, 01:27

Has the first B-21 been built? A very provocative headline by National Interest, which is typical.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... mber-66131

It contains a quote from the AF COS - “We’re closely monitoring the build of the additional test aircraft and associated software to support the first flight." The assumption is that there is already a test aircraft. Maybe he misspoke or was inelegant in conveying his thoughts.

The test aircraft is likely a sub scale model used to test RCS. I hope I am wrong. The critical design review was at the end of last year. So manufacturing has likely started. I would think that they would do an official roll out and conduct first flight in the open. Is there a way to get an aircraft as large as a bomber from Plant 42 in Palmdale to Area 51? I think it would be hard.

wooster · by **wooster** » 10 Jul 2019, 01:34

blain wrote:Has the first B-21 been built? A very provocative headline by National Interest, which is typical.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... mber-66131

It contains a quote from the AF COS - “We’re closely monitoring the build of the additional test aircraft and associated software to support the first flight." The assumption is that there is already a test aircraft. Maybe he misspoke or was inelegant in conveying his thoughts.

The test aircraft is likely a sub scale model used to test RCS. I hope I am wrong. The critical design review was at the end of last year. So manufacturing has likely started. I would think that they would do an official roll out and conduct first flight in the open. Is there a way to get an aircraft as large as a bomber from Plant 42 in Palmdale to Area 51? I think it would be hard.

Additional test aircraft clearly means additional raiders, not a subscale demonstrator. That phase was over years ago. They likely tested full scale models at groom or other radar facilities. subscale models are used for proving out flight controls, not RCS. The subscale have blue was used to tryout the flight controls and aerodynamics associated with flying a winged faceted diamond, yes stealth was clearly part of it too, but they had to make it fly controllably.