Early Retirement for B-1 and B-2

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 07:36

element1loop wrote:And once B1and B2 are gone, and B-52 is deemed non viable anymore (~2040) you necessarily extend the B-21 production line and get a 100% B-21 B-fleet.

Nice.



Yes, my guess is once all of the B-1's and B-2's are replaced. The USAF will just continue production of the B-21 and start replacing the B-52's.....
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 07:49

This also assumes that there won't be parity between the 2018 bomber + 2037 bomber concept and the current LRS-B / B-21 and some future supersonic / hypersonic bomber around the middle of the century.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 09:29

element1loop wrote:And once B1and B2 are gone, and B-52 is deemed non viable anymore (~2040) you necessarily extend the B-21 production line and get a 100% B-21 B-fleet.

Nice.

The B-21 isn't a heavy bomber, and won't be able to replace all 3 current aircraft. The B-52 has payload, flexibility, range, and low cost per flight hour, that will insure it remains relevant.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 09:45

wrightwing wrote:
element1loop wrote:And once B1and B2 are gone, and B-52 is deemed non viable anymore (~2040) you necessarily extend the B-21 production line and get a 100% B-21 B-fleet.

Nice.

The B-21 isn't a heavy bomber, and won't be able to replace all 3 current aircraft. The B-52 has payload, flexibility, range, and low cost per flight hour, that will insure it remains relevant.



Do we really need such heavy bombers anymore???
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 20:34

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
element1loop wrote:And once B1and B2 are gone, and B-52 is deemed non viable anymore (~2040) you necessarily extend the B-21 production line and get a 100% B-21 B-fleet.

Nice.

The B-21 isn't a heavy bomber, and won't be able to replace all 3 current aircraft. The B-52 has payload, flexibility, range, and low cost per flight hour, that will insure it remains relevant.



Do we really need such heavy bombers anymore???

Yes.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 22:08

wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Do we really need such heavy bombers anymore???

Yes.

To me the doctrine of the B2.1 is the distribution of force over a wider area combined with integrated C4ISR.

So in essence a bomb/missile truck with lots of sensors, a long loiter time and stealth.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 23:33

botsing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Do we really need such heavy bombers anymore???

Yes.

To me the doctrine of the B2.1 is the distribution of force over a wider area combined with integrated C4ISR.

So in essence a bomb/missile truck with lots of sensors, a long loiter time and stealth.

AFAIK the B-21 aka LRSB is part of the Long Range Strike Family of Systems. to include other LRS like a new LRS missile and a LR penetrating multimission UAS. One way of keeping costs down on the new bomber was to partner it with a long-range UAS that could complement the B-21's capabilities eg. ISR, EW to more effectively deal with changing threat environments. So I see the B-21 operating within the networked battle space.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 23:52

The B-21 isn’t going to be that much smaller than the B-2, and will probably have about the same range. If they go for half the B-2 payload in a single bomb bay, there won’t be anything the B-2 can do that two B-21s can’t.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 00:20

botsing wrote:

To me the doctrine of the B2.1 is the distribution of force over a wider area combined with integrated C4ISR.

So in essence a bomb/missile truck with lots of sensors, a long loiter time and stealth.

We still need the ability to have long persistence, large payload, and low cost per flight hour, too.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 00:25

count_to_10 wrote:The B-21 isn’t going to be that much smaller than the B-2, and will probably have about the same range. If they go for half the B-2 payload in a single bomb bay, there won’t be anything the B-2 can do that two B-21s can’t.

What's the CPFH for 2 B-21s vs 1 B-52, though? They each have their niche. The B-21 can penetrate. The B-52 can loiter, and shoot lots of missiles. In low intensity campaigns, being able to carry >70,000lbs of ordnance is very useful.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 01:32

wrightwing wrote:In low intensity campaigns, being able to carry >70,000lbs of ordnance is very useful.


This. The B-52 is basically the arsenal plane for uncontested airspace.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5347
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 14:15

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
element1loop wrote:And once B1and B2 are gone, and B-52 is deemed non viable anymore (~2040) you necessarily extend the B-21 production line and get a 100% B-21 B-fleet.

Nice.

The B-21 isn't a heavy bomber, and won't be able to replace all 3 current aircraft. The B-52 has payload, flexibility, range, and low cost per flight hour, that will insure it remains relevant.



Do we really need such heavy bombers anymore???


You planning on carrying this 5000 miles on an F-15?
Attachments
ORD_MOP_Mockup_and_Team_lg.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 15:30

No, not on F-15's.
But was the mother of all bombs not dropped from a C-130? :devil:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 16:46

vilters wrote:No, not on F-15's.
But was the mother of all bombs not dropped from a C-130? :devil:

The MOAB and the MOP are 2 completely different weapons.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5347
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 18:06

MOAB:

a-us-air-force-massive-ordnance-air-blast-moab-bomb-sits-on-the-flight-J0KF6B.jpg


It makes a loud boom on the surface. MOP is 50% heavier and goes boom underground.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests