B-21 Raider

[brickhistory]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

What would Billy do?

Probably drink a lot and hang out with his congressional and senatorial buddies.

 

Again.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Lawman]

   

Here's the List of 4,600 Names Submitted For the B-21, Including '9/11 Cover-up' and 'Lowest Bidder'

You know... I hate myself for it a little,

But "Shadow Fortress" sounds pretty damn cool. If not for a bomber than for the name of some Norwegian Metal band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B52gator]

12 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

You know... I hate myself for it a little,

But "Shadow Fortress" sounds pretty damn cool. If not for a bomber than for the name of some Norwegian Metal band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That would have been perfect...had it been a Boeing jet.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Probably drink a lot and hang out with his congressional and senatorial buddies.

Again.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Maybe but he would probably try something new, see if it worked and if it was worthwhile to pursue further.   

Experiment and innovate, we have to build better mousetraps not just more expensive ones.

[Fuzz]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

You know... I hate myself for it a little,

But "Shadow Fortress" sounds pretty damn cool. If not for a bomber than for the name of some Norwegian Metal band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the new Raider squadron doesn't find a way to work "Bomby McBomerface" into a Friday patch or something they have failed from the start.

[Lord Ratner]

Yep.

Fat Amy is great. She knows a lot of tricks and jokes, so everyone wants her at their party. Hanging out with Fat Amy is awesome.

...but no one wants to actually get inside her.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Yet... When offered the chance, every fighter pilots will...

[08Dawg]

On 9/21/2016 at 8:12 PM, Waingro said:

Or maybe it's a nod to the mission where we lost 16 aircraft and the lives of 7 men to attack Japan. Sorry, but your community doesn't have the lock on airmen making the ultimate sacrifice.

No we don't, but it IS a bomber that will be crewed by some of the same crewdogs that had friends on RAIDR 21.  Just saying that some have said it hits close to home. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, 08Dawg said:

No we don't, but it IS a bomber that will be crewed by some of the same crewdogs that had friends on RAIDR 21.  Just saying that some have said it hits close to home. 

What do you mean it hits close to home?  You mean an aircraft projected for IOC in 2030 might be flown by people offended with the name association of a 2008 crash?  Not trying to be rude, I'm just perplexed by what the issue is.  I think raider sounds badass.  

[08Dawg]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

What do you mean it hits close to home?  You mean an aircraft projected for IOC in 2030 might be flown by people offended with the name association of a 2008 crash?  Not trying to be rude, I'm just perplexed by what the issue is.  I think raider sounds badass.  

I'm not even saying I have an issue with it.  Just saying that it kinda struck a nerve with some crewdogs in the Buff community.  But yay, heritage...

[Ram]

I'm sorry man, but history is full of callsigns (especially from WW 'Nam) of men and women who paid the ultimate price while flying their war chariots, both in battle and while training for battle. If the B-52 community is offended by the name Raider, maybe y'all need to dig a little deeper into history and come up with a list of names and call signs we can't use until we give you SNAPs sufficient trigger warnings and enough time to retreat to your cozy safe space.

YGBSM.

Personally, if I morted and Big Blue decided to name an airplane the same flying callsign, I'd be fvcking honored. You can't un-mort the mort, so your only option is to remember (with reverence).


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Ram]

Yet... When offered the chance, every fighter pilots will...

Starting with your girlfriend.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brabus]

I'm not even saying I have an issue with it.  Just saying that it kinda struck a nerve with some crewdogs in the Buff community.  But yay, heritage...

The B-52 community flying with the Raider callsign probably really struck a nerve with the Doolittle Raiders because several of their bros ended up executed in China...what a slap in the face to those men that the Buff community would dare fly with the callsign Raider.  Buy you know, yay heritage!........wait, that didn't happen because none of those Doolittle Raiders were a bunch of whiny SNAPs.

Sounds like some of your friends need to get over themselves.  Not a bomber guy, but I think the name pays a great tribute to not only a historic bomber raid in WW2, but also to the bros who were lost in 2008.  Seeing it any other way is beyond ridiculous and extremely self-centered.

[FlyinGrunt]

2.  We named all kinds of stuff after Spirit 03 and Jockey 14 . . .

[magnetfreezer]

23 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

I'm not even saying I have an issue with it.  Just saying that it kinda struck a nerve with some crewdogs in the Buff community.  But yay, heritage...

Fury 02 (B-1) crashed in 1997 with 4 fatalities. That callsign still flies regularly on B-1s.

[gearhog]

Bye Bye Bone.

B-21 is going to Dyess (sometime in the mid 2030s)

 

https://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/main-news/dyess-afb-to-be-the-home-of-the-new-b-21-pending-congressional-approval/970100807?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KRBC_News

[pawnman]

On 2/13/2018 at 5:22 AM, torqued said:

Bye Bye Bone.

B-21 is going to Dyess (sometime in the mid 2030s)

 

https://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/main-news/dyess-afb-to-be-the-home-of-the-new-b-21-pending-congressional-approval/970100807?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KRBC_News

According to other news sources, it's also going to Whiteman and Ellsworth.  So...

[08Dawg]

Thought I read somewhere they're going to keep the existing bomber base infrastructure, i.e. Dyess, Whiteman and Ellsworth all get B-21s.  Assuming 100 jets, and the existing number of operational B-1 and B-2 squadrons, 12-14 tails per squadron, plus the FTU, it seems to make sense to keep all three bases. 

[SuperWSO]

Surprised no one has commented on the news. 20 years ago, the joke was that when the last B-2 gets dropped off at DM, the crew will be picked up in a BUFF. That joke is apparently now the Bomber Roadmap.

Ive officially lost all confidence in AF leaderships ability to make decisions. This and Enterprise IT as a Service (EITaaS). The AF has detected a slow sink rate and elected to push the stick to full forward.

[YoungnDumb]

Let's also be honest, the B-21 won't even fly until we're all 6ft under if the current AF acquisitions system remains.

[Danger41]

On 2/15/2018 at 8:26 PM, SuperWSO said:

Surprised no one has commented on the news. 20 years ago, the joke was that when the last B-2 gets dropped off at DM, the crew will be picked up in a BUFF. That joke is apparently now the Bomber Roadmap.

Ive officially lost all confidence in AF leaderships ability to make decisions. This and Enterprise IT as a Service (EITaaS). The AF has detected a slow sink rate and elected to push the stick to full forward.

I know you’re a higher level guy in the bomber world and I’m an AFSOC Captain nobody, but I’m interested in why you say this. Isn’t the B-1 a maintenance nightmare whereas the BUFF is more (relative term) reliable? Capabilities of stand-off delivery are good and the high speed low alt ingress have given way to medium altitude precision strike. 

Im not trying to be a smartass at all, I’m genuinely curious why you think this is a bad idea.

[SuperWSO]

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I know you’re a higher level guy in the bomber world and I’m an AFSOC Captain nobody, but I’m interested in why you say this. Isn’t the B-1 a maintenance nightmare whereas the BUFF is more (relative term) reliable? Capabilities of stand-off delivery are good and the high speed low alt ingress have given way to medium altitude precision strike. 

Im not trying to be a smartass at all, I’m genuinely curious why you think this is a bad idea.

To be honest, I've been out of the bomber business too long to claim to be a bomber guy.  These days, i'm an Intel/Cyber guy who used to fly bombers.

To me, the the bottom line is that there is no way that the AF is better off retiring 1980s (B-1s) and 1990s (B-2) jets and retaining 1960s vintage aircraft.  I know they already did it when they retired the KC-10 and kept the KC-135.  You could also make an argument that the B-52 is still nuke capable and the B-1 isn't, but we've backed out of several other treaties, so I don't see that being a show stopper.  The BUFF is an awesome airplane - my dad flew them up to about 1968 - but metal fatigue is going to have to catch up at some point before it hits 100 years of flying.  There really isn't much data out there on proper operating procedures for 100 year old aircraft on a large scale.  As for the B-1 being an MX nightmare, I started out flying Guard Bones and there were no problems.  We had talented maintainers that made the jets operate they way they were designed.  The AF decided they didn't need that capability.  MX rates on the B-1 are the result of AF mismanagement.

I'm also concerned that the design specifications for the B-21 were smaller than the B-2 with less payload and less range.  If we retire the B-2 and keep the BUFF in a non-penetrator role, you will be making larger portions of the world "out of range" in a non-permissive fight.  To me, the entire plan resembles the prior Air Force attempts to extort money from Congress by threatening to retire airframes like the A-10 because we just can't afford everything we want.

By 2036, the B-1 will have had a good run, and so will the BUFF.  The AF should keep the small number of B-2s we have longer than the B-52.

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, SuperWSO said:

To be honest, I've been out of the bomber business too long to claim to be a bomber guy.  These days, i'm an Intel/Cyber guy who used to fly bombers.

To me, the the bottom line is that there is no way that the AF is better off retiring 1980s (B-1s) and 1990s (B-2) jets and retaining 1960s vintage aircraft.  I know they already did it when they retired the KC-10 and kept the KC-135.  You could also make an argument that the B-52 is still nuke capable and the B-1 isn't, but we've backed out of several other treaties, so I don't see that being a show stopper.  The BUFF is an awesome airplane - my dad flew them up to about 1968 - but metal fatigue is going to have to catch up at some point before it hits 100 years of flying.  There really isn't much data out there on proper operating procedures for 100 year old aircraft on a large scale.  As for the B-1 being an MX nightmare, I started out flying Guard Bones and there were no problems.  We had talented maintainers that made the jets operate they way they were designed.  The AF decided they didn't need that capability.  MX rates on the B-1 are the result of AF mismanagement.

I'm also concerned that the design specifications for the B-21 were smaller than the B-2 with less payload and less range.  If we retire the B-2 and keep the BUFF in a non-penetrator role, you will be making larger portions of the world "out of range" in a non-permissive fight.  To me, the entire plan resembles the prior Air Force attempts to extort money from Congress by threatening to retire airframes like the A-10 because we just can't afford everything we want.

By 2036, the B-1 will have had a good run, and so will the BUFF.  The AF should keep the small number of B-2s we have longer than the B-52.

Agreed but the MX and sustainment cost of the B-2 is prohibitive given the small production run and consequently low parts availability from premature truncation of the program.  

Didn't realize the B-21 had a lower range unrefuelled than the B-2, that's UNSAT.  If anything, give the next bomber greater range to keep from telegraphing its ingress when it ARs pre-strike and push the tankers further back from the beginning of the A2AD area

Edited February 18, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

maybe they know that there's something new not named the B-21 coming down the pipe in a bit

 

[Tank]

On 9/24/2016 at 8:23 AM, M2 said:

 

 

Here's the List of 4,600 Names Submitted For the B-21, Including '9/11 Cover-up' and 'Lowest Bidder'

Didn’t read through the entire list presented but I would have presented the name:

B-21 Bomber McBombface

[ClearedHot]

On 2/17/2018 at 8:34 AM, Danger41 said:

I know you’re a higher level guy in the bomber world and I’m an AFSOC Captain nobody, but I’m interested in why you say this. Isn’t the B-1 a maintenance nightmare whereas the BUFF is more (relative term) reliable? Capabilities of stand-off delivery are good and the high speed low alt ingress have given way to medium altitude precision strike. 

Im not trying to be a smartass at all, I’m genuinely curious why you think this is a bad idea.

The B-2 is labor intensive but it can most certainly go places the BUFF can't.  There is also something to be said about capacity...

There was a time when USAF had 700 B-52's alone, now we are talking about a total bomber force under 200. 

The BUFF is one hell of a bomb wagon and we have put a LOT of money into making sure it remains viable, but in the grand scheme of things do we really want to send out kids to war in a 100 year old airplanes?