B-21 Raider

[Lawman]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another potential partner for new LO attack platform to give Allies regional power projection / deterrence.

Just saying.... the unrefueled distance required to launch from Israel and range all of Iran and the distance from say.... Lakenheath to Moscow are nearly identical....

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Lawman

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Just saying.... the unrefueled distance required to launch from Israel and range all of Iran and the distance from say.... Lakenheath to Moscow are nearly identical....

Yup...that's about the same range as Northern Australia to cover all of Indonesia or Spratly Islands.

An LO platform that as a singleton that could deliver the A/G effects of 2 x F-35 without AR across a theater (I define that as 750 NM) is what were talking about IMHO.  

Develop a platform to compliment the F-35 to continue the strategy of raising the capes of capable allies to keep the strategic competitors deterred. 

[Disco_Nav963]

^ That, with an emphasis on a smaller logistics tail than the strategic bomber fleet... That combined with unrefueled range lends itself to dispersability and unpredictability. 

[Clark Griswold]

20 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

^ That, with an emphasis on a smaller logistics tail than the strategic bomber fleet... That combined with unrefueled range lends itself to dispersability and unpredictability. 

Yup, expeditionary/dispersed capability built in from the wheels up.

[Sketch]

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Sketch

[Clark Griswold]

15 minutes ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

Yes but LO is mostly a matter of shape so form follows function.

[brwwg&b]

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

Wasn't part of the deal with the B-21 using existing technology to keep the budget manageable and shorten the development timeline?

[uhhello]

3 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

But come on?  No ball turret or waist gunners?  

[Lawman]

7 hours ago, Sketch said:

After seeing the new digital renderings the AF just released, the thought occurred to me.. the new aircraft looks almost identical to the Spirit with a few minor changes, have we really reached a point where our acquisitions process is so f**ked that we've lost the ability to develop brand new concepts and designs and instead need to fall back on older ones? Have we so overbloated the R&D and production process that its simply too expensive and risky to both request and build brand new designs with significantly increased capes?

 

To be honest since we didn’t buy enough of them the first time, I’d be completely good with the ignore the obvious and just take a 21st century technology infused into what is basically the B-2. 
 

Modify the technology and add in all the decades of new stuff we have made common place. Evolve the airframe from a maintenance perspective with MSPUs and other sensors to make maintaining it and operational capability more viable, and use the 30 years of knowledge in “keeping/feeding” we have learned with the 4 stealth aircraft we have actively used in the fleet.

Combine that with a new engine for the B-52 and holy crap it’s 1993 again and we have bought a bomber fleet with 30 years in it until we need another major infusion or cash.

great success everybody, now can we please invest in a new modular 767 or other platform to absorb all those jobs we currently use aircraft constructed during the Carter admin to accomplish.... because time is ticking.

[Sketch]

19 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

I get that a good chunk of the Raiders' advantages over older platforms will be internal and logistical, but I just can't help but think the design philosophy behind the aircraft was to innovate as little as possible because the DOD has essentially given up on trying to purchase new designs in large quantities. We've seen so many botched acquisitions programs over the last 2 decades (F-22 buy, CV-22, KC-46, light attack, of course the biggest offender the F-35, and even the original B-2 buy being so small to name a few) that is it even worth trying to purchase new aircraft from scratch anymore?

 

[GrndPndr]

19 hours ago, Sketch said:

I get that a good chunk of the Raiders' advantages over older platforms will be internal and logistical, but I just can't help but think the design philosophy behind the aircraft was to innovate as little as possible because the DOD has essentially given up on trying to purchase new designs in large quantities. We've seen so many botched acquisitions programs over the last 2 decades (F-22 buy, CV-22, KC-46, light attack, of course the biggest offender the F-35, and even the original B-2 buy being so small to name a few) that is it even worth trying to purchase new aircraft from scratch anymore?

Don't be too quick to dismiss "what's new" in this airframe, as I think we'll see some surprises once everything is "out."   Just a guess.

[JimNtexas]

On 1/17/2019 at 10:42 AM, Clark Griswold said:

5.7 billion for a wall that directly protects the security and sovereignty of ‘Merica vs 15 billion for what exactly in continuing the Syrian mission? 45 billion per year for Afghanistan? X billions per year deterring aggression for Germany with the 4th largest economy in the world?
Spending a modest amount to keep out illegal aliens (some from hostile nations and/or members of TNCOs) is well worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

On 2/5/2020 at 8:20 PM, uhhello said:

But come on?  No ball turret or waist gunners?  

Ball or waist turret laser cannons.

 

[Danger41]

Has there been any update on timelines or anything for B-21? Hidden agenda is I’m curious about being a part of any ANG/Reserve unit that stands up at Ellsworth.

[08Dawg]

7 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Has there been any update on timelines or anything for B-21? Hidden agenda is I’m curious about being a part of any ANG/Reserve unit that stands up at Ellsworth.

Pure speculation...any ARC unit will be under the 131st at SZL or the 489th at DYS. 

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, 08Dawg said:

Pure speculation...any ARC unit will be under the 131st at SZL or the 489th at DYS. 

Even with Ellsworth tapped to be the B-21 FTU?

[M2]

The flying wing design isn't necessarily something new...

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Even with Ellsworth tapped to be the B-21 FTU?

Yeah...I'd guess they'd stand up their own group, just like Dyess did, and fall under the 307th Wing, like the 489th.

[Disco_Nav963]

There's been RegAF interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for years... There is Reserve B-1 crewdog interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for the obvious reasons (Ellsworth is awesome). When I directly asked the previous 307 BW/CC about it 3-ish years ago, he made it sound like it was stuck in HQ AFRC feasibility study purgatory. Concerns over whether the ARC pilot lifestyle was sustainable with folks having to commute somewhere that isn't a hub and has few direct flights a lot of the year. (Also true of KABI, but Dyess is a 2 hour drive from DFW.) Seemed to me like they were underestimating the amount of interest pilots would have. 

More recently, in the context of B-1 divestiture planning, I've heard someone that goes to those meetings say "We're closer than ever to a Reserve presence at Ellsworth." But all the conversations I've heard make it sounds like it would initially be a detached flight from the Dyess organization.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Disco_Nav963

[pawnman]

22 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

There's been RegAF interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for years... There is Reserve B-1 crewdog interest in an ARC presence at KRCA for the obvious reasons (Ellsworth is awesome). When I directly asked the previous 307 BW/CC about it 3-ish years ago, he made it sound like it was stuck in HQ AFRC feasibility study purgatory. Concerns over whether the ARC pilot lifestyle was sustainable with folks having to commute somewhere that isn't a hub and has few direct flights a lot of the year. (Also true of KABI, but Dyess is a 2 hour drive from DFW.) Seemed to me like they were underestimating the amount of interest pilots would have. 

More recently, in the context of B-1 divestiture planning, I've heard someone that goes to those meetings say "We're closer than ever to a Reserve presence at Ellsworth." But all the conversations I've heard make it sounds like it would initially be a detached flight from the Dyess organization.

IIRC, it wasn't the pilots that was the issue.  It's the reserve maintainers, intel, to a lesser extent, WSOs.

Sure, pilots are probably willing to commute to Minneapolis or Denver, but maintainers, probably not.

[hindsight2020]

Based on the insider baseball history of the 307th BW (read: 10th AF metroplex-local mafia pet project from inception) and why a DYS classic associate was stood up in the first place, there's very little chance they stand up a significant classic association in SD. And forget an active associate, regAF will never allow it on a next-gen MWS. If retaining the footprint at DYS, zero chance of either. I personally don't see them bedding down the association at DYS any time soon (I have my theory on that), but who knows.

Now, a token skeleton detachment, a la 47FS det in D-M during the days they were still hostage at BAD under the composite 917th WG? Sure, I could see that. But def not a full up TFI contingent of either flavor. 

My bet, nothing comes of it. "Make em tell you no!" tough. I keed I keed. 😄 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by hindsight2020

[brabus]

21 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

And forget an active associate, regAF will never allow it on a next-gen MWS

Already exists with several more on the way (F-35). Unless you’re taking specifically within AFGSC, then I’ll defer on that.

[hindsight2020]

21 minutes ago, brabus said:

Already exists with several more on the way (F-35). Unless you’re taking specifically within AFGSC, then I’ll defer on that.

 

My apologies, I meant to type active associate FTUs, to address the specific point about the B-21 FTU being pitched in SD. 

I wasn't aware there was an F-35 FTU active association, if true then I stand corrected. I'm of course keenly aware of legacy fleet FTU active associates (bit of a personal ancient history that's no longer here nor there), which is why I stipulated next-gen in my comments. BL, I don't see regAF ceding ground on new toy FTU PAAs. 

[pawnman]

4 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

 

My apologies, I meant to type active associate FTUs, to address the specific point about the B-21 FTU being pitched in SD. 

I wasn't aware there was an F-35 FTU active association, if true then I stand corrected. I'm of course keenly aware of legacy fleet FTU active associates (bit of a personal ancient history that's no longer here nor there), which is why I stipulated next-gen in my comments. BL, I don't see regAF ceding ground on new toy FTU PAAs. 

Well, the reserve at Dyess isn't associated with the FTU and we can't even get their guys to fly as guests once in a while to help out.

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Well, the reserve at Dyess isn't associated with the FTU and we can't even get their guys to fly as guests once in a while to help out.

Fwiw, no active association (likely would have been the FTU, if the 307th/10th AF M.O. in KBAD was any indication) was ever pitched for the Bone side of the 307th. Which is to say that the active association angle is moot. 

What's your take/sense of the reasons for that unwillingness? 

Edited December 31, 2020 by hindsight2020
brevity