Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States

Pentagon Debuts Its New Stealth Bomber, the B-21 Raider 108

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
America's newest nuclear stealth bomber is making its public debut after years of secret development and as part of the Pentagon's answer to rising concerns over a future conflict with China. From a report: The B-21 Raider is the first new American bomber aircraft in more than 30 years. Almost every aspect of the program is classified. Ahead of its unveiling Friday at an Air Force facility in Palmdale, California, only artists' renderings of the warplane have been released. Those few images reveal that the Raider resembles the black nuclear stealth bomber it will eventually replace, the B-2 Spirit.

The bomber is part of the Pentagon's efforts to modernize all three legs of its nuclear triad, which includes silo-launched nuclear ballistic missiles and submarine-launched warheads, as it shifts from the counterterrorism campaigns of recent decades to meet China's rapid military modernization. China is on track to have 1,500 nuclear weapons by 2035, and its gains in hypersonics, cyber warfare, space capabilities and other areas present "the most consequential and systemic challenge to U.S. national security and the free and open international system," the Pentagon said this week in its annual China report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentagon Debuts Its New Stealth Bomber, the B-21 Raider More

Pentagon Debuts Its New Stealth Bomber, the B-21 Raider

Comments Filter:

  • The real war will take place in the Indian ocean, with navy submarine wolf packs destroying tankers bringing oil to China from the Persian gulf.

    • Re:convoy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @11:57AM (#63096810)

      "Wolfpacks" are obsolete and not required since insurance will be so difficult to get and tankers won't make it that far.

      Interdiction can be done without sinking them by notifying crew to either halt for boarding or a PGM with inert warhead (think "ginsu Hellfire missile) will hit the bridge or other important bits.

      You were probably downmodded because someone doesn't like the obvious idea of cutting sea trade but it's far from new. Those interested can study the impact on Japan in WWII and Germany in both world wars.

      • "Wolfpacks" are obsolete and not required since insurance will be so difficult to get and tankers won't make it that far.

        I don't know about groups of subs operating together, but in any future peer war, much of the shipping lost will still be lost to submarines. Aircraft still have range limits (especially if you cut the legs off of fighters and bombers by shooting down their tanker support), and convoys will navigate accordingly. It's still easy to put quiet subs in the likely shipping paths of convoys, and then shoot and scoot. Especially with modern subs being able to launch multiple torpedoes against multiple targets simu

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Archtech ( 159117 )

        Those interested can study the impact on Japan in WWII and Germany in both world wars.

        The main reason for the USA's appalling loss of military power in recent decades has been precisely the Pentagon's fixation on WW2. When von Moltke urged the German generals to study "those campaigns in America", only 40 years or so had elapsed since the Civil War. Today WW2 lies over 75 years in the past, and most of its "lessons" and weapons are either obsolescent or totally obsolete.

        Any major war in future would pit the USA against, essentially, Asia: the "world heartland" so beloved of Mackinder fans. h [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:convoy (Score:5, Insightful)

          by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @02:24PM (#63097274)

          Asia has a population of about 4.6 billion, nearly 5 times as many as the "West"'s "golden billion". Moreover, it has internal lines of communication and huge natural resources, which is why Mackinder was so enthusiastic about its potential for dominating the world. If a major war began, it might turn out that a lot of Africans and Latin Americans would prefer to align themselves with Asia.

          Which Asia? China, India, Islamic countries, or the rest? Any dream that these countries even approach working together is a pipe dream. There are too many deep-seated rivalries in the land mass arbitrarily labeled by Europeans as Asia (Asia == not Europe).
          China and India will always be rivals because both believe their size demands hegemonic respect. Pakistan partners with China because India is an even bigger rival. Japan and Korea will never trust China.

          In fact, the biggest advantage the US has in Asia is not that Asian countries trust or like the US. It's simply that every country trusts and likes China even less.

          • In fact, the biggest advantage the US has in Asia is not that Asian countries trust or like the US. It's simply that every country trusts and likes China even less.

            Not without good reason. While I immensely enjoy Chinese culture, it almost always involves not just a knife in someone's back but a knife in everyone's back.

        • Any major war in future would pit the USA against, essentially, Asia: the "world heartland" so beloved of Mackinder fans

          As if there were no other natural barriers in the world beside oceans.

    • I may still have the disks for this game, but I have almost certainly lost the manual, which also serves as copy protection.

    • Why sink an oil tanker and cause environmental disaster Exxon Valdez style, when you could just fly a helicopter gunship over and point rotary machineguns and explosive rockets at the bridge windows and ask them to kindly cut thrust?

      • Re: convoy (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        Agreed. Both sides will be desperately short of oil, so stealing the other side's tankers would seem a preferred strategy to sinking them.

        Blades missiles (as used against Taliban leaders) and other anti-personel weapons would be able to take out belligerent crew without any serious risk of losing the oil and with minimal damage to the control systems.

        Stealing the tankers would not only benefit America, it would impact Chinese morale in a way that sinking wouldn't.

        Of course, IANAG, and what the US does in pr

        • If bladed missiles come into use, I hope that someone will be smart enough to use scuttling charges with a "dead man" switch. "Shoot at us, fuck you, you lose the oil anyway."

          • If bladed missiles come into use, I hope that someone will be smart enough to use scuttling charges with a "dead man" switch. "Shoot at us, fuck you, you lose the oil anyway."

            That is OK too. The crew still won't make that mistake again.

            • Sure, but the enemy won't get what they want either. If they're going to die, may as well take as much as they can with them.

              • Sure, but the enemy won't get what they want either. If they're going to die, may as well take as much as they can with them.

                Keeping the oil from the enemy is the goal. Getting it for yourself is two points. Destroying the infrastructure forever is just the standard one point. Still a win either way.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by torkus ( 1133985 )

          Those behemoths aren't built for conflict and are not survivable against even light naval operations. They're expensive (~$50-100mm) and have long build times (~1yr) which means no one's going to sail a commercial tanker into/through a conflict zone and risk it's loss.

          Adding to that, if oil were so crucial to the conflict that someone might consider sending tankers anyway...I don't expect either side would accept the risk of the other stealing it or sinking it resulting in it's loss.

    • Why would China ship oil that they have to pay for (and go to war over), when they can just pipe it overland from their newest province (formerly called Russia)

      Russia is chock full 'o natural resources, and has a plainly incompetent military. China must be making plans to pick that plum, and it avoid all sorts of unnecessary conflict with their consumer markets in the West.

    • China doesn't care any more about possible Indian ocean interdictions. There is a reason why "ruler greater than Mao" Xi Jinping has visited with Russia's Putin over 20 times over the last few years. There's multiple and soon to be redundant overland oil pipelines heading east from Russia to China. So China doesn't have to rely on ocean traffic for it's energy supplies. Russia also just christened a new nuclear ice breaker to help with possible new north pole trade routes due to global warming.

      Welcome your

  • And the hangars needed to be air-conditioned â" because the Spiritâ(TM)s windows donâ(TM)t open, hotter climates can cook cockpit electronics.

    How do you avoid cooking the crew in this oven? Why can't you use the same approach to cool the electronics? If the HVAC on the hangar fails, the electronics are destroyed?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because it's not flying when it's in the hangar.
      • Typically the storage environment is much ess strenuous than the use environment.

        • The B-2 often does long round-trip missions because there are few hangars globally that can accommodate its wingspan, which limits where it can land for maintenance. The hangars also must be air-conditioned because the Spirit's windows don't open and hot climates can cook cockpit electronics.

          I don't know who wrote this piece of fiction, but they obviously don't know much about military aircraft. Firstly, I guess I'd have to understand what the author means by "maintenance". Does the B-2 have to be in a hanger to replace an engine? No, but it makes things easier. Does the aircraft have to be in a hanger to replace the landing gear? No, but it makes things easier. With the right equipment and stands, the engines and landing gear could be replaced on any landing field tarmac.

          The B-2 also doe

          • Are stupid or just incapable of using google?

            NEWS
            AIR FORCE WANTS B-2 HANGARS WITH A/C [dailypress.com]
            By MARK THOMPSON Knight-Ridder Newspapers
            DailyPress.com

            Jan 18, 1990 at 12:00 am

            WASHINGTON — The Air Force's fleet of $532 million B-2 "stealth" bombers will require 120 air-conditioned garages costing $1.6 billion because - among other reasons - their cockpit windows don't open and can't let damaging heat escape.

            Air Force officials have told Congress that B-2s with sealed windows sitting on runways during the summer m

            • Yeah, pulling up a 30-year old wish list for the projected cost of 120 hangers when only 20 B-2s were ultimately built doesn't make you look like a genius either. I've worked on military avionics in many hot environments and seen them deployed to locations that would melt the dashboard of your car if it was left outside. Equipment built to MilSpec are a little more rugged than the article's quote implied.

              I stand by my facts. What the engineers thought and wished for in 1990 and what they have learned in

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jjeff1 ( 636051 )
      They mean for storage. When the plane has people on it, it's running and can provide cooling. My grandfathers garage in Arizona had AC too.

      • Re: wow (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        If (ok, since!) it has cooling, it'll have to radiate that heat and that will surely impact the stealth. I don't see any way to avoid it. Even if they use some sort of metamaterial to shift wavelength, there's only so much they'll be able to do.

        Since it's clear a lot of heat needs to be shifted, I wonder if that will turn out to be a vulnerability that countries like China can target.

        The other worry is whether NG was careless with hard drive security. China has previously walked off with recycled hard drive

    • How do you avoid cooking the crew in this oven?

      The crew is optional. The B-21 can operate manned or unmanned.

    • Its also to maintain the radar absorbing coating which is finicky and expensive to maintain.
    • The real question is if will fly in the rain.

    • Itâ(TM)s actually because of the radar absorbant materials used in the skin of the aircraft. Theyâ(TM)re sensitive to the environmental conditions, so when the aircraft is not on mission, they want to store it in as proper of condition as they can.

      This kind of thing has plagued pretty much every stealth aircraft ever built.

  • It's a drone (Score:5, Informative)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @11:31AM (#63096732)
    The B21 Raider could also be considered a stealth drone, since having people onboard is optional.

    Cite: It will be nuclear capable and designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations. [af.mil]

    This aspect was announced or at least alluded to many years ago and seemed so far-fetched at the time!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by J-1000 ( 869558 )

      I would not want to be testing that software.

      • Re:It's a drone (Score:4)

        by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @02:01PM (#63097198) Journal

        Why not? We've had electronic autopilot in aircraft for decades. This is just the next development of that.

        • Why not? We've had electronic autopilot in aircraft for decades. This is just the next development of that.

          Um... takeoff and landing? You say just the next development like it's one more iteration when it's really like going from handsfree cruise control on a highway to FSD. As in, that's where 99% of the complications are.

          It would be a blast to develop, but like the previous poster, count me out of the QA team, that's a different kind of blast.

        • Is that relevant? I think they mean the pilot is on the ground (like with modern drones). I sure hope they're not planning autonomous bombing runs!

    • The B21 Raider could also be considered a stealth drone, since having people onboard is optional.

      If so, what would be the advantage of having a crew - considering the very great disadvantages? Unless some of today's crews fancy emulating Major "King" Kong.

      • Not 100% sure, but I've heard from multiple sources that any physical release of a nuclear weapon has to be done via a human in a direct physical loop with the release of the weapon. It's the last failsafe cut-out. For reasons why watch the 1980's movie Wargames.

        • Better yet watch Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

          It is near perfect, just a lame ending when they ran out of $$, they never used the pies.
          Peter Sellers plays several roles as do George C. Scott's eyebrows.

          • And Dr. Stragelove is why the generals don't have the nuclear launch codes.

            IMHO Sterling Hayden steals the show. Also, Dr. Strangelove is not about nuclear war :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What is the need for a nuclear bomber these days? Given the US has ICBMs and cruise missiles, in what scenarios would you want to use one of these to deliver a nuclear weapon? Or is it just a case of having another potential delivery system in case the other fail?

      • In theory, it may be possible to locate all the nuclear armed submarines. The surface to surface missiles can be precise located.

        But bombers can be moved around such that they would be difficult to locate in real time, and a few could be kept in the sky at all times on rotation. So it is a useful deterrent during times of very high tension.

    • If you ask me it looks more like a B2.1 than a B21. Also:

      China is on track to have 1,500 nuclear weapons by 2035, and its gains in hypersonics, cyber warfare and space capabilities present âoethe most consequential and systemic challenge to U.S. national security and the free and open international system,â the Pentagon said this week in its annual China report.

      If the war in Ukraine has taught us any lessons it's that we need a fuckton of munitions, not more expensive shelfware that the generals can point to and say "lookit the cool toys we have in storage that we're never going to use because they're too expensive or too unthinkable to expend".

    • And a tried and true cruise missile cost way less. Would 250 cruise missiles beat one drone + maintenance costs? You only need stealth if you want deniability, and after impact the enemy will have a pretty good guess who anyway.The other advantage is ignoring no fly zones and flying through tinpot countries that said no. Thanks to 5G - it IS possible to detect intrusion in clear weather. And those American internet and phone towers in orbit are lighting up such drones- free elint assistance. The most likel
  • Did they name it the B-21 in hopes that they would sell at least that many, given that the ultimate number of B-2s topped out at 21 of the 158 requested? What a waste of money and resources.
    • Yeah, I get that there are certain times when you 'absolutely, positively have to get your package into Moscow or Beijing overnight' (so to speak). But ballistic missiles work for that. And short of doomsday, when would it not be better to use cruise missiles? You can buy a lot of smart, stealthy missiles for $500M. And not have so many eggs in one basket.

      • Re:Fairly optomistic (Score:4)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @12:44PM (#63096982)

        Strategic bombers and the nuclear triad are deeply entrenched concepts. Presidential candidates get asked about them. It takes a while for that kind of doctrine to fade away. Like battleships.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Bombers are part of the nuclear triad, sea (sub) launched, bomber dropped and land launched (ICBMs). Cruise missiles don't have as long a range as ballistic missiles and require more engineering but are harder to shoot down. So it is a trade-off and we already have 3 baskets while everyone else has at most 1. Also, cruise missiles can be shot down pretty easily unless they are hypersonic which introduces a different set of engineering problems. These bombers can do more than just drop nuclear weapons an
        • Is there a fundamental reason a missile must have a bigger radar return than a much larger bomber?

          • Cost, probably. If making something stealthy takes a certain dollar value's worth of special materials and manufacturing techniques; there's probably a point where it's more cost-effective to stealth the carrier aircraft and use non (or less) stealthy munitions. It's kind of similar math as to why, even though non-stealth cruise missiles have been a thing for decades, nations still send non-stealth aircraft to drop non-stealth ordinance on things.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )
            Because it is a flying wing. Flying wings have less RCS than other designs.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by rgmoore ( 133276 )

            No. The US military deployed stealthy missiles at least as long ago as the AGM-69 SRAM [wikipedia.org], which became operational more than 50 years ago and was said to have a radar cross section similar to a bullet. That said, making a stealthy, long-range cruise missile has challenges similar to making a stealthy, long-range airplane, with similar cost increase relative to non-stealthy versions.

        • Bombers are part of the nuclear triad, sea (sub) launched, bomber dropped and land launched (ICBMs). Cruise missiles don't have as long a range as ballistic missiles and require more engineering but are harder to shoot down. So it is a trade-off and we already have 3 baskets while everyone else has at most 1. Also, cruise missiles can be shot down pretty easily unless they are hypersonic which introduces a different set of engineering problems. These bombers can do more than just drop nuclear weapons and they can drop many payloads in a single mission. They are basically a fleet of cruise missiles that you can't shoot down and can refuel mid-flight and comes back home at the end. Which given how much they cost is a real plus.

          So much wrong here, it's hard to know where to start. Even the "minor" nuclear powers have "more than one basket". Certainly China and Russia do.

          Why do you think that bombers can't be shot down. It arguably easier to down a bomber than a cruise missile, because they fly higher, run hotter, and are bigger targets. Superior countermeasures are if limited help.

          Bombers pretty much must come home, because of their cost - and that's a disadvantage, not an advantage.

          • Flight altitude has pros and cons for both low and high. Flying high means you stand out more and aren't going to be shielded by terrain, however it also means that ordinance has to reach out a lot further to get a hit. Even if that height doesn't keep you completely out of the kill zone of a SAM system, it can mean that you'll spend a lot less time in that zone which reduces the chances of being hit. Flying low means you can take advantage of terrain for cover/concealment, but it also means you'll likely h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

        But ballistic missiles work for that.

        Ballistic missiles can't be recalled once they're launched, if it's determined that there's no longer a threat. Maybe you can tell it to self-destruct, but even doing that over enemy territory is likely to have consequences. With a bomber, you tell the crew to RTB, they do a 180, and sometime later, they're back on the ground.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Asgard ( 60200 )

          Everthing public says there is no mechanism to disarm / abort a strategic ICBM once it leaves the silo. It makes some sense too as otherwise you'd never really know if the opponent has stolen those codes and is in effect immune to a strike.

          • Everthing public says there is no mechanism to disarm / abort a strategic ICBM once it leaves the silo.

            Or for that matter nuclear gravity bombs and nuclear cruise missiles. They're equipped with permissive action link (PAL) and a command disablement system, the former required to arm and launch and the latter providing an easy way for someone who knows what they're doing to physically disable the munition without having to smash it, but so far as the public knows, the PAL has no further use past launch. It requires a wired connection, and there are no nuclear wire-guided missiles.

        • With a bomber, you tell the crew to RTB, they do a 180, and sometime later, they're back on the ground.

          Yes, I remember how well that worked out in "Dr Strangelove".

      • B-2 bombers are the airforce delivery platform for cruise missiles. If the "Top Gun" world had B-2 bombers, then Tom Cruise wouldn't have had to crash in the snow ridiculously. The military could have sent in the bomber and taken out the target.

        • Heh. My jaw dropped when, in the first minute or so describing the situation, the entire USAF was waved away as being "inappropriate" or whatever for the mission. But whatever, the movie had to happen, and, like the first one, just enough plot was added to segue to the visuals and the emotionals.

          • Yeah. But the could have come up with a better justification or scenario. Like, claiming they came up with a new secret stealth coating for their airplanes [sandboxx.us]. I mean, the airforce claims it, so why not? Or maybe they could claim that the enemy had found a way to track stealth aircraft, so a stealth bomber couldn't be used. Those are two free ideas in two minutes.

            But maybe they didn't want a realistic plot.

          • Yeah, that scene had almost a wink and a nudge, like, "give us a break, we're making a movie here, OK folks?"

            I also am honestly curious if mentioning Star Wars was ever written into the script or maybe even filmed but edited out.

            I really enjoyed the film a lot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shmlco ( 594907 )

      Actually, my question is whether or not it has one of the B2's defining characteristics...

      Too expensive to risk flying in actual combat.

      • Actually, my question is whether or not it has one of the B2's defining characteristics...

        Too expensive to risk flying in actual combat.

        Actually, my question is whether or not it has one of the B2's defining characteristics...

        Too expensive to risk flying in actual combat.

        ?

        Stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia...
        The B-2's combat debut was in 1999, during the Kosovo War.
        The B-2 saw service in Afghanistan.
        During the Iraq War, B-2s operated from Diego Garcia and an undisclosed "forward operating location". Other sorties in Iraq have launched from Whiteman AFB.
        B-2s were the first U.S. aircraft into action in Operation Odyssey Dawn, the UN mandated enforcement of the Libyan no-fly zone.
        On 18 January 2017, two B-2s attacked an ISIS training camp 19 miles (30km) southwest of Sirte, Lib

  • New stealth feature (Score:4, Funny)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh AT gmail DOT com> on Friday December 02, 2022 @11:38AM (#63096756) Journal

    One new stealth feature on the B-21 is that it's almost indistinguishable from a B-2 :-P

  • Astonishing (Score:5, Funny)

    by aitikin ( 909209 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @12:05PM (#63096844)

    I find it completely astonishing that a company that can develop one of the top bombers in the world, has such strong ties to the US Defense Department, and put some of the most advanced computing modules in said bomber is still suggesting [northropgrumman.com] you, "update your Flash player plugin."

  • Since when is the B-2 Spirit a nuclear aircraft? I thought it ran on JP-8.

    Please tell me the ignoramus writing the article summary didn't tag both aircraft with the adjective "nuclear" merely because bombers can carry nuclear bombs as easily as conventional ones. That would imply that diesel-powered submarines are "nuclear subs" if you put a nuclear warhead on board, and that is NOT how that works.

    • That would imply that diesel-powered submarines are "nuclear subs" if you put a nuclear warhead on board, and that is NOT how that works.

      Go sit down by your 3D(1*) AI(2*) television and have a fruit drink(3*) and some microwaved Theater Butter[tm](4*) popcorn. Watch the news(5*). Chill(6*).

      Yours Truly(7*),

      --The Marketing Dept.

      1: Stereo imaging is not even close to 3D imaging.
      2: We have not created any instance of AI. Yet. We only have ML.
      3: Contains no fruit juice. Enjoy your corn syrup and chemicals.
      4: Con

    • It is sadly how military jargon works out sometimes, and of course the helpful journalists don't do a good job filtering it out to make common sense of things. In the military assets that are used only for, or intended primarily for use with, nuclear weaponry frequently get labeled as nuclear assets. Also when prioritizing things an item might be designated as being a nuclear priority, meaning that whatever that item or task is, it's critical to maintaining the readiness of nuclear weapons.

  • and you all said we was crazy, it was just swamp gas [theaviationist.com]

  • If they're sensible, they'll act as if potential enemies know more than they really do, because no security is perfect.

    It's an improvement over the B2, where model kits were being sold before Congress were told the aircraft existed at all.

    And hopefully an improvement over the new stealth fighter, where China bought a whole load of recycled hard drives with sufficient schematics to be able to build a version only a few years later.

    I only worked on the very periphery of the aerospace industry, but I've seen s

Slashdot Top Deals

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Close