F117 was a dark skunk project shown years after being operational. That made sense to me for a super secret project with wildly new technologies and capabilities.
I don't understand the announcements of such projects from the vision stage, with the details of capability, purpose, strategy, photos,etc.
Is it commoditized sufficiently? Is it deterrence? Is there enough misinformation?
Kirk: Bones, did you ever hear of a doomsday machine?
McCoy: No. I'm a doctor, not a mechanic.
Kirk: It's a weapon built primarily as a bluff. It's never meant to be used. So strong, it
could destroy both sides in a war. Something like the old H-Bomb was supposed to be.
That's what I think this is. A doomsday machine that somebody used in a war uncounted
years ago. They don't exist anymore, but the machine is still destroying.
— Star Trek: The Original Series, "The Doomsday Machine"
Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it
a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!!
Russian Ambassador Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you
know, the Premier loves surprises.
— Dr. StrangelovePart of it is probably also that this is a refinement of an existing aircraft and not anything with drastically different capabilities-- if you're planning on war with the US, you're probably already thinking about B-2s, and if you're worried about B-2s then a B-21 isn't that different.
- They plan on operating it during the day as well as night, so they need better protection against visual observation?
- The B2 was much darker due to the coating technology it used wasn't compatible with lighter grays? And operating only at night it didn't really matter?
There were only 21 B-2s ever built. The Air Force has already ordered 100 B-21s.
Planned, not ordered. Just like they initially planned 130+ B-2s, which Congress eventually cut to 21.
If true, then yes, the B-21 has potential to be relatively cheap to build and operate.
The B-21 is different in two important ways.
First, the B-21s stealth tech is derived from lessons learned from the F-35 program. The F-35 is a tactical fighter which the US and most of its allies are buying in very large numbers. They need to be stationed just about anywhere and can't require ridiculous maintenance to keep their skin from falling off. That would be impractical for a large fleet of aircraft. As such, a lot of work went into making the radar absorbent material used on the F-35 dramatically more durable. The B-21 gets to piggyback off of that and as a result it will be much more feasible to actually have a large fleet of them.
Second, there's a new cold war heating up with China. Anyone whose ever looked at the Pacific ocean might notice that it's kind of large. This makes range a major concern for combat aircraft. A medium stealth bomber with extreme range is essentially perfect for this environment because it can reach anywhere and is very hard to actually find once in flight. If you are a surface warship force, being hunted by a bunch of nearly undetectable aircraft which can be anywhere at anytime and can each carry more than a dozen large anti-ship missiles is going keep you up at night. The B-21 will likely end up being a very important piece in the US naval strategy in the pacific.
I wouldn't be surprised to see significantly more than 100 get built.
Oh, you can use them just as they were used - to do the things B-52, or hell, even B-29 could do. /snark
> being hunted by a bunch of nearly undetectable aircraft which can be anywhere at anytime and can each carry more than a dozen large anti-ship missiles
Now this is a question. My memory was rusty so I consulted Wikipedia and looks like there is not that many options.
SM6 is too weak and doesn't yet have AS capability, LRASM exists with a proper qualities (speed and payload) but is quite big even for B-1. And Tomahawk with no AS cap. and ... not fast.
So there is a question about "a dozen large anti-ship missiles" though it can be mitigated with a sheer numbers, which is probably the way it is designed.
> I wouldn't be surprised to see significantly more than 100 get built.
Depends on what would happen in tjhe world the next 10 years.
The security situation in the Pacific is also very unlikely to improve over the next 10 years.
1. I'm aware the F-35 development program itself was a boondoggle, but there are still building a ton of them right now.
Because trying to hide the existence of strategic bombers is expensive, ineffective, and not particularly helpful to keeping the actually secret technology they use secret.
> F117 was a dark skunk project shown years after being operational
With the F-117, the shape was part of the secret sauce. The B-21 doesn’t seem to be a big departure that way.
> I don't understand the announcements of such projects from the vision stage,
This wasn't announced in the vision stage, except that a new strategic bomber was being developed. The unveiling was well past vision, and competition, stages.
> Is it commoditized sufficiently? Is it deterrence? Is there enough misinformation?
Deterrence is a big consideration,
The world has also changed substantially. When the F-117 was developed, being able to simulate the RF interactions with faceted geometry was ground breaking stuff. Now anyone that can afford an ANSYS license can simulate that with far, far, greater fidelity against much more complex shapes.
Maybe. “Designed to accommodate unmannef operations” is... fairly vague as a description.