US Air Force's new B-21 Raider "flying wing" bomber takes first flight

Much of the cost in per unit is due to initial capex (e.g. R&D and tooling). I would hope they're reusing many of the things from the first version. This would make the new version much cheaper per unit.

But agreed that cost is likely to balloon, both government and defense contractors are incentivized for it to balloon (it's a lucrative jobs program for many across many states).

Isn't cost misleading?

the "cost per plane" is usually the input (total money dedicated by congress including 50 year maintainence window) divided by the output (number of planes). so it looks unusally expensive (f35 prOGrAm coSTs 1.5 TRilLiON DollARS) but the actual materials of the plane is a minute fraction of that nummber which is what people think of when they hear cost.

Cost per plane comes down when they do a bigger production run, as the initial R&D is amortized over a bigger fleet.

B-2 orders were reduced which raised per-plane costs

> who knows how it ends up

Sounds like thus far they're tracking well though

Minor miracle in itself lol

2 less corners and half the payload?

Cool graphic! Watched a video about F-35 [1] yesterday, it goes over many of the considerations in building for stealth (e.g. avoid 90° angles). It's also why they put engine intakes on the top for the B-2, as radar stations are on the ground.

I wonder if defense departments are starting to put receivers (or transmitters or both) in space to work together with ground stations.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lCOgFPtaZ4

Very different plane but b1 was $300m, 137 foot wingspan, 75k lbs payload, and mach 1.2.

having a pilot makes it somewhat protected against electronic warfare

you dont want russia/iran to just steal your latest tech bomber, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

also rockets will never replace planes, these totally different platforms with different purposes

Precision is solved, but many of the solutions can be jammed.

What can't be jammed (easily) is laser guidance. The B-21 can fly over a target and a crewmember can point a laser at a target and the bomb will ride the beam down.

Remote laser guidance is difficult due to latency.

The B-21 was designed to operate both manned and unmanned.

A rocket can't stay on-station for hours at a time waiting for the right moment to deliver the payload. With mid-air refueling, this beast can hover near but out of reach, to produce a threat that may never strike. A nice piece to have when 'negotiating' with a near-peer antagonist.

There's operational/capability benefits that can be rationalized, but in terms of aquisitions it's probably cheaper and politically easier for USAF MIC to build billion dollar bombers, sustained by billion dollar basing and aerial tanking to drop million dollar smart bombs. There's inertia in terms of integration into existing systems and interservice history (drama) with each branch fighting for dollars and relevance over their piece of future long range strike mission. Don't discount the politics - the airforce is not going to NOT have expensive planes supported by expensive tanking fleet. The navy is not going to NOT have expensive carrier groups supported by expensive replenishment. The marines fine with pivotting to maritime strike missions, but they're a small. Army is bigger, have little role in IndoPac (really what B21's about - China), Airforce and Navy going to lobby against Army stepping on their turf.

PRC side stepped that by elevating rocket force (previously artillery corp) as it's own branch, PLA writing on long range strikes is more or less prompt global strike with ICBMs. They also don't really have a another choice since it would take decades to build up alternate power projection methods (carriers, bombers). They're still developing those options but in theory their near term equalizer is to spam 10,000 or even 100,000s of icbms to take out expensive reusable US platforms and other critical targets. And with PRC value engineering, at significantly less cost.

Hypersonic missiles are not cheap. The LRHW that US is putting on land and ships costs $50 million per unit. Its payload is probably a single bomb worth. Its range is 1700 mi. The B-21 costs $500 million. It can carry the same amount of ordinance in one mission as the same cost in hypersonics.

The B-21 can carry multiple, cheaper cruise missiles. It can drop the air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles whenever those are developed. It can loiter over the battlefield dropping bombs as needed. It can come back and do it the next day. It can fly halfway around the world.

> what's the point of having a super expensive bomber plane with an actual human pilot vs. having a much cheaper, autonomous, hyper-sonic, and disposable delivery vehicle

Russian hypersonic missiles are being shot down by old Patriots [1]. Meanwhile, our commercial autonomous systems—arguably ahead of our military’s—still lag humans.

If we want to bomb someone, land-based missiles are the way to go. They overwhelm defences. And they’ll be just as loud as a hypersonic missile.

Bombers, on the other hand, can fly stealthily. They can also loiter, similar to a carrier strike group, sending a message without provoking MAD.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-stopped-russian-crui...

The economics, range, and flexibility of a nominal bomb carrier are vastly better than disposable and especially hypersonic delivery platforms. You also have to understand US military doctrine. Platforms like the B-21 are designed to deliver autonomous swarms of stealthy, networked, long-range weapons that can cooperate with each other and adapt to their environment. In this sense, the B-21 is as much a control plane and orchestrator as it is a delivery system.

For offensive systems, the US prefers slower, stealthier missiles rather than hypersonic missiles. While hypersonic missiles arrive on target faster, they have serious deficiencies in terms of precision, terminal guidance, range, and payload size. Consequently, the US has had hypersonic missiles for several decades but relegated them almost exclusively to defensive systems where those limitations matter much less because the target is coming to you. This is an option somewhat unique to the US due to their qualitative advantages in stealth and electronic systems, which they lean into heavily.

The US 6th generation platforms, like the B-21, are all designed to support unmanned operation, the pilot is optional. In a near peer conflict, communication channels may be severely degraded such that having a person in the seat will have value.

Look at how Russia uses their old heavy bombers for an idea: they use them to carry missiles that can be released outside of air defense range. The larger plane reduces the fuel required by the missile (meaning more explosives) and allows the missiles to be positioned and fired faster than a truck or ship can get into position. The idea of flying over the target is kind of old - modern glide bombs (again, use the aircraft's energy instead of reducing payload) have a 20-50km range and are more accurate.

The super expensive stealth bomber lets you move into a very unexpected position and release missiles/glide bombs in a way that may not allow for any air defense work at all.

A bomb truck is a cost-effective way to get cruise missiles and such in range from safer out-of-theater air bases. Making it survivable in a contested environment (stealth) opens up lots more mission profiles and lets you use even cheaper munitions like glide bombs and guided bombs, which is especially helpful in a protracted conflict. Plus it requires less escort.

A bomber isn't cheap, but it is cheaper than lots of ICBMs. And, in many cases, than multi-role fighters and/or cruise missiles.

> At this point in history, what's the point of having a super expensive bomber plane with an actual human pilot vs. having a much cheaper, autonomous, hyper-sonic, and disposable delivery vehicle in the form of a rocket?

Putting munitions on single use hypersonic rockets is a lot more expensive than loading a bunch of them up on a reusable bomber.

Which is one point of bombers: they are logistically superior in an environment in which they are survivable to missiles for the quantity of munitions delivered. That's also why you have both stealth bombers like the B-21/B-2 and then less stealthy, heavier bombers like the B-52 for different environments.

That's the thing, I am pretty sure sure it's entirely evolutionary, without knowing anything about the project. B-2 with better stealth, engines, software, and hopefully lower maintenance costs.

Still more than any other country accomplished, but this is built on a solid foundation, without much departure. If anything, it's a mature, modernized B-2.