On the 2nd of December, the U.S. Airforce revealed on the newest bomber to be added to their fleet – the B-21 Raider Bomber.

The B-21 is the first bomber to come into service since 1988 when its predecessor, the B-2 Spirit was unveiled also by Northrop Grumman. The B-21 Raider has a similar appearance to the B-2 Spirit, with a bat-shaped body, slightly smaller than its predecessor.

The aircraft will enter into service later this decade, when it begins to replace the B-1 and B-2 bombers already in service. The first B-21 Raider aircraft was showcased in Plant 42, which is the U.S. Air Force’s advanced aircraft research and development facility based in Palmdale, California. The U.S. Airforce calls the aircraft its first “Sixth-generation” aircraft and is the first in the world.

The U.S. Airforce has also describes the B-21 Raider as a long-range, highly survivable, penetrating strike stealth bomber with an “open architecture”, as according to US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, allowing the aircraft to be later updated with the latest weapons / electronics in due course.

The U.S. Air Force aims to build at least 100 B-21 Raiders, in which they will replace 20 B-2 Spirit and 45 B-1B Lancer bombers. However, that number is likely to go up given the current ongoing nuclear weapons buildup worldwide, as well as the ongoing invasion of Ukraine from Russia.

Triton
Triton
Triton, also known as Nathan, found a passion within all things related to the military at a young age. With hopes to study defence and intelligence at university, Nathan hopes to delve into the defence/security world even further and to build a career out of it later down the line. Nathan also has a passion in Military aircraft radar tracking.
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

151 COMMENTS

  1. With the potential for Australia getting B21 through AUKUS it really makes sense for the UK to look at a small fleet buy in line with formula for RC135. A fleet of 7 would not be that expensive and would be a real game changer and complement our short legged F35B and replace the deep strike capability we lost with Tornado.

        • As much as I’d love the prospect. Sadly, the issue with buying either the B1b or the B2 would be the spares support. As soon as the USAF stops using them, the manufacturers used to support and produce spares will have their contracts cancelled. With the high cost of the aircraft, even with a Squadron of 12. There still wouldn’t be enough aircraft to justify the spares support, due to the low numbers required.

          Financially, we would be better off getting the B21, as it will be an in-service aircraft with a dedicated long term spares program. Therefore, spares and the Design Authority’s support will be cheaper.

          If the USAF does purchase over a 100 B21s, perhaps the price per unit will come down? The US State Department have said it would be a really good aircraft for Australia. But I can’t see the Aussies finances stretching that far. Same with us, it would give us a significant strategic asset. But I can’t see us affording it for quite a while, due to cockwombles Kwartengate.

          • USC changes according to preferences of current Congress and/or shifts in wind direction…’Where there is a will (and/or a dollar to be made), there is a way.’

          • DaveyB,

            You’re absolutely correct in your assessment. Stated on a previous thread, which no one evidently believed, the US military-industrial complex is just beginning the campaign to sell, or lease, the B-21. There are beady-eyed accountants all over the States scheming how to perform feats of ‘financial engineering’ in order to accommodate RAF, RAAF and possibly RCAF livery adorning the fuselages of some a/c. Lend-Lease? No problemo! Lease to own? No money down? Adjustable Rate or Balloon mortgages? Would recommend reading the fine print on proposed contracts. ‘Beware of Greeks (and Americans) bearing gifts.’ 🤔😳

            BTW, cockwombles? Sounds vaguely Australian from a Yank’s perspective…🤔😉

          • God help us if they copy the confidence tricks that are used to support the U.K. housing bubble…

            can you imagine the RAF buying B21s as leasehold rather than freehold, and if still too expensive, perhaps shared-ownership with the RAF buying 25% and paying rent on the rest of the aircraft?… 😂

          • You laugh, but you have just proposed another bargaining gambit to the stated beady-eyed accountants…😳😉

          • Ah but given its a gambit designed to support the U.K. house price bubble, would this lead to a U.S. bomber bubble?… bubbles inevitably lead to a crash (price crash not a plane crash) and B21s becoming available for a thruppence each? 😉

          • Oh I‘m far too shy and retiring for standup…

            though I did used to date an exec at Channel4 and she thought I should try comedy writing – though these days our politicians seem to have cornered that market 😏

          • Hi FormerUSAF. We got seriously burned with the C17s. As part of the lease arrangement, some idiot decided it would be a good idea to limit the number of airframe hours per year. The RAF found the aircraft too useful especially with Afghan needing more and more kit. They managed to do 3 years worth of flying in 6 months. Oh how Lockheed rubbed their hands! The financial penalties mounted up significantly, so the Treasury stepped in with an urgent purchase order for the leased 4 and included buying 4 more.

            Yes, cockwomble was a term I picked up in Afghan mixing with the Aussies, at Khandhar. It is now I believe a term widely used by RAF personnel. It is a derogatory term used for someone who is useless and uses up oxygen that belongs to someone else.

          • Thanks, your explanation served multiple purposes; illustrative of US defense contractor proposals the unwary may fall victim of, and explained the C-17 saga I never fully understood.

            Believe cockwomble has just made a successful leap across the Pond. There are so many to whom the appellation is so appropos…

          • It’s not the same capability but if we want bomb trucks we’d be better of investing in something like Rapid Dragon where our transports can also launch weapons.

          • Damn, I hate being a nay sayer. But with the Hercs going, the remaining C17s and A400Ms are going to get worked to death. Having a spare airframe available as bomb/missile on a pallet then rolled off the ramp, is likely not achievable. Even if they bought an extra 3 A400’s, this is not enough to replace 12 to 15 Hercs, no matter how you spin it.

          • Agreed but still a lot more affordable than B21s. Having the capability would be better than not. Assuming it’s airframe agnostic if the proverbial hit the fan, we could lay out hands on some transport aircraft.

          • The RAF said rapid dragon too expensive for us last week. The Treasury seems to have an aversion to chucking million dollar missiles out the back of an A400M. 😀

          • Yes the treasury does not mind that because they know we can only fire 4 or 6 at a time. They won’t gives us mk41 VLS on T45 or Rapid Dragon in case we try and fire 20 or 30 a time.

          • That’s odd cos Rapid dragon is modulat you can build it up in layers of 4 as I understand. You also don’t have to fill the module so you can launch a single missile.

            Incidentally US army now have VLS that is on truck bed of an articulated truck. The same system was used by US Navy to launch SM6 from the deck of one of their USV.s. this means VLS is effectively a deployable module

        • yep, that would be good, fit with ASM would solve the lack of antiship, but would need booms fitted to 3 or 4 Voyagers to gives us nearly gobal antiship strike capability

          • Like Davey says, it is fun to imagine them in RAF colours, but operating even a small number would be problematic to say the least with no spares.

            I always thought the RAF should have replaced Vulcan, which was why I was wistfully thinking of RAF B1s!

          • It’s Christmas so time for writing wish lists. We have gradually removed our long rang strike over last 40years 🙁 now limited to few sub launched tomahawks. if we have put mk41’s in the T-45’s it would have helped offset.

          • Wouldn’t go that far, but It’s just fun fantasy fleets really, so yes overkill thinking of the RAF operating such aircraft.

            If I could choose I’d rather buy more helicopters, transport aircraft and ISTAR assets, manned and UAV, over strategic bombers.

            We have Typhoon with stand off weapons, F35, TLAM, and ultimately Trident D5.

          • Er…uhh ..er…certain we could line up a few airframes for you, might have a few miles and hours on ’em, tough to warrantee them longer than it takes the check to clear. Seriously folks, have you ever dealt w/ used car salesmen in the US?

      • B-21 is cheaper to operate, so new B-21 may be cheaper than 2nd hand B-2. B-2 were $2 billion each in then year dollars. B-21 was priced at $550m + inflation, which makes them $650-750m each.

        • …and all the “ilities.’ However, believe USAF would relinquish control at an appropriate time, under negotiated conditions. Would generally advise the philosophy of ‘caveat emptor,’ for second hand a/c purchases. Agreed, B-21 will be more than a step change, more on the order of an entire staircase.

    • I genuinely think that’s a very good idea but Mark is probably right; it isn’t going to happen. We can’t afford the F35B and god knows how Tempest will pan out, but the assumption is the Tempest solution is meant to cover all bases.

      • Yes previous figures where $550 million but in 2010 figures and Bloomberg is quoting $750 million now so a fleet of 7 puts it at around £4 billion mark which is less than 2% of the MOD 10 year equipment plan. It’s very doable for a government that’s a bit more serious about defence spending. It would barley be in the MOD top 10 procurement contracts.

          • I would not cancel anything, I would only do it if new funds were being made available. But £4 billion not that much to the UK government. It spends £1 trillion a year.

          • £4 billion could buy us 40+ new Typhoon Tranche 3/4s, which could replace the T1s going out, plus grow the RAF Typhoon fleet by another squadron.

            Or a similar number of F35Bs, enough to bring us up to 6 frontline squadrons.

            Either would be far more versatile and useful than a fleet of only 7 or so B21 bombers.

          • Im not so sure Typhoon/F35 would be more versatile. 1 B21 could carry as much ordnance as a SQN of F35s, broadly speaking, but at 6x the range without having to refuel. No need for all those expensive tankers and supporting drones! Depends if you’re a glass half full or empty sort I imagine.

            Personally I think it’s too much aircraft for our needs, and would much rather we had invested in a souped up Buccaneer, simple plane fit it with a 18k bombload and CR of 1200NM. Perfectly able to run in at 700+ mph/100 feet. Not everything we need has to be off the financial scale to be useful.

          • I was thinking more versatile in terms of 40+ Typhoon or F-35 could be in more places and could also fulfil more roles: not just strike but interceptor or air superiority missions.

            I agree it’s far to much aircraft for our needs. Personally for a deep strike aircraft I’d say we should develop Taranis into a strike/bomber platform. 12-24 of those would be much better for us. We could probably get Australia interested as well; much cheaper than B21.

          • Get your point in terms of versatility,think it’s fair to say that most on here would like an increase in fast jet numbers for the RAF.
            Like you, also agree that there is a place/need for a longer ranged strike/bomber platform of some form. Unfortunately it’s not likely to ever happen.

          • Long range strategic bombing is about the only military capability the UK lacks. even a small fleet enhances the number of missions we can do and the power we can project. NATO has several thousands 4th and 5th Gen fighters but less than 150 or so planned strategic bombers. There is much more utility in having 7 B21 than 40 more Typhoons.

          • Except it won’t be 7 operational B21s.

            A fleet of 7 might, at best, give us 4 operational aircraft with the other three held in reserve. Maybe get 5:2 at a push, but that won’t be sustainable for more than short periods.

            4 operational airframes will get knackered very quickly! How much maintenance does each of them require after each sortie? How often do their radar-absorbing skins need to be treated or repaired?

            40 Typhoons allows us more aircraft for either strike or air superiority missions.

            I’d say save the long-range strategic bombing to the Americans, who can afford $500 million+ per unit for them. We can’t, and even if the money were to become available, it could be far better spent on more sensible things.

            If we had to do long-range strike then I’d much rather we develop Taranis into a platform for the role; that was the roles envisioned for it had it gone past the technology demonstrator phase.

            It’s not as big and can’t carry as many bombs/missiles as a B21, but then we’ve never been ones for carpet bombing or rippling off scores of missiles when one or two accurate ones will do.

        • Jim, if you think your going to have an operational squadron of 7 b21’s for £4 billion, then good luck…. I’m sure you could easily double or treble that figure once you have all the other expenses/contracts/equipment/maintenance/training/base upgrades etc etc etc…

          • Yes, but the ground infrastructure that supports Rivet Joint we already owned and paid for with Nimrod R1 ops before, it has been updated for Rivet Joint though we do share some of it with the US.

            For a B21 you’d spend a fortune taking an RAF Station and equipping it for B21 operation. Fairford was updated by the USAF for B1 and 800 million ( I recall ? ) was spent on Marham for F35.

            I agree regards HMG spending it is small change but not for the MoD budget.

            Would be nice but cannot ever see it happening.

          • Im in the ‘nice to have but very unlikely to be able to afford’ camp,but there would be no need for the MOD/RAF to upgrade infrastructure for the B21,just use RAF Fairford,USAF Aircraft aren’t based there full time,and surely Uncle Sam would be ok with it.

          • RAF and RAAF are surely as entitled to play ‘let’s make a deal’ as USAF and all the associated carpet-bagger contractors. Mate’s rates on platform, some infrastructure development, hell, for for broke, insist on theatre BMD. USAF is very good at counting the number of friendly noses, prior to engaging in a dust-up.

          • The SNP has been desperately trying to find something to do with Prestwick for years and it’s runway is long enough for the space shuttle so can put them there 😀

            Also Machrihanish has been apparently supporting US covert aircraft since the 90’s so could always use that as well again 😀

          • On Mach, that may well have been true, if not regularly at least once in the late 80s 90s time frame, though certainly not now. Though I understand the legend it has the longest runway in Europe or the UK or whatever is bogus. It has coal mines underneath, so the stories of an UG site may be valid.
            The main A road leading to it from Clyde area was designated Cat A apparently in the Cold War, though that is probably more to do with the nuclear depth bombs and SEAL team the USN had there.

            The other “interesting” location regards aircraft is West Freugh, connected with early BAE SPS UAV stuff I understand.

          • And especially, the VAT?!? Seriously, what country credibly assesses it’s defense establishment a tax in order to procure equipment?!? 😳 Value added? Perhaps the freedom and lives of it’s citizens! As a citizen and ex-employee of Uncle Sugar, have seen more than a few bizarre practices, but really… Sorry, generally attempt to refrain from comment on the internal policies and practices of allies…

        • Its not the same capability I admit but investing in something like Rapid Dragon would give the UK a bomber like capability at the fraction of the cost of a B21.

        • How about an AUKUS wing based in Australia/ Another dream perhaps but if these babies are designed to hit anywhere it’s China.

      • They are already on record saying they may consider selling to Australia under AUKUS and last time I checked we were in AUKUS. China is not happy about it so clearly it’s a possibility for China to react to it.

    • At around $500 million per airframe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell the MoD will order even half a dozen of these! We’d have to lose even more Typhoons or see the navy shrink even further.

      To be honest I’d rather build a small fleet of BAE Taranis as deep strike UCAV aircraft. Would be a fraction of the cost.

    • Great idea, if the hype is to be believed they really are a step change in capability but, and there’s always a but, at $750m per aircraft I think they’re simply un-affordable for the UK.

      Even if we had the money, I doubt the US would sell them to any foreign nation as seen with the B2 and F22 programmes, though AUKUS might change that.

      Also worth considering that we could get 10 additional F35s for each B21. IMO I think 70 additional F35s , perhaps even a buy of the A model for the RAF leaving all the B’s for the FAA, would be a better use of the money (setting the crew training requirements aside for the moment).

        • I’ve no doubt we could fly and operate them if the money and political will were there to do it, but I don’t see given our particular circumstances, that we have a need for them. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be awesome if we did.

          • It would serve as one hell of a deterrent and make up for the loss of the Vulcan, first flown in 1952 RAF 56, number built 136 including prototypes.

            And to think we could build something like that back then!

          • Pretty unbelievable really, that only 11 years separated the first flight of the Lancaster bomber in 1941, and the Vulcans first flight in 1952. Now that’s rapid progress.

          • One of the first aircraft to pierce the US radar network and carry out nuclear attacks on New York and Washington DC amongst other targets.

            The big delta delta did have a relatively small radar cross section for its era. Though by today’s standards would be quite detectable. From its unscreened engine faces, the large single vertical fin, along with the circular fuselage amongst small details such as a plethora of cooling vents.

            However, like the B1b was a stealthy evolution of the original B1 Lancer. The Vulcan has a relatively good foundation to have a much lower radar cross section.

            Firstly by fitting screens, mesh and R
            radar absorbent tiles in the engine intakes. Secondly as per the B2 get rid of the fin. Replace it with digital flight controls, split flaperons and thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles to handle yaw. The circular fuselage will need flattening out and shaping to remove the chance of radar circular backscattering. Plus sorting out panel gaps and bonding. Other options would be putting gold screens in to the laminated windows, removing the need for external vents, by using four multi-flow variable bypass turbofans. Where engine bay mounted heat exchangers, make use of the bypass air for cooling. These will also have a much lower IR signature than the four Olympus. Plus be significantly more fuel efficient. But would also mean no more intake howling.

            These measures alone will give the “modernized” Vulcan a significantly lower RCS. But how low? A rough educated guess would be between 0.5 and 1m2, which is smaller than the Typhoon’s. With more funding this could be made even smaller. But that would include radar absorbent paints and embedded Radar absorbent materials as a skin replacement. Which would push the RCS below 0.1m2. Which be lower than the B1b’s especially from the sides and rear aspects.

            A modernized low observable Vulcan, would be technically doable with the will and funding. Which would give the UK a very capable strategic bomber/stand-off precision weapons carrier. Sadly, it’s just a dream and a bit of wishful thinking……

          • I think you are absolutely right, clearly, we have not only the capability but the technology too with the recent success of Taranis and Magma plus the new technology currently being developed for Tempest.

            And as you quite rightly say, we just lack the willpower and the funding which is a real shame.

          • I think Taranis would be a great strike platform, to be honest. I’d rather have a small fleet of these than B21 Raiders.

            Would be a fraction of the cost, too, and we could sell these to Australia under AUKUS; undercut the US!

          • I tend to agree, it met all the goals asked of it and came out ahead of what they’d initially hoped for.

            “The aircraft has been designed to demonstrate the UK’s ability to create an unmanned air system which, under the control of a human operator, is capable of undertaking sustained surveillance, marking targets, gathering intelligence, deterring adversaries and carrying out strikes in hostile territory.

            The findings from the aircraft’s flights prove that the UK has developed a significant lead in understanding unmanned aircraft which can strike with precision over a long range whilst remaining undetected.”

            https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-flight-trials-of-taranis-aircraft–4

          • Unfortunately, the political will and requisite funding generally materialize after conflict begins, when the only real constraint becomes the time available to rearm before body count mounts. Then the same politicians critique the military for inadequate planning. Didn’t Will Shakespeare have a line in a play something to the effect of the first thing to do is kill all the lawyers?

          • He did and we could certainly do with more handles too!

            “Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand?”

          • 👍👍😁. Really enjoy this site as the one forum wherein politically correct self-censorship is not mandatory. Many thanks to all those that the ‘woke’ consider to be my fellow Neanderthals; you are my tribe! 🙏

        • RAF exchange pilots have been in the US stealth program since the early 80s. I believe only the USN and the RAF were involved at that time, showing the close military relationship in that field.

          • Yeah it’s a brave new world in US UK relations however the biggest threat to the “special relationship” remains our number one adversary The Republic of Ireland that seems to hold sway over the White House. However now Nancy is gone sleepy Joe may be increasingly isolated in his distain for all things British.

          • Yes, even Sleepy Joe can recognize the storm clouds gathering over the SCS…when he’s awake…time to brew more coffee for him. ☕

      • I would love to see a Taranis UCAV instead but previous talk on price was £200 million each. If I can get B21 for $750 million and leverage US fleet for support it may be cheaper and easier.

        • I can’t see that price being right. The whole project was £124 million including R&D.

          I could see production ones going for £100million or less per unit if we bought, say, two dozen of them and maybe got the Aussies in on an additional order under AUKUS.

      • Not really, they are old and increasingly f**ked which is why the USAF wants rid of them. Better taking the B52 over the B2.

    • Never going to happen. Even if it did they would insist we re-engine it along with changing half of the design and take 20 years and billions of overspend to get into service.

    • Doesnt matter how short range an F35B is its still an awful lot longer than any Tornado will get against modern air defence systems.

  2. Sort of on the same tack talking of stealth aircraft, there is an article in the Mail Online today regarding the Tempest. The article itself is reasonably informative but avoid the comments section if you are old like me or in poor health

    • Interesting read, I see India being mentioned as a future development partner along with Sweden, Mixed feelings on that, great to strip India away from Russia but Indian procurement makes French and German procurement look professional and efficient which is really saying something. Also really not sure if we want to be sharing such advanced technology with a country like India that is so openly hostile to us and supportive of Russia.

  4. Ok, now lets see the RQ180 and what else the USAF have flying at Groom, Edwards, Palmdale, and Tonopah.

    Bat winged AC were photographed a few years ago flying over Kansas and they were not B2s or this.

    • I think the Kansas picture was most likely the RQ-180 but you never know with these classified programs. If history is a guide they probably have several operational squadrons of some highly classified aircraft that’s been flying around for years.

      • Agreed. I guess you follow the black world best you can like I do, did you ever see Glen Douglas film of that bat winged jet that flew over him near White Sands? Light was poor but it looked just like the ATA that was cancelled or the reputed Black Manta.

        I myself think there are several aircraft types both prototypes that were never developed further plus small numbers of operational types that have never been acknowledged. A read of the experiences of the crew of the KCs that are dedicated to refuelling black world AC make that even more obvious.

    • “Bat winged AC were photographed a few years ago flying over Kansas and they were not B2s or this.”

      I wonder if that was the prototype 6th gen fighter the US announced last year?

      • I don’t think so, as even with the high altitude one could estimate size and I recall they were too big for fighter sized AC.

        I agree with Netking that they were possibly RQ180s given the sweep of the wings trailing edge and the impressions released of that aircraft.

        • I think you’re both right, I hadn’t seen the image before Netking kindly posted it. Looks too big to be a fighter.

          Is it just me or maybe a trick of light/camera angle, but does the wing sweep look greater in the shot taken over Kansas?

          • Yes, I’d not seen that photo for a while but now comparing it to the clearer shot from the Phillippines sea it looks like another aircraft to me.

  5. Well, Ukraine have just hit 500km into Russia with a non stealth UAV, with some reports saying it was a repurposed soviet era UAV. Maybe we’ve over estimated the Russian A2AD, and 750 mil per unit is over kill. We could buy the Ukrainian drone and Stoke Moscow by all accounts.

  9. Today is Pearl Harbor Day, commemorating the 81st anniversary of a sneak attack that brought US into WWII. Anyone on this site believe Mad Vlad and the slobbering Orcs and scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs are not perfectly capable, and perhaps willing, to engage in a nuclear version, if they could escape the consequences. All should update deterrents; USAF doing it’s part as evidenced by this rollout.

    • You guys are the only ones who can afford to do this. Thankfully dreadnought is in progress and the Vanguards are holding on, just.

  11. If we are spending £4 billion how about another 26 Ajax Recon Vehicles. That would double the fleet and we’d still have some change!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here