back to article US Air Force reveals B-21 Raider stealth bomber that'll fly the unfriendly skies

In Palmdale, California on Friday, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden revealed a US Air Force warplane that had only been shown in artist renderings and is supposed to be seldom seen, the B-21 Raider. "The B-21 Raider changes everything, reaffirming peace through deterrence, advancing technology and ushering in a new paradigm …

Page:

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Eye-watering

                If you expect to be taken seriously don't open by claiming the US is creating refugees in Ukraine next time. You let the propaganda line slip through instead of "asking reasonable questions".

                The US created regime change in Ukraine in 2014. See Ass Sec Nuland and Pyatt's 'fsck the EU' comment, and they have. Since then, Ukraine's lost around 1/4 of it's population, some to Russia, some to the EU, a somewhat smaller number to places like the US and Canada. Again this is just politics. During the Soviet times, the Russia bankrolled the other nations. Visit places like Prague's Metro and you can see classic Soviet mosaics as an example of infrastructure. Obviously this was a drain on Russia's economy, along with defence spending to maintain parity between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

                Fast-forward to the collapse of the Soviet Union and independence of the former Soviet states. Those were welcomed into the EU and NATO, with Germany mostly replacing Russia. Great for NATO defence industry converting former Warsaw Pact nations to NATO standards. Less great for the EU because it went from a trading bloc and (mostly) a partnership of equals to a more unbalanced mix of nett contributors, and welfare recipients. But also good for business because the EU development funds get spent with German, French, British etc contractors. The EU also morphed from being a trading community to a more Federal EU, issuing Diktats about how formally sovereign states must now behave. See Hungary for more info, and the way the EU's withholding around 15bn for not obeying orders.

                This kinda worked, while the EU could afford to be the welfare queen. Snag now is the cracks are showing, Germany's de-industrialising and collapsing. It decided to committ economic hari-kiri via sanctions against former trading partners. So as an example when sanctions were first imposed on Russia post-Crimea, it had a huge impact on Poland's agricultural exports because Russia was a major customer. No problem, the EU will compensate. As long as you make social and political reforms that Brussels demand.

                And now there's a bit of an energy crisis.

                So sure, Germany used to be able to make tanks. But that takes a lot of energy. Can they now? Or should they now? And don't forget the UK's also planning the Challenger 3, but given the way we've cut defence budgets over the last decades, how many will our politicians buy?

                1. Geez Money

                  Re: Eye-watering

                  I don't have the time to rebut every lie in there. I think any reasonable person will see what's going on after you claim that the US overthrew Ukraine. I've reported this, it goes far beyond simple misinformation and is an entire propaganda screed. I would encourage the mods to seriously consider whether they want to be the outlet for Russian disinfo.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: Eye-watering

                    I've reported this, it goes far beyond simple misinformation and is an entire propaganda screed.

                    Let me guess, you used to 'work' at Twitter?

                    It's also not propaganda, it's a mix of history and opinion. US influence in Ukraine was pretty well documented, including picking "Yats" as their new President. The rest is politics. The EU has been complaining about the way the inflation reduction act is tempting businesses to relocate from the EU to the US via subsidies. This is nothing new as the UK and EU do much the same, offering incentives and tax breaks for businesses here. Problem now is that thanks to EU policy, our energy is now massively inflated, so large energy users are also looking to relocate to cut costs.

                    Then there's the flying pork barrel itself, and whether it's a wise spending priority. Current events have shown missiles are quite vulnerable to interception. It's stealth capabilities may not work as advertised. It's primarily a first-strike weapon platform, rather than a defensive one. And it'll need munitions. Current events show there's a problem with those. Apparently the US can produce 15,000 155mm artillery shells a month. Ukraine's apparently firing 5-600 a day. The math is.. problematic.

                    So rather than building a few wunderwaffe, perhaps it'd be better to invest the money in manufacturing and heavy industry, and their supply chains. So steel & iron making, chemicals, mining etc which would create more jobs, and be more useful given the rate at which munitions are being used up currently. It's kind of how the US became the 'Arsenal of Democracy' because it had the industrial capacity to convert to war production during WW2. It doesn't any more, and neither does most of the West.

          1. jgard

            Re: Eye-watering

            Dear American,

            Firstly, thank you for your characteristically forthright and uninformed perspective. In just a few sentences, you have provided us with a valuable yet measured contribution to this complex debate.... at least that is what I would say if you had, but you haven't, so I won't. Nevertheless, it's always a pleasure to hear from a brash American friend, notwithstanding your complete ignorance of the historical basis for US militarily imperialism.

            The stereotype of geopolitically ignorant Americans has always felt unfair to me. Yet, with you, the shortcomings are obvious. I'm sure even you would admit to a poor grasp of geopolitics and international relations. But it's not your fault; I can only assume that while your classmates were learning these subjects, you were absent. Given the number of mass shootings in schools, I'd be terrified, and I wouldn't go to school either. Of course, the key to dealing with these horrors is more guns, and I've no doubt you were doing your bit to help. Maybe by polishing your gun at home, by yourself. Or shooting animals in the woods.

            Although your education is questionable, your sense of humour is brilliant. This, in particular, is a classic: perhaps we could afford social programs of our own. LOL! You can afford them now you great buffoon, you just choose not to because you're terrified that your cash might go toward helping someone less fortunate. Perish the thought.

            But worry ye not my friend; your priorities are already in the right place. It's clear from just those few sentences what makes you happy: guns, ammo and Easy Cheese spray. And don't kid yourself mate, if you did get more money, you'd spend it on them before you helped anybody else.

            All the best.

            A European Friend

          2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

            Re: Eye-watering

            If only all US Americans would know that about 20% of their tax is spent on military. Make that 19.5%, and you will have enough for education and healthcare. Waste less on wars which were futile to begin with, but you still have to destabilize the middle east. Just google for "Iran 1974" pictures, and you see how it was BEFORE America started to "help". America has problems with religious fanatics they put themself into place. Osama and Saddam were BOTH titled as the hope for the middle east by the US - the latter made problems, and the first one showed what happens when USA thinks it has to play world police.

            On the bright side: There are A LOT Americans knowing exactly what is going on, Team America!

    1. BOFH in Training

      Re: Eye-watering

      I am not in favour of spending alot on the military as well.

      But I do understand that sometimes showing that you have a good armed force with great weapons is one way to get the other guys not to start a fight (which although you may end up winning, it may still cost a bunch of lives).

      So I sort of have two minds over this. Yes, it's alot of money. Yes, there are other things which also need money. But on the other hand, showing that you got such military gear may have the other side think twice before starting shit.

      Problem is knowing how much is too much and how much you need to spend to get the other side to think twice.

      1. Glen 1

        Re: Eye-watering

        Indeed, a previous Lib-Dem policy regarding UK nuclear weapons was to have a "minimum viable deterrent".

        It meant retiring the current systems in favour of what some saw as a token gesture response, which wouldn't have saved that much money.

      2. Geez Money

        Re: Eye-watering

        If it helps settle your mind it's not a choice, the US is fully capable of doing both. Focus on the program you actually want to fix, don't gut random things just because you don't understand them.

    2. Graham 25

      Re: Eye-watering

      "equipment that may never be used for its intended purpose or anything close to it"

      It already is serving its intended purpose - ensuring the crazies out there know that if they misbehave badly enough, they now know what hit them even if they never saw it coming or leave.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Eye-watering

        > ensuring the crazies out there know that if they misbehave badly enough

        Except which crazies?

        This is a super advanced stealth bomber designed to slip past the most advanced air defense networks and enemy fighters. You don't need this to deal with ISIS or Al Queda, throwing rocks out of the back of a DC3 would be enough.

        The trouble is that most enemies that have good enough air defence that you need this to reach their capital city - have nukes.

        Yes this could get to Beijing or Moscow or Paris without being intercepted, but if you want to bomb Beijing or Moscow or Paris you have ICBMs. It's not their plucky chaps in handlebar mustaches that are stopping you - it's that they would return the favor rather finally

        1. Rikki Tikki Bronze badge

          Re: Eye-watering

          Bombing Paris might create an awkward dilemma ... France is a NATO member.

          De Gaulle withdrew from the integrated military structure in 1966, but officially rejoined at the Strasbourg summit in 2009 (and, for the benefit of the geographically challenged, Strasbourg *is* in France).

          1. Rikki Tikki Bronze badge

            Re: Eye-watering

            Oops, read before posting ... France officially rejoined in 2009. Yes, I do recall that Charlie deG has died.

          2. Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch Silver badge

            Re: Eye-watering

            Jim Hacker had that one covered (excuse cut-and-paste):

            > Hacker: ...the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?

            > Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?

            > Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.

            > Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!

            > Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!

            > Sir Humphrey: Why?

            > Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.

            > Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb!

            > Hacker: If it's for the French, of course, that's different. Makes a lot of sense.

            > Sir Humphrey: Yes. Can't trust the Frogs.

            > Hacker: You can say that again!

            1. Lil Endian Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: Eye-watering

              Bah! Beat me to it!!!

              à la tête -->

            2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

              Re: Eye-watering

              And this is why I made the post above.

            3. Ken G Silver badge
              Mushroom

              Re: Eye-watering

              As last month's British Prime Minister said, the jury is still out whether they're friends or foe.

        2. Geez Money

          Re: Eye-watering

          Please please el reg commenters stop talking about military nuclear doctrine. It hurts so bad.

          ICBMs without bombers are like a three legged dog at best. They're both a key part of the second strike story.

          Nuclear doctrine is public, just look at wikipedia or something ffs.

          Anyway this thing's main job is to be a missile truck anywhere the B52 can't go. Which is a lot of places nowadays, even Syrian militias have air defense.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Eye-watering

      "may never be used for its intended purpose"

      Well, according to the fine article, it's primary role is deterrence and defence. So they named it the "Raider". The name sounds more offence than defence. Are they trying to pull the wool over our eyes and make it sound all warm and cuddly?

      1. OhForF' Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Deterrence only

        A plane that is used to deliver bombs even if the target area is heavily saturated with sophisticated enemy air defense (i.e. in an area where the enemy will have dominance on the ground) is quite obviously only useful in a defensive role.

        No problem there, the US is known to never attack without good reason as they are the good ones (tm).

        /s

        1. cryptopants

          Re: Deterrence only

          The stealth bomber does not need to fly over your head to drop its bomb on you. It can do that safely outside your radar detection range.

      2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: Eye-watering

        Well you don't expect to sell that plane to the military with a name like the B21 Maxipad, do you? You know, for protection?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Eye-watering

          True. We all know the true purpose of the aircraft, but if they want to "sell" it to the public as a "defence" tool, they could have called it the B21 Defender.

      3. Geez Money

        Re: Eye-watering

        They named it Raider to honour the Doolittle Raid, stop being a jackass.

    5. Binraider Silver badge

      Re: Eye-watering

      Perhaps, both are needed.

      I was recently in LA, and the scale of the have/have not divide is mind bogglingly shocking even by US-ian standards. Most service sector stuff were hopelessly understaffed; presumably because of "shit pay" and re-evaluation of life choices post lockdown. Homeless everywhere.

      Rebalancing the "value" of low-incomes to make life viable is desperately needed, but I don't see any US govt Dem or Rep doing anything on that front. Hell, it's difficult enough to even contemplate such a thing in Europe let alone our right-leaning friends over the pond.

      Regarding the B21, it's capabilities are frankly an unknown. B2 is by many accounts "not all that stealthy" for a stealth aircraft, and the airframes are now getting rather old (not withstanding the triggers-broomed B52 population). B21 certainly looks like they have refined out the rough edges of the earlier model, and much effort to conceal material selection on the public reveal. Payload obviously less, though payload does not matter if you can't deliver it.

      1. cryptopants

        Re: Eye-watering

        You must think the stealth bomber must fly directly overhead to be able to drop it’s bombs on its target.

        That’s not how this works. It’s not that kind of a bomber. It has a delivery system that can launch safely outside the detection range of the most sophisticated radars. And no, it’s not invisible but it very difficult to detect at med-long ranges. That is precisely it’s operating envelope. It’s working as it’s designed it’s not a failure.

    6. cryptopants

      Re: Eye-watering

      It’s not at all wasteful. Think of all of the engineers that are being employed at good salaries that is going right back into the US economy, and those people are paying taxes.

      If you think that’s a waste, then you might not actually understand the issue.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Perun/comments/wcy3m5/defence_economics_and_the_us_production_advantage/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

  1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Unit Cost

    Can we have a new Reg Standard please, for warbirds, based on the unit cost of a F-35. A Pogba is like using the old Italian Lira...

    Of course the problem is what is the unit cost of a F-35. It's one of those "known unknowns"

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Unit Cost

      If I understood correctly, one of the new bombers will cost approx 7 Pogbas, so no new units based on F35s are needed.

      Incidentally, whatever their purchase cost, both F35s and Pogbas seem to spend an inordinate amount of time unfit for action...

    2. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

      Re: Unit Cost

      well the price of a F-35 varies a lot, depending on the customer, for the same number of planes.

      what the French call "à la tête du client".

      (should I create a new crypto-(ina)currency based on the F-35 retail price?)

      1. GrumpyKiwi

        Re: Unit Cost

        The unit cost has dropped a lot as the numbers built grow. It's now cheaper than the Swedish Grippen which is why the Swedes haven't been able to sell any since 2014.

        We could have a unit called the "El Reg Ignoridefence" which is based on how badly the Register does at reporting anything defence related since Lewis Page was given the flick. Every Reg article on the F-35 is equivalent to 1 Ignoridefence. For example articles on the RN's Carriers seem to range in the 0.5 to 2.5 units. The demise of Lester means anything space related gets 2+ automatically.

        1. Geez Money

          Re: Unit Cost

          The real gems are usually in the comments where people who write C# LOB apps are trying to sound smart by saying anything contrarian and just end up repeating stuff from Russian bots or RT.

          And in case anyone doubts that, scroll up slightly with the knowledge that both "F35 expensive" (it's actually cheaper than many/most 4th gen planes due to volume production) and "F35 unreliable" (actually comparable readiness rates to any other platform) are rooted entirely in a couple interviews a fake defense expert gave Russia Today and have been soundly derided by everyone with any credibility.

    3. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Unit Cost

      "A Pogba is like using the old Italian Lira..."

      May I suggest using 1 Matt Wanksock Hancock PPE contract instead?

    4. cryptopants

      Re: Unit Cost

      Perun has the breakdown on costs. You can get a fifth generation for roughly what it cost to buy a Swedish Grippin.

      https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ

  2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Demented is as demented does.

    However, from elsewhere, another completely different view .......

    Yet another boondoggle to deliver debt and destruction to all foolish and crazy enough to desire its wares and fare. Is Uncle Sam retarded/content and intent to be permanently afflicted and effected by learning difficulties for such produce identifies one more as the warmonger to deny and vanquish rather than herald one as the peacemaker to support and laud? Are Uncle Sams totally blind to that see?

    Or is certifiably mad and psychotically dangerous the more accurate diagnosis, with terminally long secure confinement in the lunatic asylum the only answer to deal with such tendencies/activities?

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: Demented is as demented does.

      The problem America finds itself in is that "fucking massive bomb" exists.

      If they don't have their own and the means of using it, some asshat (glances eastwards) might decide to unveil and use theirs.

      Thus the way we have some semblance of "world peace" given that thousands of these "fucking massive bombs" actually exist, is through the use of sophisticated deterrents to ensure that it is made clear that whoever strikes first will burn and die just as much as the other side. There will be no winners, we'll all go down together.

      Yes, it's absolutely mad. But that's how it is. Let me know when I can get myself a ticket to Mars...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let me know when I can get myself a ticket to Mars

        Unless you are really pally with Emperor Elon the Merciful owner of Twitter OR have a few hundred million USD to spare, then forget about it.

      2. NapTime ForTruth

        Re: Demented is as demented does.

        Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them if you did.

      3. lglethal Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Demented is as demented does.

        The doctrine is known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

        It's basically the only thing that has kept the relative peace between India and Pakistan for the last 30 years. It also kept the cold war, cold.

        And has so far, proven effective at keeping us all alive. Then again I don't know for how much longer it will hold, as we seem to be getting more and more insane leaders in both democracies and autocracies. So I wonder how long it will be until sometime really jumps the shark...

        Depressing thoughts for the day... I think everyone needs one of these - - - >

    2. Tail Up

      Re: Demented... ...does

      No bank would credit Hollywood filming such a screenplay. The scales are turning to the 3rd block's favo(u)r, just see the reaction, in a simpliest way confirming that the hands on iit are led by, at least, naivety.

  3. Pirate Dave Silver badge

    "Northrop Grumman describes the B-21 as "a digital bomber" and says the defense firm uses "agile software development...""

    So by the early 2030's, we can expect the stories of B-21 crashes due to "software glitches" to start appearing . I mean, if there's ever been something that deserves slow, methodical, traditional software development, a $750,000,000 airplane carrying nuclear warheads would sure seem to be it.

    1. Mike 137 Silver badge

      "So by the early 2030's, we can expect the stories of B-21 crashes due to "software glitches" to start appearing"

      They'll probably fix them with live updates that require systems to reboot regardless of whether the plane is in the air or not.

      1. Blazde Silver badge
        Facepalm

        20280301053506.2 Three targets acquired, awaiting munition selection

        20280301053510.6 Alert: New bogey detected at 170° 20km range +1100 metres altitude

        20280301053525.9 Lock detected at 162° 14km range +800 metres altitude, heat sig. consistent with CH-AA-10A

        20280301053531.1 Radar analysis confirms CH-AA-10A inbound 160° 7km range +400 metres altitude

        20280301053531.7 Chaff pods 6 & 8 auto-deployed

        20280301053531.8 Evasive manoeuvres recommended in 2.5 seconds

        20280301053532.0 Hi!! Your B-21 Raider is installing new updates, please wait... current progress 1/6, 5%

      2. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

        would the plane perform a loop when rebooting while flying?

    2. Caver_Dave Silver badge

      Digital twins

      A digital twin means that they can f*ck it up virtually without crashing the plane and you can have hundreds of people working on the problem relatively cheaply, each with their own virtual plane (or part of the plane).

      There are a number of commercial platforms (and probably a few secret ones) this might be based on.

      I know that one of the best features of the Wind River tool, for instance, is the ability to 'run time backwards' to see what led up to the problem.

      The use of Agile does not mean that DO178C (or other standards) cannot be achieved. It is just a method of deciding and controlling which activities are being concentrated on at any one point in time (sprint). It is simply a different way of decomposing a project. I prefer the decomposition into 'components' with their own requirements, code and test (with all the DO178C controls) for later integration under the overarching PSAC, SCMP, etc. But it's horses for courses, or Managers latest fad.

    3. sitta_europea Silver badge

      "...if there's ever been something that deserves slow, methodical, traditional software development, a $750,000,000 airplane carrying nuclear warheads would sure seem to be it."

      Why do you think it cost $750,000,000?

      1. Chillihead666

        From the article

        At an estimated acquisition cost of somewhere between $692 million and $752 million ($550 million in FY 2010) per plane

        1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

          Just Brilliant .... Morons’R’Us on the Road to Nowhere Good and Great

          From the article

          At an estimated acquisition cost of somewhere between $692 million and $752 million ($550 million in FY 2010) per plane .... Chillihead666

          So, Chillihead666, based upon the well known history of military contract estimates, at least a trillion dollars [$1000,000,000] per plane is much more likely to be the boondoggle cost? And for something which all hope will never actually need to fly* and deliver a MAD payload guaranteeing amongst other things also its paymasters' own annihilation.

          What a fantastic masterplan. Absolute genius. Talk of all of those bridges to nowhere for sale pale into insignificance with the advent and introduction of that simple latest military industrial complex move, which one has to admit, y’all were presidentially advised to beware of and look out for quite some time ago, in a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961 ......... https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address ...... with this short extract giving you the full flavour of the whole speech ...

          A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...... The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

          * Okay, I know it is supposed to next generation stealthy, but has anyone captured it actually flying yet? A video would be nice. One surely doesn’t want anyone realising ..... Oh no, not another Spruce Goose/BAC TSR-2 type fiasco?

          1. First Light

            Re: Just Brilliant .... Morons’R’Us on the Road to Nowhere Good and Great

            Or a fragile rain-averse stealth bomber (B2).

            https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

            1. Geez Money

              Re: Just Brilliant .... Morons’R’Us on the Road to Nowhere Good and Great

              Worth pointing out that the article from 1997 was based on preliminary/preproduction testing data and thoroughly debunked at the time. 25 year old misinfo is still misinfo.

              How wrong is it? Let's just say B2s are flown preferentially in the rain by the Air Force, who probably would know.

              https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0198bombers/

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like