Military Review

Construction of B-21 Raider aircraft. Actual work and plans for the future

88

In the interests of the US Air Force, Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 Raider, an experienced long-range missile bombers. Earlier it was reported about the assembly of the first aircraft of this type, and recently it became known about the start of work on the second. However, the construction is faced with certain difficulties, because of which the delivery of equipment and its first flights can be postponed to a later date.


"Looks like an airplane"


The first official reports on the construction of an experienced B-21 appeared back in October 2019, then the head of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) Randall J. Walden announced the start of work. Construction has begun at Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif. And is being implemented by Northrop Grumman. Without going into details, the head of the Department said that some of the components and assemblies were already ready and submitted to the assembly shop.

The AFRCO chief noted that it will take less than two years to build the plane, and then it will be shown to the public. A few months after the "premiere", the first flight should take place. At that time, it was planned for December 2021, but R. Walden expressed concern that these dates would have to be shifted to the right.

In August last year, R. Walden again spoke about the successes achieved. He informed about the continuation of supplies of various components and assemblies used in construction. Assembly of the first B-21 continued, and it already looked like a finished aircraft. There were some difficulties, but they coped with them. However, concerns were again expressed regarding the previously announced timing of the first flight.

A few days ago, the American specialized media circulated new statements by R.J. Walden. This time he said that the construction of the first prototype aircraft continues, but has not yet reached the final assembly. At the same time, the car is more and more consistent with the design appearance.

Construction has also begun on a second B-21 airframe for future static tests. It will be tested on a stand under various loads to determine the real strength characteristics. During the assembly of the first aircraft, the aircraft builders gained some experience, which now facilitates the work on the second. The build is faster and more efficient, although no deadline has been announced.


B-21 bomber in the hangar of Ellsworth airbase - while in the artist's view

Some of the tests of the onboard equipment for the B-21 have already been completed. The equipment was tested at ground stands and at flying laboratories. The desired results have been obtained, and in the future it can be put on an experienced bomber. The high availability of avionics will, to some extent, simplify the general testing of the B-21.

The timing is shifting


Even when the contract for the development of the project was signed, the end of 21 was named as the dates for the first flight of the experienced B-2021. In the fall of 2019, AFRCO, in charge of the work, began to doubt the feasibility of such plans. The events of the last year did not have a fatal impact on the construction processes, but nevertheless lead to new negative forecasts.

Talking about the construction of two gliders, R. Walden pointed out that the first flight in December 2021 is possible only with the ideal course of events. Taking into account the recent processes, the start of flights should be expected only by the middle of next 2022.

A few days ago, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, Lieutenant General James S. Dawkins Jr., clarified plans for the serial construction and deployment of promising bombers. The first units on the new B-21 will reach operational readiness in 2026-27. Shortly thereafter, the structure of the park aviation will change dramatically as modern Raiders replace a number of outdated vehicles.

Bomber base


Back in 2019, the Air Force command revealed general plans for the basing of new aircraft. Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota is proposed as the main airfield for them. Now there are B-1B bombers, which are planned to be decommissioned as new equipment arrives. It is also possible to deploy B-21s at Dyce bases in Texas and Whiteman (Missouri). In this case, the Raider aircraft will also replace the old B-1B.

On January 11, the Air Force held a meeting on the construction and deployment of B-21 aircraft. The Army Corps of Engineers and commercial contractors are reported to have defined the overall infrastructure for the bombers and are working on related designs.

It is planned to build hangars at air bases for storing equipment with reduced visibility for surveillance equipment. Also, hangars with a variety of equipment for servicing equipment and a separate wash for aircraft are needed. The plans provide for a major renovation of existing facilities for planning and control of combat work, or the construction of new ones.


Proposed hangar design by the United States Air Force and Burns & McDonnell

Ellsworth and Dyce air bases have some of the necessary infrastructure, which will greatly simplify their preparation for the deployment of the B-21. Construction work has not started yet. The relevant organizations should complete the design and prepare the environmental impact documents. Then the Air Force command will make the final decision and approve the start of construction.

Plans for the future


The Air Force command is working on a program for the further development of strategic aviation, and the B-21 aircraft is a key element of it. Plans for the construction of such equipment were formed and received the necessary approval. However, certain problems and difficulties may persist.

From the mid-twenties to the late thirties, Northrop Grumman will have to build and transfer up to a hundred new aircraft to the Air Force. Thus, by the middle of the next decade, the B-21 will become the most massive long-range bomber in the United States, bypassing the number of other types of equipment.

Earlier, the Air Force command noted that according to the results of the implementation of plans for the construction of B-21, the total number of strategic bombers will reach 175 units. However, later the desired size of the group was revised. In April last year, the leadership of the Air Force Global Strikes Command expressed a desire to increase the fleet to 220 aircraft.

This number of long-range aviation can be obtained by modernizing and extending the service life of existing B-1B and B-52H aircraft. In addition, the fundamental possibility of increasing the order for promising B-21s over the planned 100 units is not excluded. However, over time, the old equipment, despite all the renewal processes, will have to be written off, which will lead to a new reduction in the number of bombers.

Today and tomorrow


The promising bomber B-21 Raider is considered as a key component of the development program for long-range aviation and strategic nuclear forces in general. Deliveries of serial vehicles of this type will begin in a few years and will continue until the end of the next decade, which will lead to the most serious consequences for the Air Force.

However, such results are still a matter of the distant future. At the moment, the main task of the Pentagon and Northrop Grumman is the completion of the first flight prototype and airframe for static tests, as well as subsequent tests in the air and on the stand. Obviously, these tasks will be successfully completed - but the exact timing of their completion is still in question.
Author:
Photos used:
U.S. Air Force
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 27 January 2021 18: 05
    0
    Few angles in profile. You can add a couple more. repeat
    1. RealPilot
      RealPilot 27 January 2021 22: 26
      +2
      And I know what the root of all evil is!
      And Biden's advisers have not yet finished ...

      The delays are a consequence of the intolerant and obsolete concept of white supremacy!
      We urgently need to "debELize" at factories and design bureaus, hire more ideologically correct "engineers"!

      Expand and deepen, in general!
      Perestroyka is what the USA needs good
  2. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 18: 13
    +4
    The cost of one unit of V-21 is planned in the region of $ 500-550 million
    I thought a lot, decided to compare it with passenger / cargo aircraft with a comparable flight range. Price ranges from $ 239 to $ 445 million
    It turns out that even if a bomber is made on their base, it will not come out much cheaper. If not more expensive.
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra 27 January 2021 19: 16
      -8
      Shota, it seems to me that in the passenger compartment one compartment is so expensive that the rest is bought for change on the plane. And in terms of avionics, the question is, where is it more crammed now - in civilians, or in the military
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 19: 28
        0
        What other news is there in your parallel universe? laughing so funny to read your comments, you need to write books on alternative history laughing
        Especially for you, I downloaded the data on cargo options, neither the cheaper, the more expensive is laughing

        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 27 January 2021 20: 04
          -4
          A difficult case ... What kind of nonsense have you brought? are you talking to yourself there? Passenger models ... I didn't mention that at all. Are you generally healthy?
          1. Avior
            Avior 28 January 2021 02: 01
            +6
            in the passenger compartment, one compartment is so expensive that the rest is bought for change on the plane

            uploaded data on cargo options, neither is cheaper, more expensive

            the comparison shows that cargo, which do not have the same cabin, that the plane is leaving for delivery, in your opinion, are actually not cheaper than passenger of the same model.
            that is, the cabin in the total cost of the aircraft does not take a significant share of the costs.
            hi
        2. Sergey Kulikov_3
          Sergey Kulikov_3 28 January 2021 13: 03
          0
          It is not clear what and with what you are trying to compare, like the B-21 can carry 12.5 tons at 3800 km.
          1. Sergey Kulikov_3
            Sergey Kulikov_3 28 January 2021 13: 16
            0
            At best, 27t in two compartments.
      2. ironic
        ironic 28 January 2021 14: 18
        +1
        Boeing 777 Primary Flight Computer .... The production configuration uses the following microprocessors: AMD 29050, Motorola 68040 with Ada, and Intel 80486.

        For comparison, the F-35 is a Raid of three dual-processor blocks of the PowerPC 603e family.
        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 28 January 2021 14: 22
          -3
          Well, I think that there is the main gag in avionics - in civil aviation, safety standards are almost cosmic - the same three nines ... That is, it is also repeatedly duplicated. which is hardly present on combat aircraft
    2. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 27 January 2021 23: 16
      0
      But in reality, airliners are sold not at the catalog price, but with a discount of 40-50 percent, or even more. So divide those prices by two, you can't go wrong.
    3. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 30 January 2021 20: 45
      0
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Cost of one unit V-21 is planned in the region of $ 500-550 million

      aren't you funny yourself? wassat the same with the Zumvolts was planned, the same with the F-35 was planned ... and continue to plan lol
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 27 January 2021 18: 23
    -9
    Iron - Sumvolt was made at sea, itching, you also need to launch an iron into the sky. request
    1. ironic
      ironic 28 January 2021 14: 09
      0
      One completely unique project and the second too.
  4. Sergey39
    Sergey39 27 January 2021 18: 27
    -8
    Just by that time, our MIG-41 will fly.
    1. AC130 Ganship
      AC130 Ganship 27 January 2021 19: 07
      +1
      Again, a remotorized Mig25 with improved radar? Now is not the 60s. No country in the world builds pure interceptors. Those who count money. B21 will be subsonic according to TK
      1. Sergey39
        Sergey39 27 January 2021 20: 11
        -5
        Quote: AC130 Ganship
        B21 will be subsonic according to TK

        Therefore, it will fly by :)
        1. ironic
          ironic 28 January 2021 21: 49
          -4
          Well, yes, where it will be needed, it will fly there.
      2. jonht
        jonht 28 January 2021 00: 56
        +2
        And do you know many countries with the same length of borders as ours?
        Therefore, the rest do not need pure interceptors, and the principle of operation of an interceptor differs from the same "pure" fighter, the second does not need to quickly go to the area of ​​intercepting the target (targets).
        Again, our doctrine is defensive. hi
  5. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 27 January 2021 18: 36
    +5
    the post-industrial policy of high-tech countries leads to the loss of mechanical design engineers, high-class metallurgists and, in general, to the decline of engineering and that it is a shame Russia is in this queue, not a damn thing IT will replace you, as I understand the elite have read a lot of fantasies
  6. Cowbra
    Cowbra 27 January 2021 19: 13
    -6
    The most interesting thing about this whole gypsy girl with an exit is that this time they will be able to carry out R&D and make an estimate, or again the litak will turn out to be unacceptably expensive like the F-22 or Bue-2, or completely inoperative, like the KS-46 tanker, or even then and another like Fu-35? laughing Considering that in aviation, minke whales for 40 years have only shoals, their optimism should already be pretty rubbed
    1. ironic
      ironic 28 January 2021 14: 32
      +1
      However, the F-22 is about 180 combat-ready in the army, and the B-2 is 20 and is also quite combat-ready. KS-46 shortcomings are being corrected and it will quite successfully replace KS-135. There is already a line of customers behind it for many years ahead. The F-35A is a serial front-line fighter-bomber replacing the outgoing F-16s and in this regard it will successfully replace it with advantages over the entire range of required parameters, the F-35B in the same proportion will replace the Harriers, and the F-35C will complement the Super Hornets. In any case, no one has presented a similar combat vehicle, so their optimism is half-assed.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 28 January 2021 15: 06
        -4
        If they have already been purchased, then do not write them off? Zyams also FLOAT, albeit unarmed. But the fact that both programs have been curtailed, plus a plus. Bi-2 also screwed up with the functionality - it is not capable of carrying missiles with nuclear warheads - this says that both programs were recognized as a failure, and therefore closed!
        Quote: ironic
        F-35A serial front-line fighter-bomber

        LIES! I'm tired of explaining. The aircraft is produced pre-series, serial production is NOT deployed and cannot be deployed. since state acceptance, the final tests of the F-35, no modification for 20 years has not been able to pass. The last attempt ended in failure in 2019, Andrews base, tripods took part, the British, the Dutch, the percentage of combat readiness for the test was 11%, the aircraft was NOT ACCEPTED
        1. ironic
          ironic 28 January 2021 17: 35
          +1
          Is that just why they fly? So I see the congress is sitting and crying, well, what can we do now, do not throw away the good ... Do you really believe in this nonsense, or are you an idolater by worldview? Sumvolt is a project that has no equal in complexity and implementation, even in its current form. Nobody has anything like it, and it won't be soon. Yes, they miscalculated; with a cost, but because of this it is still not finished, but it will be finished like the sea wolves, who were in the same position and in the same way today have no equal even among their own. There will be no equal and Sumvolts.

          The B-2 did not screw up, but was originally designed with a second wave of strikes. The planned upgrade will add rocket capabilities to it as the targets have changed. But adding it does not remove it, no one has a similar one. And no one acknowledged his failure, just a new B-21 comes to replace it, more compact, better, more versatile, more modern.
          There would be no B-2, there would not be a B-21.

          But this is twice a lie! Lies that you are able to explain anything and lies about mass production. You are also extremely illiterate in the peculiarities of the open architecture release system, so you are carrying outright nonsense and all this spam, which is confused where you can push, as if your automatic event is programmed to detect the number 35 is dazzling in your eyes. There were no modifications ... no, well, some changes in software versions, modifications of the helmet, cockpit, nozzles, coatings, ejection systems were worth what, well, the gong was meaningless and thoughtless. The plane is on alert in so many countries. There are 11 units on alert in Israel. Not this is not twice a lie it is a lie so a lie.
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 28 January 2021 17: 53
            -4
            Quote: ironic
            The B-2 did not screw up, but was originally designed with a second wave of strikes.

            Lies again - why SECOND wave of stealth. if the air defense is knocked out. Strictly - the first wave, that's why it's expensive. The second is the ancient B-52 ...
            Quote: ironic
            Lies that you are able to explain anything and lies about mass production.

            You are not enough. that you are lying, you are still lying ineptly, and all the arguments you have are "myself"
            1) Where and when was the F-35 state inspection. There will be no answer - a direct indication that you are LIE.
            2) Why designation of parties under construction F-35 - LRIP? Pre-production marking, in contrast to FR - serial batches ?!
            “The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 program is that you cannot supply aircraft to parts that are still in development,” said then-US Air Force Secretary Deborah back in 2015.

            How tired of these ... With a limited outlook ... The saddest thing is that they persistently climb to teach everyone, assertively demonstrating developmental defects
            1. ironic
              ironic 28 January 2021 21: 07
              -1
              Double lies, lies on the subject and lies that I'm lying. There is no need to spread the tales that the exchange of the first strike about the limitation of 1550 heads is capable of knocking out all air defense and all interceptor airfields, especially since they will try to lift them into the air already upon receiving the first information about the attack, and redeploy the saved air defense from everywhere to unkilled targets. Ancient B-52s will strike before the B-2 approaches, because Delako will shoot outside the air defense zone and from their targets. This is elementary even for minds not burdened by advancedness.

              And not only are you lying twice, because you are lying that you know what skill is and you are lying that I am lying, but you also attribute to me things that I have never written and claim that if I do not prove something to you, what I have never written, then I lie, this is arrogance and a lie at the same time. Low rate initial production is used by the manufacturer as a platform for testing the production process, but this does not mean that an off-production instance is being produced. And an open platform implies that changes are also in the Fast rate process, when the production process is worked out, production, and not research.

              How tired of these, who never managed the creation of it products themselves, who did not know and did not understand the processes, but who read the reports from the fields of the press, which needed to attract the reader, but then it’s not rude to turn sacks, they themselves don’t know how to do nichrome, and they put the abbreviation in the same place and that's all, an expert on production. Their development is negative, but all the work of others is to look for defects.
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 28 January 2021 23: 44
                -2
                It is clear that. We do not know about the subject of the dispute, we cannot answer the questions, we can only teach everyone. Not interesting.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 29 January 2021 13: 42
                  -2
                  So it is also clear to me that you do not know nichrome what a dispute is, or what an object is. This can be seen in your dialogues with other people. The answers to the questions do not allow you to understand the low level of intelligence and the severe form of zombie, and after all, what I wrote in brief, in an expanded form, was voiced here on VO by adequate and more intelligent people than you. I’m not lecturing you, it’s not productive. I will answer you because more developed and less blinkered people can read me. And you are interesting only as an exemplary exemplary specimen of a rhinoceros in human form, which does not see anything further than its horn, for it is not used to it and it is short-sighted.
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 30 January 2021 21: 05
        0
        Quote: ironic
        However, the F-22 is about 180 combat-ready in the army

        in the troops, perhaps, and at best a third of combat-ready.
        Quote: ironic
        and B-2 20 pieces and are also quite combat-ready.
        you have not confused anything? decommissioned in storage are not at all combat-ready.
        Quote: ironic
        F-35A serial front-line fighter-bomber replacing the outgoing F-16

        and it took a lot? wassat and these same F-35s are only 35% in combat condition. request and the cost of operation is 5 times higher than that of the F-16, F-15.
        Quote: ironic
        F-35B will replace Hariera in the same proportion

        so they replace the F-18 from conservation have already begun to restore. lol

        PS
        while comments were open on NI, even there, among Americans, I did not meet such reckless optimists as you good Unlike you, the Americans understand that the F-35 is not produced in the United States and is dependent on many countries, such as Turkey and China. they also understand that the F-35 is 5-6 F-15, and not in terms of efficiency, but in terms of maintenance costs, and at the same time it is not a fact that it is included in the very 35% that are in a combat state, that is, it may not yet take off ... request
    2. pytar
      pytar 28 January 2021 15: 01
      0
      The most interesting thing about this whole gypsy girl with an exit - this time they will be able to carry out R&D and make an estimate, or again the litak will turn out to be unacceptably expensive like the F-22 or Bue-2, or absolutely inoperative, like the KS-46 tanker, or even then and another, like Fu-35? Considering that in aviation, minke whales for 40 years have only shoals, their optimism should already be pretty rubbed

      Expensive and cheap are relative concepts ... If you get huge profits from the sale of weapons, you can spend more without hesitation ... laughing In 2020, the United States exported weapons worth $ 175 billion / direct commercial deliveries $ 124 billion /, leaving Russia far behind. Percentages can be argued, but the United States owns 30-35% of the world arms trade! With such good results, their optimism is quite justified! bully
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 28 January 2021 23: 47
        -1
        Also a double-edged sword. They sold the Patriots to the Arabs - then they had to apologize, because they are such a SAM, like the F-35 - a fighter. Works for the time being. If the need is pressed, the owner will be sent away, and such sales will be remembered. Not to mention the fact that we ourselves may have to fight on this guana with the enemy. China will be overtaken now - it will be funny to see if the Chinese will see the F-35 ...
        1. pytar
          pytar 29 January 2021 16: 41
          -1
          They sold the Patriots to the Arabs ...

          A question for the terminology you use! Clarify please:
          USA sold weapons = STEAMED! RF sold weapons = ?????? request
          I'm afraid to ask about the others ... laughing
          it will be funny to see if the Chinese see the F-35 ...

          It will really be funny to watch and ask others whether they see or not? laughing
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 29 January 2021 16: 55
            +1
            I don't see any obvious failures in Russian sales. But the fact that after the attack on Aramko Pompeo had to personally apologize - what does he mean? He apologized just for the Patriots. Well, what is the terminology I use, or the Saudis asked - what did you VAPOR? I can also give an example here with the Germans and the French. in a rude form abandoned the F-35, with the South Koreans and the Japanese, in the same form abandoned the American missile defense system. The Japanese, by the way, after that. how the American missile defense system they have overslept a North Korean missile that flew over Japan through all this missile defense ... Well, any more questions? In terminology. Well, what to do if these are real facts ...
            1. pytar
              pytar 29 January 2021 20: 38
              -1
              I asked an elementary simple question, and you still haven't answered ... bully
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 29 January 2021 20: 39
                +1
                I replied. Russia has sold the WEAPON. No complaints.
                USA vparilo dummies. Complaints from the UAE, South Korea, Japan, Germany, France - this is only for the Patriots and F-35
                1. pytar
                  pytar 29 January 2021 23: 39
                  -1
                  Understand your answer like this?
                  USA sold weapons = STEAMED! RF sold weapons = SOLD!
                  The conclusion was made on the basis of what you read from the Internet, right? You know what it is complaint and how does it differ from making a claim?
                  1. Cowbra
                    Cowbra 30 January 2021 10: 12
                    +1
                    To know - I know. But what is most interesting is that the difference between a complaint and a claim does not change anything in the difference between sold and sold.
  7. lopvlad
    lopvlad 27 January 2021 20: 08
    -3
    The only thing worth knowing about the B-21 Raider is that it is actually a variant of the B-2 bomber with the use of more modern developments. In fact, the modernization of the B-2 bomber is like we are modernizing the TU-160 to the level of the TU-160M2. Only here we have the TU- 160M2 is already "in hardware" and they have it in the picture so far.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 January 2021 20: 26
      +11
      B-21 is a new development. It is smaller than the B-2 and differs
      a little in shape. It will not have any mechanical flaps
      or slats. Two engines from the F-35.
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 27 January 2021 21: 28
        -3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        B-21 is a new development.


        It’s just that the Americans, unlike us, like to give new names to their modernization, and in this case they left a hint in the name (B-21). So, in fact, this is just a desire to pass off the old fence as a new method of painting and cutting new patterns on By the way, the majority of American experts are quite open about this, but everything is also finished with the hull for obscurity (the West really loves this term).
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 22: 44
          +5
          Quote: lopvlad
          It's just that the Americans, unlike us, like to give new names to their modernization, and in this case, they left a hint in the name (B-21)

          Another guest from a parallel universe.
          Mig 29/35, T-72/90, BTR-80/82, Mi-28/35, I generally keep quiet about the Su-27 clones. Can you give one more example of this from the Americans, except for the F-1 (F21 converted for India)? Their series under one index have been going on for decades, uniting different machines.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 27 January 2021 23: 51
            +2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Mi-28 / 35

            Mi-24/35 naturally
          2. lopvlad
            lopvlad 28 January 2021 00: 09
            -2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            a guest from a parallel universe.


            from the whole list I agree only with the BTR-80/82.
        2. Avior
          Avior 28 January 2021 02: 08
          +7
          yeah, modernization.
          one has two engines, the other has four.
      2. eklmn
        eklmn 28 January 2021 03: 47
        +3
        Correct - 2 pairs of engines from the F-35. Wanted F-100 from F-15, but opted for F-135 from F-35 to lower engine price.
        Here is what NI wrote in 2019 comparing the B-2 and B-21.
        (lane google)
        “The official rendering of the Air Force-issued B-21 Raider - a tailless, bat-like aircraft - looks like the B-2 Spirit bomber. However, there are important differences.
        The B-21 moves its engines closer to the root of the wing, where they occupy the joint between the wing and the fuselage, while the twin General Electric F118-GE-100 engines on the B-2 are separated from the fuselage on the wing. The Raider's engine air intakes are angled rather than jagged like on the B-2 Spirit. Unlike the B-2, the Raider also features closable tailpipes to hide the infrared signature of the four engines.
        Like its predecessor, the B-21 Raider will be a heavy strategic bomber designed to carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. If the B-2 is the same size, then it will carry the same amount of ammunition. This means two bomb bays. To keep costs down, the Air Force may decide to reuse the Advanced Applications rotary launcher from the B-2 bomber. AARL is installed one for each bomb bay, each of which can carry eight bombs or missiles.
        In a nuclear mission, the Air Force will arm the B-21 with a long-range missile (LRSO), a next-generation covert nuclear cruise missile. It will also carry B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, in particular the new B61-12 bomb with the ability to increase power. The combination of these two weapons will allow the B-21 to use its hidden cruise missiles to clear a path through the enemy's air defense network before dropping B-61 bombs on primary and secondary targets. For conventional missions, the B-21 will carry a conventional JASSM-ER cruise missile and two thousand pounds of GBU-31 Joint Directed Attack Munition satellite-guided bombs. The B-21 could use this weapon in the same way as its nuclear weapons, punching its way through enemy defenses before dropping JDAM. As an alternative, the B-21 could be used as a missile truck, launch up to sixteen JASSM-ERs at enemy targets at a distance, or traverse less sophisticated enemy defenses to deliver JDAM to the target. The B-21 will also have to carry the 30 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the largest conventional bomb in the US arsenal, as the B-2 is currently the only bomber capable of raising a huge bomb. "
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 30 January 2021 21: 18
          0
          Quote: eklmn
          Unlike the B-2, the Raider also features closable tailpipes to hide the infrared signature of the four engines.

          I've always wondered who is this nonsense designed for? Are there really those naive people who believe that some kind of damper will be able to reduce the exhaust temperature of a jet engine to ambient temperature?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. pytar
      pytar 27 January 2021 21: 36
      +7
      The only thing worth knowing about the B-21 Raider is that it is actually a variant of the B-2 bomber using more modern designs.

      If a person really wants to know:
      Comparison of dimensions and appearance of bombers B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider


      In fact, the modernization of the B-2 bomber is like our modernization of the Tu-160 to the level of the Tu-160M2.



      Only here we have the TU-160M2 already "in the hardware" and they still have it on the drawn picture.

      In this judgment, there is still a small fraction of the truth - indeed, the Tu-160 M2 has more "iron" than the B21 Raider, which is made mainly of composites! laughing laughing laughing
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 28 January 2021 00: 11
        -6
        Quote: pytar
        which is made mostly of composites!


        The F-117 was almost cut out of a piece of composite, but what did it do for him?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Intruder
          Intruder 28 January 2021 03: 52
          +4
          The F-117 was almost cut out of a piece of composite, but what did it do for him?
          imagine, yes !!! bully
          by 64 units, (the last production copy was delivered to the US Air Force in 1990, we take into account the level of composites of the last century and everything else in the field of low-signature technologies in radio-optical spectra of EMP) for the entire history of the operation of the F-117 aircraft, according to official data , 7 vehicles were lost (just over 10% of the total built), including one F-117 was shot down during the fighting. "Nighthawks" flew a total of about 220 hours, that is, the flight time per loss was about 000 hours, an excellent result for an attack complex, we take into account that this is a strike aircraft :) !!!
        3. pytar
          pytar 28 January 2021 10: 01
          0
          The F-117 was almost cut out of a piece of composite, but what did it do for him?

          Intruder (Denis Alekseev) answered you. yes Respect to him! hi On my own I will add - with the development of technology, the share of composites in structures is growing. In Russian projects too. For example, the Su-57 is more than 70% made of composites! bully
          https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5b3bad8aa8c16e00a810e3c9/su57-bolee-chem-na-70-procentov-sostoit-iz-osobyh-kompozitnyh-materialov-5ce18baee44f5600b6cc6773
          1. lopvlad
            lopvlad 29 January 2021 03: 52
            +1
            Quote: pytar
            Intruder (Denis Alekseev) answered you.


            and the s-125 answered everyone by tearing the plastic craft into pieces and, in fact, burying the F-117 project
            1. pytar
              pytar 29 January 2021 10: 07
              0
              and the s-125 answered everyone by tearing the plastic craft into pieces and, in fact, burying the F-117 project

              During the operation of Nighthawk, having flown 220 hours !!!!!! lost only 000 plane in combat !! This is the case you are talking about. The F-1 was used in 117 conflicts! The brainchild of Lockheed, unusual in appearance, has shown itself more than worthily!
              Your tezza, about the reasons for the withdrawal -117 from exploitation, do not agree with the facts!
              Production of the F-117 continues from 1981 to 1990! A lone F-117A # 82-0806) shot down in Yugoslavia on March 27, 1999! And the Nighthawks are involved later in the 2003 Iraq War! Removed from service in 2008 as a result of the adoption of the F-22 Raptor! If you make yourself a timeline of events for illustration, make sure yourself that your thesis is sucked from your fingers!
          2. lopvlad
            lopvlad 29 January 2021 04: 00
            +1
            Quote: pytar
            On my own I will add - with the development of technology, the share of composites in structures is growing.


            It naturally grows due to the fact that the components of the composite are significantly lighter in weight than the metal and at the same time surpass it in strength. Only in terms of invisibility for a modern radar, the percentage of composite in the airframe design no longer plays any role, the plane will definitely be detected and shot down.
            1. pytar
              pytar 29 January 2021 10: 10
              0
              Only in terms of invisibility for a modern radar, the percentage of composite in the airframe design no longer plays any role ...

              Do you at least ask, who better reflects radio waves - metal or composite? laughing
              1. lopvlad
                lopvlad 29 January 2021 12: 08
                +1
                Quote: pytar
                Do you at least ask, who better reflects radio waves - metal or composite?


                to begin with, you will ask the plane with which EPR indicator the modern radar is not able to "see"
                1. pytar
                  pytar 29 January 2021 16: 00
                  0
                  to begin with, you will ask the plane with which EPR indicator the modern radar is not able to "see"

                  I will not even try, I / and you / do not have access to secret documents of a military-technical nature. laughing In the internet they write anything. Everyone can find a text that they would like. yes
        4. ironic
          ironic 28 January 2021 14: 07
          +3
          The only case when a car was shot down is more of a curiosity than a really successful defeat by air defense means of protecting certain capabilities.
          1. pytar
            pytar 28 January 2021 14: 40
            +1
            The case is really serious! Sitting means a hunter in the forest, does not see anything in the dark, and suddenly a wild boar jumps out at him! From fright, he shoots somewhere, and accidentally hits! wassat Well, as it should be drinks , the story then overgrows with hunting heroism and skill! yes
            1. ironic
              ironic 28 January 2021 14: 53
              +2
              Well, of course, you slightly underestimated the participation of the hunter, although I laughed heartily at your description. In fact, the boar got into the habit of walking like a clock along the same path and devouring the same garden. Moreover, strictly at the same time. The hunters spent a long time scratching their heads about what to do with this and decided to throw the usual sights to hell and catch the boar on their knees with a screwed, purely visual system, already being sure that they would walk the same path and into the same garden, and then the radius of dispersion of the fragments would help do not miss. Conclusions - never consider the enemy stupid and powerless to do anything, even if you surpass him in everything.
            2. lopvlad
              lopvlad 29 January 2021 12: 12
              +1
              Quote: pytar
              The case is really serious!


              the curiosity is when one accidental hit and not when the radar detected the plane, tore off the wing with the first shot, and with the subsequent ones turned the plane into a pile of debris still in the air.
              1. pytar
                pytar 29 January 2021 16: 20
                -1
                it's funny when ...

                You know ... there are different curiosities! laughing In that case, curiosus is most likely stupid! To fly for so long on the same route is the height of stupidity! With such negligence, even the most invisible plane will be seen at one moment! And when they see, they will shoot you down! bully
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 30 January 2021 21: 25
                  0
                  Quote: pytar
                  You know ... there are different curiosities!

                  are you sure this is a curiosity? Let me remind you that they used them against Yugoslavia in which there is no air defense and Iraq, which has air defense turned on. and maybe the funny thing is that 1 plane was lost even in those conditions when not a single one should be lost? wink
                  1. pytar
                    pytar 31 January 2021 00: 18
                    0
                    are you sure this is a curiosity?

                    A curiosity about the negligence shown by the USAF. If you are being hunted, do not follow the same paths! laughing
                    Let me remind you that they used them against Yugoslavia, which has no air defense

                    Information about the state of the Yugoslav air defense varies. Of course, it was technically backward in comparison with the Western coalition air force, but still it is hardly worth underestimating it.
                    Despite large-scale strikes against the Yugoslav air defense system, the Yugoslav anti-aircraft missile units remained combat-ready until the end of hostilities, retaining the bulk of their materiel. According to Western data, the Yugoslavs fired 815 anti-aircraft guided missiles, of which 477 ZM9M missiles of the "Kub-M" complex, 188 B-601 series missiles of the S-125M complex, 124 portable air defense missile systems and air defense missile systems of military air defense, and 26 other types of missiles ( Rgaska).
                    This information contradicts Yugoslav sources, according to which, for example, the 250th anti-aircraft missile brigade, which formed the basis of the air defense forces and was the most active, fired only 31 S-125M air defense systems with a total consumption of 54 V-601 D / U missiles, as well as 47 launches MANPADS missiles (36 Strela-2M and 11 Igla) and several launches of Rgaska missiles.
                    1. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 31 January 2021 00: 27
                      0
                      Quote: pytar
                      A curiosity about the negligence shown by the USAF. If you are being hunted, do not follow the same paths!

                      exactly! drinks that's what I'm talking about. if the F-117 was sent to suppress the Yugoslav air defense, then the losses would have been greater. by the way, there are rumors that they lost 3 F-177s there ... the curiosity is not that they shot down invisibility, but that only 1 was shot down, but this curiosity is explained by the weakness of the air defense request
                      Quote: pytar
                      Information about the state of the Yugoslav air defense varies. Of course, it was technically backward in comparison with the Western coalition air force, but still it is hardly worth underestimating it.

                      I agree with this wording, but given the opposing forces, we can say that there was no air defense. that is, they could have done something against a dozen aircraft, but not against the entire NATO bloc.
                      1. pytar
                        pytar 31 January 2021 01: 07
                        0
                        that is, they could have done something against a dozen aircraft, but not against the entire NATO bloc.

                        No doubt! Milosevic had to think with his head before starting this mess. By the way, I remembered one photo-deception, a fake, as it is now fashionable to call, thanks to which the Yugoslavs won several days! laughing We published pictures of the Yugoslavian crew sitting up to the S-300! In fact, the South-Air Defense Forces did not have the S-300. The photo was taken in the Russian Federation, dressing several soldiers in the uniforms of Yugoslav soldiers sent by them. bully Of course, NATO intelligence figured it out after a while and the planes flew. There was speculation that the photos were taken in Bulgaria, since we have the S-300. It is unlikely that this is true - it will be difficult for you to find sympathetic Yugoslavs here. No.
      2. ironic
        ironic 28 January 2021 14: 08
        +3
        Good example. Even with the naked eye it can be seen that the 21st is not a modification of the 2nd. This is a completely different plane.
        1. pytar
          pytar 28 January 2021 14: 46
          +2
          Obviously this is a completely different plane! The similarity of the silhouettes is due to the general physical rules of stealth, etc. physical laws! hi The photo still brings clarity about hardening lopvlad (rr) - "and they still have a drawn picture."
          The "picture" is quite so-so materialized, it drives the pistes! laughing
          1. ironic
            ironic 28 January 2021 14: 57
            +1
            I agree that it is. Pay attention to the air intakes and exhaust nozzles, this is a seriously redesigned solution.
            1. pytar
              pytar 28 January 2021 21: 11
              +2
              Look at the air intakes and exhaust nozzles, this is a seriously redesigned solution.

              Even when I looked at both for the first time, it immediately caught my eye! I even took it and painted for myself, for a better understanding!

              With B21, the gas dynamics are fundamentally different than those of the B2, and the aerodynamics are different! And the issues of gas dynamics are one of the most difficult when designing in general! The air intakes of the B21 are much better integrated with the wing-fuselage! The entire surface above the engine is involved in generating the upper air. flow along with that wing section! This flow creates a lifting force on one side and cools the exhaust gas on the other!
              The exhaust nozzles of the B21 are very interesting! Their concept is very different from that of B2! They are thin, wide! Hot gases, together with cold air passing through the jacket around the engine, are sprayed on a wide front, while simultaneously mixing at the exit from the air stream running over the wing! Thus, the temperature of the exhaust gases is reduced more effectively and the visibility of the bomber in the infrared spectrum is reduced more!
              This system is clearly better than that of B2, to which the thermal radiation is much more concentrated, and therefore more noticeable!
              In general, with a slight external similarity, these are completely different machines with different design solutions. I suppose that, based on the experience in the production and operation of the B2, when designing the B21, American designers tried to get an aircraft with the best characteristics, while much cheaper than that of the B2! B21 has better stealth performance in all angles and ranges! It is also smaller in size, and this theme is better worked out for me! And in terms of other combat capabilities, it is unlikely to deviate from B2. Since the time when B2 appeared, until now, technologies have not stood in one place! hi
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 21: 32
                0
                Quote: pytar
                Since the time when B2 appeared, until now, technologies have not stood in one place!

                The main thing was the opportunity to simulate an airplane in virtual space. You can simulate thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of different designs, flight options, environmental conditions. The technical revolution of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is making itself felt.
                1. pytar
                  pytar 28 January 2021 21: 39
                  +1
                  Absolutely right! Earlier computer modeling made it possible to abandon real tests of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, avoiding radioactive contamination by nature! And while working on the spot in these technologies, it allows you to simulate any process, saving time and money! Probably in the entire known history of mankind, technologies have never developed at such a pace as in the last 20-30 years! And the process is "explosively" accelerated! It will be sooo difficult for those who lagged behind to catch up, those who took the lead! sad
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. ironic
                ironic 28 January 2021 21: 38
                +1
                Great post. I read you with interest. Thanks.
            2. pytar
              pytar 28 January 2021 21: 40
              0
              In short, thermal radiation is less noticeable if it is in a line shape than in a dot shape! bully
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 30 January 2021 21: 38
                -1
                Quote: pytar
                In short, thermal radiation is less noticeable if it is in a line shape than in a dot shape!
                are you sure? but in the picture that you published in the previous post, B21 has a thermal footprint four times more than B2 wink and what are these red dots? Are you seriously? belay you depict this exhaust with a temperature of thousands of degrees like this?
                1. pytar
                  pytar 31 January 2021 00: 01
                  0
                  are you sure?

                  Absolutely! yes
                  B21 has a thermal footprint four times more than B2

                  What it means "4 times more"? Bigger or larger? bully
                  With the same temperatures from the sources, the one whose temperature is dispersed over a larger area (2D) / volume (3D), infrared radiation has a lower intensity. The shape and direction of scattering is also important. You can see for yourself by doing a simple experiment. yes






                  By the way, this also applies to the radar signature of the devices. In addition to all other chips, with stealth technologies, they try to do it for years. devices as flat as possible. At the same time, the aerodynamic quality increases, on the other hand, the horizontal controllability worsens. Those radio waves that the radio-absorbing material does not have time to extinguish are tried / by the arrangement of the surfaces / to be scattered in different directions in order to reduce their intensity.
                  and what are these red dots? you depict this exhaust with a temperature of thousands of degrees like this?

                  The exhaust will turn you into a barbecue if you are sitting right behind the nozzle, but from a large distance it looks like the kids in the picture. Don't believe me? Look at the evening sky when there are no clouds of course. bully
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 31 January 2021 00: 18
                    0
                    Quote: pytar
                    What do you mean "4 times more"? Bigger or larger?

                    by size of course wink look at your pictures where the top view. from a flat nozzle, the exhaust is 4 times wider, if not more yes
                    Quote: pytar
                    The exhaust will turn you into a barbecue if you are sitting right behind the nozzle, but from a large distance it looks like the kids in the picture.

                    this is fierce nonsense yes in fact, both are, in the thermal spectrum, a hefty spot. your pictures are very cunning wink this is a schematic drawing that has very little to do with reality. no matter what shape the nozzle is, gases heated to thousands of degrees fly out of it, and where the rocket arrives as a result, in a circle or in a strip, it does not change the essence of the matter. a cloud of hot air behind the aircraft such that the shape of the exhaust port does not affect the result. request You understand that the exhaust from the engine is not separable from the aircraft? So what's the difference what shape of the nozzle if the exhaust from the plane is equally hot? you have nozzles in the picture, without exhaust. you understand that this is a little forgery wink
                    1. pytar
                      pytar 31 January 2021 00: 43
                      0
                      look at your pictures where the top view. from a flat nozzle, the exhaust is 4 times wider, if not more

                      Pictures are purely schematic, for understanding the essence of the issue! If you have the competence and free time, you can make them live, with an adequate color intensity at temperatures. The end result will probably be the same. But you can be sure - the designers did it for you long ago! laughing Perhaps they still have other considerations to give exactly the same shape as B21! I gave my guesses. bully
                      no matter what shape the nozzle is, gases heated to thousands of degrees fly out of it and where the rocket arrives as a result, in a circle or in a strip, does not change the essence of the matter. a cloud of hot air behind the aircraft such that the shape of the exhaust port does not affect the result.

                      Constructors go out of their way to come up with nozzles that reduce the temperature of the exhaust cloud as much as possible. Those who have less radiation, more chances will not overtake a rocket with a GCI. So the facts contradict your judgment. bully
                      You understand that the exhaust from the engine is not separable from the aircraft?

                      Headlights are also inseparable from the car, but on every military equipment mayors undertake to be less noticeable at night. yes
                      So what's the difference what shape of the nozzle if the exhaust from the plane is equally hot?

                      Temperature / approximately / the same only in the combustion chamber. Further, with different design measures, the visibility in the infrared spectrum decreases. More efficient design, less visibility. We are not talking about complete invisibility, this is impossible. The goal of the designers is to reduce the distance at which heat radiation from the aircraft can be seen.
                      1. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 31 January 2021 01: 07
                        0
                        Quote: pytar
                        Perhaps they also have other considerations to give just that shape! I gave my assumptions.

                        I'll give you another option wink Such nozzles are structurally much more complicated than traditional ones, which means they are much expensive... the same Boeing and LM need to sell an expensive plane to the Pentagon to get a lot of money. bully
                        Quote: pytar
                        Constructors go out of their way to come up with nozzles that reduce the temperature of the exhaust cloud as much as possible. Those who have less radiation, more chances will not explode on a rocket with a GCI.

                        How much more likely are the chances of avoiding being hit by a GCI missile? abstract from advertisements, can you remember the cases when flat nozzles saved the plane from the GCI?
                        yes, in a certain plane, the nozzles themselves are less noticeable, but they are not separable from the exhaust, which is exactly the same temperature. it cannot be dispelled completely. well, let's suppose the impossible, what we managed to dissipate by half ... there was a cloud of 4000 degrees, there was a cloud of 2000 degrees, how will this interfere with the GCI ??? belay
                        Quote: pytar
                        Headlights are also inseparable from the car, but on every military equipment mayors undertake to be less noticeable at night.

                        completely incorrect example. Do you smoke? try blowing the smoke out through the flat hole and through the round one, making sure there is a cloud of smoke coming out of both holes. request
                        Quote: pytar
                        We are not talking about complete invisibility, this is impossible. The question is to decrease the distance at which you can see the thermal radiation from the aircraft.

                        that's it! bully and how much does it reduce? you can again tell the tale as about 0.001 EPR wassat anyway, no one can check. Now imagine how much money you can cut on this wink
                      2. pytar
                        pytar 31 January 2021 01: 29
                        0
                        I'll give you another option - such nozzles are structurally much more complicated than traditional ones, which means they are much more expensive. the same Boeing and LM need to sell an expensive plane to the Pentagon to get a lot of money

                        In specific cases, this option does not work. One of the main conditions in the design of the B21 is to reduce the cost of the aircraft, with higher performance compared to the B2.
                        can you remember the cases when flat nozzles saved the aircraft from the GCI?

                        Do you remember the time when the GCI got into flat nozzles? exactly in flat! How many types of such aircraft do you know and how many of them were shot down from the GCI?
                        well, let's suppose the impossible that we managed to dissipate in half ...

                        Not just the possible, but one of the important results in stealth technology. bully
                        there was a cloud of 4000 degrees, there was a cloud of 2000 degrees, how will this prevent the GCI

                        Did you study physics at school? Heard about inverse square law?
                        GCI will notice to the cloud 4000 gr. the distance is several times greater than the one with 2000 gr. bully Even if you didn’t learn at school, when you go to them, which lantern will you notice earlier - shining strongly or who shines weakly? Here the goal is to reduce the visibility distances. This is the goal of every camouflage! laughing
                        completely incorrect example. Do you smoke?

                        I have been smoking since adolescence. This is bad, I confess. repeat So, when the guys and I hid from their parents to smoke, we scattered the smoke with our hands or from paper, so that it would not be visible from afar! laughing
                        and how much does it reduce? you can again tell the tale as about 0.001 EPR anyway, no one can check. Now imagine how much money you can cut on this

                        Alexander, excuse me ... what age are you, if not a secret? I ask because I have mentioned inverse square law, is in middle school. It is valid for all types of electromagnetic radiation, including the light and infrared spectrum. bully
                      3. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 31 January 2021 12: 14
                        0
                        Quote: pytar
                        In specific cases, this option does not work. One of the main conditions in the design of the B21 is to reduce the cost of the aircraft, with higher performance compared to the B2.

                        yes you? belay exactly the same story was about the Sumvolt, exactly the same story was about the F-35, exactly the same story was about the LCS. there seems to be a saying "the third time is magic" wink but here is the fourth repetition of the same tale about "the most modern and cheapest"! for the fourth time, probably it's time to understand that this is a lie? wink
                        Quote: pytar
                        Do you remember the time when the GCI got into flat nozzles? exactly in flat! How many types of such aircraft do you know and how many of them were shot down from the GCI?

                        it reminds of a story about cemirite wink remember how the IG farm indestri spent the whole war on the Wehrmacht for the purchase of superpaste that protects tanks from magnetic mines wassat
                        Quote: pytar
                        GCI will notice to the cloud 4000 gr. the distance is several times greater than the one with 2000 gr.

                        What are the distances? you have already flown into space and manipulate light years? on a light year scale, definitely yes yes , but at a distance of 200-400 km, definitely not! bully
                        Quote: pytar
                        Even if you didn’t learn at school, when you go to them, which lantern will you notice earlier - shining strongly or who shines weakly?

                        good example good I will notice both wink you ignore distance again. yes at a distance of several thousand kim you are right, but at distances of real air combat - I am right. in any way you will not dissipate the heat cloud of the turbojet engine exhaust to such an extent that the GCI does not see it from 100-200 km request "better seen", "worse seen" - these are already lyrics. key words "it is seen".
                        Quote: pytar
                        I have been smoking since adolescence. This is bad, I confess.

                        the same trouble .. to throw while it sucks sad
                        Quote: pytar
                        So, when the guys and I hid from their parents to smoke, we scattered the smoke with our hands or from paper, so that it would not be visible from afar!

                        in in! dispersed by hand. you, even as a child, did not think that if you exhale smoke through a sheet with a slit, then the smoke will not be visible wink even a child understands what will not work wink what has changed with age?
                        Quote: pytar
                        Alexander, excuse me ... what age are you, if not a secret?

                        not a secret of course. already over forty sad I understand what you are writing about hi but you are missing the important parameter of distance. I wrote about this above.
                      4. pytar
                        pytar 31 January 2021 12: 58
                        0
                        exactly the same story was about the Sumvolt, exactly the same story was about the F-35, exactly the same story was about the LCS.

                        T-14 ... Su-57 and many others ... laughing Rising prices for new high-tech products, a problem all over the world. Not new, so it was in the past. Usually the originally agreed value is not withheld. By the way, B2 costs $ 2,3 billion, and for B21 they indicate $ 300 million. I suppose the real will be about $ 500 million, which is almost 4 times less than B2. This is thanks to more efficient design and manufacturing methods.
                        https://topwar.ru/174256-b-21-raider-bombardirovschik-ili-nechto-bolshee.html
                        this reminds of a story about cemirite, remember how IG farm indestri spent the whole war on the Wehrmacht to purchase superpaste that protects tanks from magnetic mines

                        Cemerite had this property, but as it turned out, its application did not meet the cost / efficiency indicators. Magnetic mines were used extremely rarely, and at the end of the war, zimerite was abandoned. Many new items have had such a fate. I remember the dynamo-rocket guns for Soviet aircraft developed before the Second World War.
                        what are the distances? you have already flown into space and manipulate light years? on a light-year scale, definitely yes, but at a distance of 200-400 km, definitely not!

                        Strongly, very wrong! Do not take into account the presence of the atmosphere, the air absorbs part of the radiation. laughing By the way, our dispute with you is meaningless. I suggest you wait until PAK YES is shown. I'm 99% sure that he will have similar nozzles! Chinese too.
                        dispersed by hand. you, even as a child, did not think that if you exhale smoke through a sheet with a slit, then the smoke will not be visible

                        Our practice of unregulated smoking with friends refutes your claims. Once they caught us because of that, we hid in the low-growing weeds for a smoke. There was no wind, we thought if they didn’t see us, it wouldn’t be seen even the smoke! And the smoke in thin streams rose up ... In short, we raked in full! I had to temporarily observe good behavior. laughing
                        but you are missing the important parameter of distance.

                        I speak about this parameter all the time! Reducing the range of conspicuousness, the main goal in all these technical activities!
                      5. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 31 January 2021 15: 30
                        0
                        Quote: pytar
                        T-14 ... Su-57 and many others ... Rising prices for new high-tech products, a problem all over the world.

                        right good that's what I'm talking about.
                        Quote: pytar
                        By the way, B2 costs $ 2,3 billion, and for B21 they indicate $ 300 million. I assume the real will be about $ 500 million, which is almost 4 times less than that of B2. This is thanks to more efficient design and manufacturing methods.

                        Well, Christmas tree sticks ... in the projects of the sumvolt, F-35, LCS everything was the same! three times in a row! and each time the project got out of the budget and turned out to be more expensive than what it had to replace as cheaper. God forbid that they fit into 2.3 lard at the end, but most likely it will be even more expensive yes
                        Quote: pytar
                        Cemerite had this property, but as it turned out, its application did not match the indicators cost / efficiency

                        in fact, this is the key phrase in your message good that's why I doubt the advisability of flat nozzles. price / efficiency issue! there is a wunderwafe and there is a weapon for war. if you can build 10 bombers with flat nozzles, and the enemy builds 50 with regular nozzles for the same resources, then you are in big trouble! yes if they can realize flat nozzles at a similar resource cost relative to conventional ones, then this makes sense. otherwise it's a failure request for the same PAK DA or Hunter, mass production is much more important than the presence of flat nozzles or stealth. soldier but you will have to choose, because the new technology ...
                      6. pytar
                        pytar 31 January 2021 16: 38
                        0
                        if you can build 10 bombers with flat nozzles, and the enemy builds 50 with regular nozzles for the same resources, then you are in big trouble! if they can realize flat nozzles at a similar resource cost relative to conventional ones, then this makes sense. otherwise it's a failure. for the same PAK DA or Hunter, mass production is much more important than having flat nozzles or stealth. soldier but you will have to choose, because the new technology ...

                        It depends on who has what opportunities ... laughing Mass production of PAK DA, Okhotnik, Su-57 is out of the question. Neither money, nor production capacities are enough. But the B2, F-22, F-35 USA produced in considerable series! There is no doubt that if some kind of cataclysm does not happen in America, B21 will also be produced in a series that is large for this kind of weapon.
                        Here the question is not so straightforward! A person / pilot for example / becomes a very expensive resource. This is why all developed countries are moving towards robotization and artificial intelligence systems. Those B2, B21, F-22, F-35 and even the upgraded 4-generation already have centric functions. They are part of the overall coordinated warfare system, into which a person withdraws in a more defended position. And the brave ones will be fired at remotely like goslings on nisko-tech planes, tanks, etc.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 29 January 2021 12: 16
    +1
    Quote: pytar
    quite so-so materialized


    I didn’t know that computer graphics are equivalent to a real plane made. If so, then in Russia PAK-DA, PAK-TA and several modern aircraft carriers are ready.

    "That we should build a house
    We will draw, we will live "
    1. pytar
      pytar 29 January 2021 17: 35
      -1
      I didn’t know that computer graphics are equivalent to a real aircraft made.

      And their computer graphics are super-quality. laughing What's in real life, it's hard for me to say.
      In December 2018, for reasons of secrecy, Northrop Grumman refused to give information if the prototype was ready and was it flying? They only unambiguously confirmed that all project tests were completed successfully. The same Northrop Grumman on March 9, 2020 reports that the assembly of the first test specimen has begun. On August 13, 2020, RSO chief Randel Woran announces that parts are being delivered and are being assembled, the level of completion is high, "the plane already looks like an airplane"! Despite the pandemic production / it is not clear what he meant / is in full swing! Let me explain - "prototype" and "test specimen" in this case, different things! Six months have passed since August 2020! Probably, there is also a copy completely assembled, preparing for real tests. Hope to find out more details soon. hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 28 January 2021 14: 13
    0
    It's even surprising that Lockheed was able to drive away from such a "fat" order))))
  • trahterist
    trahterist April 14 2021 15: 31
    0
    Quote: AC130 Ganship
    Again, a remotorized Mig25 with improved radar? Now is not the 60s. No country in the world builds pure interceptors. Those who count money. B21 will be subsonic according to TK

    And this one from the article is the same "remotorized" flying log B-2.
    Did the B-2 fight a lot there?