Quantity and Price: B-21 Raider Bomber Production Plans

34
Quantity and Price: B-21 Raider Bomber Production Plans
Early concept of the future B-21


A few weeks ago, the first flight of the experienced long-range bomber B-21 Raider developed by Northrop Grumman took place in the United States. The next few years will be spent on flight testing and fine-tuning the design, after which mass production of new aircraft will begin. In this regard, the issue of the size and cost of the series, as well as the costs of operating the future fleet of bombers, is already becoming relevant.



First projects


The current B-21 project was preceded by several research programs, during which the Pentagon and its contractors tried to determine the optimal appearance of a promising bomber, the most favorable timing for its development, etc. As this direction developed, views on the required quantity and acceptable cost of equipment also changed.

In the late nineties, the US Air Force put forward the 2037 Bomber plan, which explored the possibility of updating the bomber fleet in the distant future. In this document, the main attention was paid to the development of the design of equipment and the tactics of its use, while issues of quantity and cost faded into the background. At that time, it was believed that the replacement of existing aircraft with promising ones could be carried out in a one-to-one ratio. The cost of such re-equipment, due to the lack of even a preliminary design, could not be estimated.

The 2037 Bomber plan has been criticized by Congress, largely because of its proposed implementation timeline. The Pentagon was recommended to develop a similar plan, but designed for a less distant future. As a result, at the beginning of the 2018s, the XNUMX Bomber or Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) initiative appeared, in which the rearmament of bomber units was shifted to the left by two decades.


Ready prototype "Raider"

The military department and industry again worked out organizational and technical issues, but consideration of financial and other aspects was again postponed to the future. This or that work on NGB continued until the end of the XNUMXs and gave a certain result. However, long before the requirements were approved and full development was launched, the program was closed. This time, disputes about the prospects for the development of drumming led to this result. aviation as a whole.

Real calculations


The debate ended with the victory of supporters of preserving long-range aviation in its traditional form, and the Air Force was able to continue its research. In 2011, they announced the launch of the next program called Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), in which they planned to use the experience of two previous studies. By the middle of the decade, they were going to complete the research stage and move on to designing a new aircraft. It was supposed to be tested in the twenties, and by the middle of the decade mass production could begin.

Already in the early stages of the LRS-B program, it was possible to move beyond general tactical concepts and work out the issue of the required amount of equipment, as well as its cost. Ideally, the Pentagon planned to order 175 new bombers. They wanted to distribute 120 vehicles between combat units and subunits, and the rest were to become training vehicles or go into reserve. The total cost of the construction program was estimated at $50 billion in 2010 prices.

Subsequently, however, the estimated cost of the aircraft increased, which caused the disapproval of congressmen. But soon the military department and Congress came to a common opinion about the cost of the equipment. The maximum price for a production aircraft was set at $550 million in 2010 (more than $770 million at current prices). Subsequently, despite all the changes in plans, the marginal cost did not change.


As it developed, the project became more complex and expensive, but the Pentagon could not count on increasing the acceptable price of the equipment. In this regard, already in 2013-14. serial construction plans were reduced to 80-100 aircraft. The Air Force command indicated that this size of the fleet does not reflect all the needs of long-range aviation and is associated only with the financial capabilities of the Pentagon.

In parallel with technical and financial issues, rearmament plans were worked out. It was decided that with the help of new LRS-Bs, at the first stage, they would complement the existing B-2A bombers and replace part of the existing B-1B fleet. In the future, they will completely replace the obsolete B-1Bs by that time, and a gradual re-equipment of units currently using B-52H aircraft will also begin. Later, these plans were repeatedly refined and adjusted, but did not fundamentally change.

Costs for "Raider"


In October 2015, the Pentagon completed the competitive portion of the LRS-B program and selected the winner. Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract to complete the design, construction and testing of a prototype aircraft and prepare a serial production line. In addition, this document stipulates the release of the first production batch of unspecified sizes. The total cost of all this work is determined at $21,4 billion.

During this period, representatives of the Pentagon and Congress regularly mentioned the need to build hundreds of new aircraft. The maximum cost of one aircraft remained at the same level, and there were no plans to revise it. Accordingly, the construction of the entire series, not counting development and maintenance costs, should have cost the taxpayer $55 billion in 2010 - significantly more than was indicated in the early stages of development of LRS-B.


B-21 in the hangar of the combat unit - still drawn

In 2016, the Air Force refused to further publish information about the serial production of aircraft, because. letting such information fall into the hands of potential adversaries poses a threat to US national security. However, selected information is published from time to time. Thus, last year it was reported that plans for the construction of at least a hundred bombers were being maintained. The cost of each of them in current prices should be at the level of $700 million.

The existing contract for $21,4 billion stipulates the production of only the first production batch of Raiders. Judging by the cost, no more than a quarter or a third of the required number of bombers will be built. At the same time, the timing of the completion of such an order, as well as the emergence and execution of new contracts, are not disclosed for reasons of secrecy.

Recent reports may suggest that aircraft built under existing or pending contracts will be incomplete and have limited capabilities. In particular, it was mentioned that in the future, separate projects for the integration of certain weapons will be carried out. Whether the costs for these are included in the overall B-21 program plan is unknown. However, they are unlikely to stand out against the background of the total cost of construction and operation.

Strategic Savings


In the past, the development of strategic aviation of the US Air Force was faced with the problem of rising costs of aircraft. The project for the promising B-2A stealth bomber cost the Pentagon approximately $45 billion in 1997 prices—about $84 billion at current exchange rates. Due to excessive costs, only 21 aircraft were built, each of which, taking into account development costs, cost more than $2,1 billion (more than $4 billion in 2023 prices)


The financially unsuccessful B-2A program forced the Pentagon to reconsider plans for the development of long-range aviation, taking into account existing capabilities. In particular, it was necessary to extend the service life of not the newest B-52Hs, plan new programs for their repair and modernization, etc. In addition, already in the late nineties, shortly after the completion of the B-2A series, development of the 2037 Bomber program began.

One of the goals of all new projects, starting with the 2037 Bomber, was to reduce the cost of an individual aircraft and the construction program as a whole. Reportedly, in the current project LRS-B / B-21, which was successfully brought to the construction and testing of a prototype, these problems were successfully solved. Full financial details have not been reported in recent years, but overall the situation is said to remain optimistic.

According to available information, the price of one B-21 Raider will be in the range of $700-770 million. Such an aircraft will be approximately five times cheaper than the older B-2A with the same or higher technical, combat and operational characteristics. In total, it is planned to build at least a hundred new bombers, which will cost about 75-77 billion dollars - also less than what was spent on the previous generation aircraft.

Wishes and opportunities


Thus, the B-21 project is of particular importance to the US Air Force and strategic forces in general. It should ensure the full re-equipment of long-range aviation, which has not been carried out for several decades. Moreover, such processes will have a much larger scale than in the nineties. At the same time, the Pentagon plans to achieve all the desired results without an unacceptable increase in costs.

It is unknown whether all current plans will be implemented. Perhaps the optimism of the US Air Force is justified, and the construction of hundreds of bombers at $700-770 million each is realistic. However, another scenario is also possible, in which prices will rise again, and the Pentagon will have to reduce the size of the series or obtain additional funding. How events will develop will become known later. Construction of production B-21s will begin only in a few years and will continue until the next decade inclusive.
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    12 December 2023 05: 20
    What difference does it make to us how many digital dollars the striped ones will spend on this project? More interested in when our PAK DA will take off.
    1. +1
      12 December 2023 22: 37
      Yes, they will print as much as they need. It is precisely because independent powers are ready to abandon the dollar that they are panicking. The fewer dollars in international payments, the fewer bombers
  2. -11
    12 December 2023 06: 16
    The B-21 Ryder is no different from the B-52 in its flight and technical characteristics. Except perhaps for its stealth and then unproven and futuristic appearance. It’s clear that you want to replace the old ones with something more advanced and modern, and at the same time save money and support your aircraft industry. If you have nowhere to put your money and show off, then go ahead. These are US concerns.
    But do we need such an aircraft to replace the TU-95 with the same flight characteristics? With supposed stealth? And how many of them can we build at a comparable price to the Americans?
    It is not better to continue the construction of the TU-160 up to 100-150 units; its range is 50% higher and the speed is twice that of the B-21. Or deeply modernize the TU-22M3, increasing the range to 10-12 thousand kilometers
    As a last resort, you can build a prototype or a flying model for a more detailed examination of such a design as the B-21.
    Will our PAK DA not be dragged into a financial hole like the SUPERJET-100? soldier
    1. +10
      12 December 2023 08: 27
      The math is very simple. In the USA, the Ryder costs approximately 700-770 billion dollars. F-15EX - about 95 million dollars. It turns out somewhere around 7,5-8 4++ fighters per stratobomber
      Tu-160M ​​was bought from us for 15 billion rubles, and Su-35 - about 1,5 billion rubles. That is, over 10 fighters per strategist.
      Ours is more expensive.
      Quote: V.
      Will our PAK DA be dragged into a financial hole?

      The PAK DA is significantly smaller than the Tu-160M ​​(maximum take-off 145 tons versus 275 tons), it does not require such powerful engines, but its flight range is longer, and the combat load, although less, is 35 versus 45 tons, but it is quite enough for the Kyrgyz Republic. PAK DA may well turn out to be cheaper than the Tu-160M
      1. +4
        12 December 2023 09: 07
        Hi Andrew! I completely agree with your calculations. But as they say, the devil is in the details. We need to understand what kind of country we live in, what kind of system we have, and how we cope with similar projects, such as the Superjet and MS-21, or, for example, replacing the AN-2 or AN-24. And what problems do we have with aircraft engines of any class? What engines will be installed on the PAK DA? Are two engines from the TU-160 enough for the flight characteristics of the PAK DA, I don’t see any others.
        Another question for me is why Russian aviation science and the design school did not work on or produce a single working flying wing project? Although the Americans, if I’m not mistaken, were constantly engaged in it after WWII. We are not dumber than them, as I understand it.
        There is a TU-160, it has been tested, everything for its construction is there and it is being built, there are crews with extensive experience in its use. It is capable of modernization and will remain modern for at least another 50 years.
        I personally will be very happy if they make the PAK DA in a reasonable time with calculated performance characteristics, at a price that will not leave us without pants, and it will occupy its niche in Russian military aviation. Thank you for your attention to my comments. soldier
        1. -1
          12 December 2023 10: 05
          Yes, because Russian science has not produced a single flying wing, because they were not needed, and they are not needed now, but fashion is a force, where would it be without it. They made the Su57, but it’s practically not needed, but at least they found some sense so as not to rivet it, like in the USA.
          1. +1
            12 December 2023 23: 22
            Sergeev, tell the Il-96 pilots about the wing, they will laugh, well, from the bottom of their hearts, then tell the Tu-204 pilots, they will laugh too. Maybe we are not the first in terms of engines, but in terms of wings - well, I’ll laugh too. Read the literature on the topic, and then make your own comments, stupid ones.
          2. 0
            23 March 2024 12: 44
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            flying wing... but fashion is power

            What fashion is fashion, what are you talking about? This scheme is a consequence of the concept of the primacy of stealth over everything else in performance characteristics. If the stealth bomber were made by the Martians, they would get exactly the same flying wing.
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            They made the Su57, but it’s practically not needed

            It didn’t occur to me that it wasn’t needed precisely because it was initially sub-stealth, and it stupidly makes no difference on what don't fly behind the front line, on a Su-35 or Su-57? And if you can’t see the difference, then why pay more?
        2. +6
          12 December 2023 10: 15
          Good morning to you too!
          Quote: V.
          What engines will be installed on the PAK DA? Are two engines from the TU-160 enough for the flight characteristics of the PAK DA, I don’t see any others.

          I took a quick look - you are right, this is a “Russian product”, it seems to be made on the basis of the Tu-160 engine, at least using its technologies, but fewer such engines will be needed on the PAK DA than on the Tu-160. Bench tests seem to have passed, now additional workshops are being built for their production
          Quote: V.
          Another question for me is why Russian aviation science and the design school did not work on or produce a single working flying wing project?

          The concept was completely different. The Americans wanted their stratobombers to break through air defenses personally and bomb. And we wanted to break through the air defense with cruise missiles, so the task of our strategists is to quickly reach the line of attack.
          PAK YES is a combination of two strategies. It is subsonic and can remain on duty in the air for a long time, unobtrusive, so it is almost impossible to find it in the launch area, and the X-BD with a range of 6,5 thousand km does not require it to climb with a bare heel on a bare saber.
          Quote: V.
          Thank you for your attention to my comments.

          And thank you for the pleasant conversation, I’m always glad! hi
          1. +2
            12 December 2023 11: 24
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            this is a “product of the Russian Federation”, it seems to be made on the basis of the Tu-160 engine, at least using its technologies,

            Are you talking about NK-23D?
            There is a gas generator from the NK-32M, but a high bypass ratio. So the maximum thrust is almost equal to the thrust of the NK-32M in afterburner, but with much lower fuel consumption. If the resource turns out okay, they were also planned for the remotorization of the Ruslans.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The PAK DA will need fewer such engines than the Tu-160.

            No, there will be only two such engines on the PAK DA, with a thrust of 23-24 t.p. , this is quite enough for him. With its take-off weight - slightly more than that of the Tu-22M3, but with a much larger wing area. . . it is essentially a wing.
            And the price of the Tu-160M ​​is about 250 million dollars. and for now it’s better to count in them, because in rubles you won’t be able to keep up with inflation.
            It is unlikely that it will be possible to build a lot of Tu-160Ms - they are going hard, although they planned 2-3 units each. per year, so the planned 50 are unlikely to be built, or we need to change approaches and invest in the industry... and not in our pockets.
            1. +4
              12 December 2023 14: 53
              Thanks for the information!
              Quote: bayard
              No, there will be only two such engines on PAK DA

              That's how I write
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The PAK DA will need fewer such engines than the Tu-160.

              And the Tu-160 has 4 NK-32 engines hi
              Quote: bayard
              And the price of the Tu-160M ​​is about 250 million dollars. and for now it’s better to count in them, because in rubles you won’t be able to keep up with inflation.

              Yes, the point here was not to correctly determine the price at the current moment, but to express it in fighters :))))
              It is pointless to compare the purchase prices of the US and Russian Defense Ministry head-on without converting them into PPP, but if we assume that the Su-35 and F-15EX are approximately equivalent in terms of technical level and production costs (that is, if we were to make an aircraft like the American F- 15EX, then it would be about the price of a Su-35), then...
              The Tu-160M ​​is longer in parrots! laughing
              1. 0
                13 December 2023 00: 00
                The cost of the Su-35S for the Russian Armed Forces is $35 million.
                The cost of the Tu-160M ​​is 250 million dollars.
                By the way, next year they promise to present the Su-35SM with an AFAR radar and avionics elements from the Su-57. In the series.
                1. 0
                  13 December 2023 08: 24
                  But here I beg to differ.
                  Quote: bayard
                  The cost of the Su-35S for the Russian Armed Forces is $35 million.

                  Su-35 in 2015 - 2020 were purchased in the range of 1,46 billion rubles, which at the exchange rates of those years amounted to 20-24 million dollars.
                  1. 0
                    14 December 2023 09: 43
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Su-35 in 2015 - 2020 were purchased in the range of 1,46 billion rubles, which at the exchange rates of those years amounted to 20-24 million dollars.

                    Perhaps this is the price for 2015-2016. I looked at this price when the first price for the Su-57 was announced - $37 million. The comparative price of the Su-35S was also given there - 35 million dollars. , Su-30SM - 30 million dollars. , as well as Su-34 - 28 million dollars. Since then this price has stuck with me. Apparently this was the case at that time (at the current exchange rate). But then I realized that for such a set price the construction of the Su-57 would be sabotaged (the price tag of a completely new and unlike more complex aircraft cannot be only 3 million dollars more expensive than the next modification of the Su-27). And so it happened. But apparently the price was revised, and something was given for the development of the enterprise... with the beginning of the SVO.
                    By the way, at the same time, the MiG-35S (with AFAR) proposed for purchase was offered at a price of about 30 million dollars. This was, of course, the starting price for the first batch, but then the Defense Ministry became infuriated - “A medium MiG-35S for the price of a heavy Su-30SM ??!” And the fact that it has an AFAR radar and avionics unlike the Su-30SM, due to their extreme “professionalism”, they did not notice. As a result, a “test batch” of six MiG-35S was purchased with ... an old slotted radar, in order to make it cheaper.
                    Now we have to integrate the new AFAR radar and carry out tests on the new one.
                    All prices quoted are in dollars. were taken at the same time, including the price of the Tu-160M ​​- 250 million dollars. So I put it aside in my memory. And tracking current prices in rubles... is much more difficult.
                    1. 0
                      14 December 2023 10: 20
                      Quote: bayard
                      Perhaps this is the price for 2015-2016.

                      The last time they announced 70 billion for a batch of supposedly 48 Su-25S, and this was in 2020. But there are slight doubts about the size of the batch
                      Quote: bayard
                      I looked at this price when the first price for the Su-57 was announced - $37 million.

                      The first price for the Su-57 was 2,3 billion
                      1. 0
                        14 December 2023 11: 04
                        I don’t remember in rubles, but in terms of dollars it was definitely 37 million, and it was immediately considered unrealistic. There were many publications and discussions about this, incl. and on VO.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The first price for the Su-57 was 2,3 billion

                        And the price of the Su-35S was called “about 2 billion rubles.” , so as for the ratio of the original price, this is approximately the case. But the purchase price for the Su-57 was most likely revised. Or they paid for the expansion of production, the purchase of equipment, and personnel training as a separate item. Because there were many scandals with the then eccentricities of the Ministry of Defense and the Supreme High Command (“we already have enough airplanes, switch to civilian products” - said at the same Komsomolsk plant); the result was almost the curtailment of production and the closure of the Su-34 procurement program.
                        And the cost of purchasing the Su-35S in the second series could have been reduced somewhat due to the series extension.
                      2. 0
                        14 December 2023 12: 44
                        Quote: bayard
                        And the price of the Su-35S was called “about 2 billion rubles.”

                        No:)))))
                        The price of “about 2 billion rubles” arose from information in the media about a contract for 50 Su-35S for 100 billion rubles. But this contract was not concluded, but a contract for 50 Su "worth more than 60 billion rubles" was concluded - literally.
                        According to some reports, it was about 65 billion rubles. And then - a contract for which the exact price is known (70 billion), but there are some doubts about the quantity - presumably 48 aircraft.
                      3. 0
                        14 December 2023 13: 37
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The last time they announced 70 billion for a batch of supposedly 48 Su-35S, and this was in 2020.

                        This was already the second batch, the first batch was 50 pcs. , second 48 pcs. , then another additional order. In the first batch, as a rule, the developer recovers his costs for development and preparation for the series, laying down the distributed amount of costs between the products of the first series. Therefore, the second series could be cheaper, which is why there could be price revisions during the negotiation process.
                        And the way MO twists its hands with the price is already the talk of the town. How did it happen with the price of the IL-76MD-90A when they refused to take inflation into account and because of this production did not proceed... What did they do with the Pella, and to this day there are lawsuits. As it turned out, it’s the same story with payment for frigates pr. 22350, but this time the Moscow Region lost the trial, and more trials are coming. Everything is as it should have been when a “state like under Nikola-2” is being built... As if they didn’t come to the same end.
                      4. 0
                        14 December 2023 14: 37
                        Quote: bayard
                        This was already the second batch, the first batch was 50 pcs.

                        Not:))))
                        The first batch is actually 2009, if my sclerosis is not lying to me. And its cost was 66 billion rubles.
                        Quote: bayard
                        Therefore, the second series could be cheaper, which is why there could be price revisions during the negotiation process.

                        And it was there - it’s just that, on the one hand, prices decreased for the reasons you voiced, and on the other, they increased due to inflation
                        Quote: bayard
                        And the way MO twists its hands with the price is already the talk of the town

                        This is for sure, I know it firsthand
          2. +4
            12 December 2023 11: 28
            Thank you guys for your debate, this is exactly the case when there is more information in the comments than in the article itself!
            1. +2
              12 December 2023 14: 53
              You're always welcome, Vladislav! hi
          3. +2
            12 December 2023 14: 33
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I took a quick look - you are right, this is a “product of the Russian Federation”, it seems to be made on the basis of the Tu-160 engine, at least using its technologies
            God forbid! It needs economical subsonic engines; supersonic ones will burn fuel in vain (the plane is clearly subsonic).
            1. +3
              12 December 2023 14: 48
              Quote: bk0010
              This requires economical subsonic engines.

              There are no problems here
              Quote: bayard
              There is a gas generator from the NK-32M, but a high bypass ratio. So the maximum thrust is almost equal to the thrust of the NK-32M in afterburner, but with much lower fuel consumption
        3. +1
          12 December 2023 18: 48
          It is capable of modernization and will remain modern for at least another 50 years.

          The Americans considered such an aircraft, the B-1A, to be obsolete at the time of its creation and immediately abandoned it. The Tu-160 is an almost complete functional copy of the B-1A, which the Americans abandoned.
          1. +2
            12 December 2023 21: 09
            Quote from solar

            The Americans considered such an aircraft, the B-1A, to be obsolete at the time of its creation and immediately abandoned it.
            Or they couldn’t finish it so that it could fly normally at supersonic speed. And they mutilated it, creating on its basis a transonic bomber with the engines of a supersonic bomber and a wing sweep control mechanism. Then the refueling equipment was removed from him and he was removed from the strategic aviation under some kind of agreement. But this did not help them too much: during a low-altitude breakthrough, the aircraft body experiences high overloads, which has led to the fact that the B-1B’s service life is now exhausted. But they didn’t complete the electronic warfare system in the B-1B either.
            1. +1
              13 December 2023 01: 26
              Nobody was going to finish the B-1A; after the work was completed, it became obvious that air defense capabilities were growing rapidly and this was a dead end. Therefore, it was redesigned into the B-1B, reducing visibility and increasing stability and controllability in flight at ultra-low altitudes, according to the concept of a low-altitude air defense breakthrough through flight at ultra-low altitudes while skirting the terrain. The supersonic was left, reduced to 1,25 M; for a low-altitude breakthrough, more is not needed, while the air intakes were simplified. There were many more changes.
              The aircraft was equipped with a new F101-GE-102 engine with a maximum thrust of 7718 kgf and 13974 kgf in afterburner. It was specially designed as “low smoke”, and due to its high bypass ratio it also had weak IR radiation. The air intake acquired a curved "E"-shape to reduce radar signature.

              As for electronic warfare, it has been modernized many times and has shown high efficiency in Iraq. And their resources are in order - they remain in service at least until 2038, the Americans made it not a strategic, but a multi-purpose aircraft.
          2. +2
            13 December 2023 00: 20
            Quote from solar
            The Tu-160 is an almost complete functional copy of the B-1A, which the Americans abandoned.

            Each of us solved our problem at the same time. But these are not analogous in functionality. The B-1A, like the A-1B, were initially carriers of aeroballistic missiles with nuclear warheads with a range of 400 - 500 km. The Tu-160 was originally a multi-mode supersonic strategic bomber, a carrier of the missile launcher. That is, if the B-1A and B-1B were supposed to break through our air defense and suppress it when breaking through with their missiles, then the Tu-160 was supposed to strike without entering the enemy’s air defense zone KR BD. And it was precisely for this purpose that the range of its missile launcher was constantly increased. X-55 (range up to 3500 km), X-101 (range up to 5500 km). But the Tu-160 weapons compartments were made with a reserve of length and volume for longer-range missiles - up to 10 km. range and work was carried out on them. So the new missile system has a range of 000 km. - today's result of those works.
            As you can see, these are not “functional doubles” at all, and the Tu-160 is completely unnecessary to fly on small and primary aircraft.
            In addition, the Tu-160 has a much greater range and payload.
            The B-1B has the range stated in all reference books only with an additional tank for 10 tons of kerosene in one of the two weapons compartments. Without this tank, its range is approximately the same as that of the Tu-16.
            1. +1
              13 December 2023 01: 50
              Quite the contrary - this is a B-1B multi-purpose aircraft with a very wide range of applications, including the use of weapons based on data from its own guidance systems with high accuracy, and the Tu-160 is an aircraft with a very narrow niche of application - a carrier of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, so it Now they are trying to expand the scope of the aircraft by upgrading it to the Tu-160M.
              As for fuel, then
              The fuel system consists of eight tanks (five fuselage and three wing) with a total capacity 112635 l. Fueling is centralized through two units on the right engine nacelle. Fuel on the aircraft is used as a coolant to cool the electronic equipment. It is possible to suspend in each bomb bay one additional tank with a capacity to xnumx l. In the front bomb bay you can install a shortened fuel tank on 4864 l together with a revolver launcher for cruise missiles.

              Installing an additional tank will change the fuel supply by only 10 percent, which does not fundamentally change the range. it has a long range and without an additional tank..
              1. 0
                13 December 2023 03: 52
                A professional is always better than a generalist.
                Ours is definitely better.
                If it carries missiles with a range of 5500 and 7500 km. , it will never be used to use free-fall bombs. For this, we have the Tu-22M3, which is definitely a universal one - it can carry heavy anti-ship missiles, and Kh-50 missile launchers (up to 10 pieces) and free-fall bombs, and GZUR, and UPAB with UMPC. You can match him in versatility.
  3. -2
    12 December 2023 10: 02
    Knowing the Americans, each will cost a billion and a half and these miracles will stand in hangars all their lives. For 1 such miracle you can build 30 thousand UAVs, and this does not take into account the costs of maintenance and constant repairs. Americans know how to cut the budget.
  4. +2
    12 December 2023 10: 20
    According to available information, the price of one B-21 Raider will be in the range of $700-770 million. Such an aircraft will be approximately five times cheaper than the older B-2A

    Interesting juggling with numbers.
    On the one hand, the cost of the B-2A is the cost of production + R&D.
    On the other hand, for the B-21 they write the production price (and then with reservations such as incomplete configuration). But at the same time, we have not yet decided on the number of aircraft produced, and until we know the quantity, we cannot determine the share of R&D per aircraft. Again, the experience of implementing the F35 suggests that it will still be finished before being put into operation, and there will also be costs.
  5. +5
    12 December 2023 14: 52
    Are citizens of the Russian Federation writing here? Americans don’t care as much about the US budget as they do on this site))
  6. 0
    4 February 2024 12: 55
    Vůbec bych se nedivil, kdyby se u B-21 v praxi objevily pravděpodobné problem jako u F-22 nebo F-35. Především přehřívání motoru, nemožnost používat supercruise (nebo jen krátce) - tedy časově neomezený let s forsáží, celková vysoká poruchovost, možnost jen pomalého nabírání v ýšky, poruchy v programovém vybavení (u F-35 bylo původně zjištěno dvěstědvacet tisíc závad - převážně v softvéru a mnohé nejsou odstraněny dosud. U F-35 je také nedostatečně silný palubní generátor elektrické energie a nedokáže vystoupat do letové hladiny, která by byla potřeba. F-35 má jen asi 30% letounů plnou operač ní způsobilost a USA mají chronický nedostatek pilotů. USA tedy zavedou letoun 6. generace, ale dosud nemají žádný letoun 5. generace. Takové jsou poruchové a někdy s nedokonalými vlastnostmi.
    1. 0
      23 March 2024 13: 15
      The F-22 and F-35 were built by Lockheed Martin, and the B-2 and B-21 by Northrop Grumman. Therefore, it is incorrect to transfer the chronic problems of the F-22 and F-35 to products of a completely different developer. As far as I know, the main complaints about the B-2 are the corporation’s cunning pricing policy, when the price of the aircraft is initially greatly reduced in order to meet the customer’s expectations and receive a firm order, and then the customer is faced with the fact of an “uncontrollable increase in price”, he has nowhere to go, and he is forced to pay a real price. We can safely assume that the B-21 will not keep the price of $700-770 million.