You’d almost have to have the capability for autonomous operations in case the ground crew or its comms were obliterated or jammed–which in a nuclear scenario goes from “maybe” to “probably” as a probability.
I would assume they wouldn’t fly them remotely with nukes on board, more for the bombing civilians halfway around the world kind of thing.
But, you know.
Indeed. I hesitate to assume anything these days really. And it makes more sense in some ways to use no human in the loop backups for strategic nuclear war, because, let’s face it, it’s not like there are going to be many people left to complain if things go wrong.
RichVR
2919
I’m going to go out o a limb here and say, the odds of one of these expensive aircraft being flown remotely is like, 0.0000001.
Houngan
2920
So anyway, it seems like a basic upgrade of the Spirit, not a completely new frame, which makes sense for cost savings. Physics hasn’t changed much or at all in the macro level since the B1, probably an entirely new suite of electronics, mechanicals, etc. and an updated coating, but otherwise I doubt they found a new gross angle to use that is better for deflecting radar.
Remember the B-2 was developed in the 80s. We’re as far removed from the B-2’s rollout as the B2’s rollout was to 1955. Think of how much computers, manufacturing, and materials science has advanced in 40 years. And the only other Stealth aircraft at the time was the F-117. We have so much more knowledge and experience working with it now.
Houngan
2923
If you were responding to me, my point was that the overall gross shape hasn’t changed that much, and likely the underlying structure that supports it and the engines and whatnot haven’t either. My thought was that it might be so affordable because all that heavy lifting has been done. Now it’s the same basic chassis but built on advanced materials inside and painted with advanced materials outside, and of course fitted with even more advanced weapons and engines. The big part of the wheel didn’t have to be invented, there wasn’t a particularly novel wing angle or intake that cropped up, but now we have the current version with all the patches in place.
To be clear: The point I’m trying to make is that the physics-based aspects of the Spirit were well understood and probably close to final externally, where it matters for detection. Everything else is a better coat of unobtanium on the surface and decades of improvement in the cockpit and the magazine and the powerplant.
abrandt
2924
Certainly using matured technologies helps keep development costs down. My understanding on the shaping of this stuff is that improved computer modeling has led to big improvements in the shaping, even if those changes are hard to spot when just comparing the basic shape.
As far as the coating, I know they are testing new ones constantly that both improve stealthiness and, importantly, are cheaper and more durable. Hopefully also less toxic. But I know the skin of these planes has a whole bunch of very classified stuff going on with them too, so it’s not just the coating.
Houngan
2925
That makes sense, it’s eminently reasonable that we got to 85% in the 1980s and now we can tweak it to 97% or whatever. In my ignorant headcanon it fits, the B1-2 was the optimal gross shape we could figure out back then, and now it’s a bit better but pretty darned similar. Iterative rather than revolutionary.
Layman won’t notice the differences, but it has a sleeker silhouette than the B-2. Definitely feels more refined. The engine intakes are almost flush with the upper body now. And I get the feeling the wingspan is longer.
abrandt
2927
My brain can’t quite figure out the shape from just that single angle and it’s bugging me.
abrandt
2928
The engine intakes were certainly noticeable to me.
Houngan
2929
The ones on top? Makes sense because if you’re in this bird and someone is flying above you, you already fucked up.
Superglue came about because they were looking for a heat-resistant coating for fighter plane cockpit glass. Just saying.
Timex
2931
Anyone notice that this coincides with the YouTube fad of doing all kinds of crap with super glue? Confidence?
Also, I understand that some of the biggest learnings from the more recent stealth programs (F-22 and F-35) has been about how to have aircraft made in exotic shapes with strange materials and still be maintainable. If the maintenance cost per hour flown comes down to something more sensible, the USAF is more likely to find missions for them.
schurem
2933
Here’s my takeaway from the reveal:
It looks smaller to me than B-2. Two engines instead of four. Long slender wings, optimised for high altitude work. Probably faster, high subsonic, near transonic. Less complicated shape, the leading edge does not have the cranks and beak shape the B-2 has.
We’re probably looking at about half to two thirds the payload and 1.2 to 1.5x the range of a B-2. It’s not optimised for low altitude work like the B-2 was. There’s going to be all kinds of superb gizmos on board.
I wonder what engines it has. Off the shelf or new ones? Non afterburning version of the F-35’s mayhaps?
We’ll soon know more. A deterrent only works if the intended target knows its capability.
Or at least thinks they know! My bet is that the B-21 is really a Piper Cub in drag!
abrandt
2935
Aren’t they already looking to replace the engines they use on the F-35?
Anyway, good analysis here that points out a lot I didn’t see. I’ll miss the B-2’s beak.
