B-21 Raider vs B-2 Spirit | Military Comparison 2022

More features of the B-21 Raider is yet to be revealed. The upcoming B-21 Raider and the B-2 Spirit share a family resemblance; nonetheless, there will be significant differences between the two bombers in terms of size, and probably the number of engines and payload as well. Importantly, the B-21 will also be significantly more advanced than its older stablemate in terms of low-observable technology, which will put it at least two generations ahead of its predecessor.

[mugshotmarley]

One big thing I noticed was that the B21 is a lot cheaper than the B2. Maybe cheaper/easier maintenance and cheaper costs per hour flight time, which initself is a huge thing. Similar stealth capabilities, similar payload yet more efficient and cheaper running. Im all for it.

[willytrouble]

The primary capability here is not evident in the pics: Stealth. The B-2 is no longer as stealthy as it used to be, primarily due to advances in adversary radar technology. The B-21 effectively counters those advances, in a smaller, lower cost platform. Maintenance costs on the B-2 are astronomical.

[milkycatmeowmeow]

i read that they will officially introduce it in december

[apolloaero]

Out of curiosity, where did y'all get the info on size and cruising speed

[Nicklmyw]

Stealth is the first thing that comes in mind when terms of aircraft capability.

[nigeljohn]

All that payload cannot be carried, .. all at the same time!

[matthewspencer]

Stealth aircraft always address what the maker thinks is the potential enemy's most important sensor capability. In the nineteen-twenties, about the only early-warning systems that there were, were sound locators; and this technology had advanced quite a long way, really, during WW1, for the location of enemy gun batteries as much as aircraft. Westland's experimental "flying wing" aircraft of that period was indeed stealthy in the sense of being lighter than an observation aircraft might otherwise have been (allowing the engine to be running at less than full throttle while it was observing things) and having a pusher propeller, to put more of the noise footprint behind it than in front. (No point in observing enemy troops who had heard you coming and hidden themselves.)

In the nineteen forties, although the main sensors were nearly all various sorts of radar, the Germans thought, from a paper published by someone at Farnborough in the thirties, that "far-infrared" might be something the British had mastered (rather than tinkered with for a while, as was the case) and so they started to develop paint that camouflaged U-boats in the far-infrared spectrum. The German flying wing bomber was also pretty smooth and that's the main thing you have to achieve to reduce the far-infrared signature of a fast-moving aircraft, as turbulence creates a faint "glow" in that spectrum. This in turn cause the British to realise, after WW2, that their discovery in the thirties actually had a use.

The Vulcan bomber was actually pretty stealthy to a lot of longer-range radar as it approached (and also _very_ quiet, acoustically, as it approached, but the noise after it passed was like nothing else on earth!) Nobody has ever published any data describing the impact the Victor bomber's advanced and unusual aerodynamics may have had on its far-infrared signature, but the tanker version of the Victor had so many little air-scoops sticking out to power pumps and things that the intention may even have been to _increase_ this signature so that fighters could find it to refuel?

The B21 looks, to me, as if a lower far -infrared signature than the B2 might have been a design goal: I think the air intakes would make less turbulence than those on the B2 and there is a bit less wing-area towards the tips, where the airflow would be fastest. Both these features will reduce the radar signature as well. I think a lot of the design rules for reducing the far-infrared signature will also help the aircraft avoid lighting up the screens of any passive millimetre-wave imaging devices by creating its own source, but mostly these work by seeing the reflections from the target of millimetre-wave radiation coming from stars in the sky.

The B21 payload is about the size of the Victor's; range is greater but then they are going to be based much further away from the likely targets. The Victor had a much bigger payload than the Valiant and Vulcan (when it was carrying the same range of nuclear weapons) probably to allow the carriage of TWO TV-guided versions of the conventional Tallboy earthquake bomb used in WW2 to destroy very hardened targets. It is actually possible that {minor edit} a direct hit from a "conventional" Tallboy would have done more damage to a very hardened target than the probable near-miss that could have been achieved with the nuclear bombs of the time. The USAF has a 5, 000lb conventional bunker buster bomb that might handle the same sort of target as a 12, 000 Tallboy by penetrating further but making less bang. (It would be less good against very big, hardened targets such as submarine shelters.)

Although obviously capable of nuclear strike, I think the B21 also offers the option of disabling the enemy's long-range nuclear strike capability without actually using nuclear weapons to do so: six bunker busters for the silo-based Satan-2 missiles or very many small-diameter bombs for mobile land-based ICBMs as employed by China as well as Russia.

[raginggamer]

Anyone else law think the UAP seen in last couple years was this exact plane? Looks awfully close

[MrKen-mcbu]

How is it possible for the B-2 and B-21 to do 'ground attack and strafing?' (At 2:05) What a load of bullshit.

[carlsaganlives]

I thought the magnificent, cheap, trouble-free Osprey was the only aircraft we would ever need. Is Harbor Freight still supplying parts at a reasonable 1200℅ mark-up?

[americanrambler]

I hope there is a whole lot more capability incorporated into the B-21 vs the B-2. Otherwise, is just a slightly updated new build of the B-2. That in itself would not necessarily be a bad thing, because we never had the needed numbers of the B-2, but the down side is now the bad guys are starting to produce their new B-2 style stealth bombers as well, and they will produce them in fairly large numbers.

Additionally, I hope the B-21 will have a much improved active defense capability other than just being hard to spot on radars and other detection sensors. Otherwise, it would be cheaper to scarf up all those 747’s heading to the bone yards and convert them to bomb and missile arsenal bomber/attack platforms. They fly as fast, just about as high, and can carry 3 times the payload just as far as the B-2.

There needs to be something special about the B-21 in order to make it a worth while asset to produce.

[michaelmacrae]

ii am surprised they would reveal such detailed information about these airplanes .

[dice]

theres so much we dont know about the b21 raider, all i know is that its cheaper more stealthy and were gonna have alot more of them very soon

[Maisonier]

Imagine using all that money for education, health and science ...

[johnlimeiii]

So, under Role for both aircraft they list strafing. Show me the gun(s) used for this. This attack method was never intended for either aircraft. No way Uncle Sugars pilots are going to be flying one of either platform close enough to the ground to strafe a target. Ever.

[singrider]

I can see the payload of b21 is 75% of B2 but the price is 1/4 of B2 after 20 years of inflation, so what has been removed to make that happen?

[Ngaihawma]

How did you even get all these information on the B21. I thought it was heavily classified

[bill]

why the stats of b21 seems lose to b2 in many sections ?

[johnpennington]

Why would you want a smaller slower plane?

[Jim-wb]

This B-21 Raider can go into Space but it need work a rear door exit designed is needed with both vertical TAKEOFF and LANDING (VTOL) and short takeoff