View Full Version : B-21 Raider vs. THINK Russia’s PAK DA Stealth Bomber
US Air Force will unveil its advanced new B-21 Raider stealth bomber on Dec. 2.
https://www.space.com/us-air-force-unveil-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-december-2
Russia’s PAK DA Stealth Bomber ‘Will Never Fly’, U.S. Defense Officials
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/11/russias-pak-da-stealth-bomber-will-never-fly-u-s-defense-officials/
A Senior U.S. Defense Department official speaking to 19FortyFive claimed that Russia’s planned new stealth bomber, the PAK DA, “will never fly.” A second DoD official backed up that statement, claiming that Moscow likely does not have “the resources, technological base, expertise and of course the money needed to build anything like a stealth bomber for the foreseeable future.”
While not wanting to get into specific details for a fear of revealing sources and intelligence-gathering methods, U.S. Defense Department officials clearly have serious doubts about the PAK DA, with one official being so bold to state that the bomber “looks really good in those social media posts and artist renderings I see on defense sites around the internet, however, that plane is going to stay where it is: on the drawing board.”
:lol:
Another sign that Russia isn’t as mightily as many Putin fanboys here want us to believe. They aren’t anywhere as near peer as they want us to believe.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-03-22, 10:19
How old is the B-2? And if the Chinese decide to help out? Lots of ‘old’ tech that has been around for a bit. Not saying that it will happen, and underestimating, or over estimating, the Russians has been the issue. I just don’t like it when our guys say that no one can do what we do….
For the price of one of those bombers, we could sure make a lot of long range cruise missiles. And no pilots to be shot down. Just sayin'.
SomeOtherGuy
11-03-22, 12:01
How old is the B-2? And if the Chinese decide to help out? Lots of ‘old’ tech that has been around for a bit. Not saying that it will happen, and underestimating, or over estimating, the Russians has been the issue. I just don’t like it when our guys say that no one can do what we do….
For now at least, Russia can't make decent passenger airplanes. China can't make current technology (much less state of the art western tech) jet engines, and has to buy jet engines from Russia for its latest fighters. There's plenty of reason to think that the USA and a few key allies have a lead over Russia and China by decades.
But...
For the price of one of those bombers, we could sure make a lot of long range cruise missiles. And no pilots to be shot down. Just sayin'.
And the whole west seems to be far behind in hypersonic technology also, which is bizarre given the lead we had in the 1960's. Can't tell if it's some kind of sandbagging ruse, but if news reports are reality (big IF) then not only Russia and China, but even North frickin' Korea, have a lead over us in hypersonic tech. That seems like a problem. Yes, I'm aware of the multiple catch-up missile programs right now.
I find this interesting. The new Bomber is basically dependent upon "computer networking" to find the target.
Does anyone think China has no plan to disrupt our computers in a war?
For the price of one of those bombers, we could sure make a lot of long range cruise missiles. And no pilots to be shot down. Just sayin'.
What’s interesting is that what you just said kind of summarizes a lot of Russian procurement strategy over the past century. They take alternative paths to attempt to counter the gaps they have vs The West. For example, developing and fielding lots of SAMs to reduce Western advantage in the skies. And then attempting to make up for the loss in tactical strike capability with other fires platforms.
ThirdWatcher
11-03-22, 20:49
If Russia built a stealth bomber, they’d make about three of them while the US will likely build hundreds of B21’s.
The Dumb Gun Collector
11-03-22, 21:57
This war has shown that the Russian's are so backward they can be pushed back with basic, regular old western gear like HiMars. Nothing exotic, no fancy fighters, tanks, missiles, etc. The Russians can't do basic modern war fighting for some reason. I am not worried about anything from Russia other than Antique nukes, which are always a concern.
The Chinese I feel like could pull off almost anything if they really wanted to. Although their economy is likely about 1/3 as big as advertised, it is still the second largest economy in the world. Fortunately, authoritarian communist regimes seem to be terrible at broad innovations across technical fields. They do a pretty good job of making knock offs like their space station and mars rover, but all of their stuff is clearly inferior. I think their habit of copying other people's homework has kept them from leapfrogging the west.
The Russian stealth bomber will fit right in with the SU-57 and the T-14 Armata tank.
Together they will cement Russia's position as the most advanced modern military on the face of the earth. ;) :rolleyes: :p
If Russia built a stealth bomber, they’d make about three of them while the US will likely build hundreds of B21’s.
That sort of spending (running of the printing presses) only works when you are the worlds reserve currency of choice and other countries want to buy and hold that debt.
As our interest rates rise and the cost of servicing that debt increases - Guess what happens to the number of planes we can build with 'borrowed' money?
What happens as other countries that traditionally bought / held a lot of our debt experience financial hardships at home and decide to cash in some (or a LOT) of their American dollars? (Thinking about Japan and China here)
After you finish considering all of that - Consider the percentage of those American bombers that we make entirely HERE at home in the USA. The 'parts' content and where exactly all of the various parts came from before we assembled them to make our final product... Any of those magnets or computer chips in those bombers coming from China? Could we still make those without those magnets or chips coming in from elsewhere like they do???
F-35 jet under a waiver allowing Chinese-origin alloy to go into an engine part, the Pentagon said on Saturday. In September the Pentagon stopped accepting new F-35 jets after it discovered a magnet in the stealthy fighter's engine was made with unauthorized material from China.Oct 8, 2022
I have no doubt that America 'could' gear up to source materials for and actually make everything needed for me to have my same iPhone as I have currently here in the USA. Sure, it might take a minute to dig a few mines to dig our own rare earths and build a few semiconductor plants here and there but for sure we COULD do it if needed for whatever reason. Same phone would likely cost so much more that I could never afford it. :(
Coal Dragger
11-05-22, 01:04
That sort of spending (running of the printing presses) only works when you are the worlds reserve currency of choice and other countries want to buy and hold that debt.
As our interest rates rise and the cost of servicing that debt increases - Guess what happens to the number of planes we can build with 'borrowed' money?
What happens as other countries that traditionally bought / held a lot of our debt experience financial hardships at home and decide to cash in some (or a LOT) of their American dollars? (Thinking about Japan and China here)
After you finish considering all of that - Consider the percentage of those American bombers that we make entirely HERE at home in the USA. The 'parts' content and where exactly all of the various parts came from before we assembled them to make our final product... Any of those magnets or computer chips in those bombers coming from China? Could we still make those without those magnets or chips coming in from elsewhere like they do???
I have no doubt that America 'could' gear up to source materials for and actually make everything needed for me to have my same iPhone as I have currently here in the USA. Sure, it might take a minute to dig a few mines to dig our own rare earths and build a few semiconductor plants here and there but for sure we COULD do it if needed for whatever reason. Same phone would likely cost so much more that I could never afford it. :(
I doubt the B-21 has any Chinese parts content.
For all the many faults of US .mil procurement, the .gov is very strict about sourcing all parts from domestic or allied nation production.
Diamondback
11-05-22, 02:31
And I'll et between budget cuts and cost overruns in response to mission-creep we only see 20 to 50 B-21s built.
Coal Dragger
11-05-22, 09:07
I’ll bet it’s less than that.
Diamondback
11-05-22, 09:10
Probably, I was highballing the estimate. A hard minimum is eighteen planes for one operational squadron, plus a handful for R&D flight-test and attrition reserves. IIRC the only way NMUSAF got a B-2 is that theirs is actually the non-flyable Structural Engineering Mockup...
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-05-22, 11:36
And I'll et between budget cuts and cost overruns in response to mission-creep we only see 20 to 50 B-21s built.
To me it seems like the Navy takes the cake for develop and desert.. The (c)Littoral ships, those cruisers that they can’t put enough shells in, any sub since the LA class. They also can’t seem to stop building carriers when it is pretty clear that times are changing. Sure the F22, but that was a pretty unique timing, and I’m sure the AF would have taken more if someone had ponied up some money.
On the B21, how much payload will be lost to the third bathroom for the crew…
To me it seems like the Navy takes the cake for develop and desert.. The (c)Littoral ships, those cruisers that they can’t put enough shells in, any sub since the LA class. They also can’t seem to stop building carriers when it is pretty clear that times are changing. Sure the F22, but that was a pretty unique timing, and I’m sure the AF would have taken more if someone had ponied up some money.
On the B21, how much payload will be lost to the third bathroom for the crew…
I've always been a big Navy fan. But I have to agree carriers now days are one heap big target. China has really been producing and practicing with ballistic missiles that would end an aircraft carrier. That Dongfeng 21 anti-ship missile coming in at hypersonic speed is going to be hard to stop. And when they fire them at one of our carriers they ain't going to fire just one.
I've always been a big Navy fan. But I have to agree carriers now days are one heap big target. China has really been producing and practicing with ballistic missiles that would end an aircraft carrier. That Dongfeng 21 anti-ship missile coming in at hypersonic speed is going to be hard to stop. And when they fire them at one of our carriers they ain't going to fire just one.
You have to remember at one time the Battle Ship mafia made the carrier play second fiddle and they refused to accept the time had come for them to play second fiddle. Then Pearl happened and the only assets we had in any type of shape to fight was the carrier. The navy put a lot of acquired anti ship cruise missiles into the USS America before she finally went to the bottom. But that was ten plus years ago and I’m not sure they had any hypersonic items to hit her with.
That being said, I do not think there will be a lot of B-21’s produced. They are going to be too expensive to produce a shit ton of them. I’m thinking if they get to 50 hotdog. The problem comes with attrition because they are going to loose a few due to bird strikes, pilot error and any other dumb thing you can or can not think of.
Dan
I've always been a big Navy fan. But I have to agree carriers now days are one heap big target. China has really been producing and practicing with ballistic missiles that would end an aircraft carrier. That Dongfeng 21 anti-ship missile coming in at hypersonic speed is going to be hard to stop. And when they fire them at one of our carriers they ain't going to fire just one.
Zircon has been in production for about a year as well.
That Dongfeng 21 anti-ship missile coming in at hypersonic speed is going to be hard to stop. And when they fire them at one of our carriers they ain't going to fire just one.
If Chinamart unilaterally fires hypersonics at one of our carriers, they’ll regret it. But honestly any situation where such an act is being considered, we will probably be trading cans of sunshine long before that.
Coal Dragger
11-05-22, 19:26
Aircraft carriers are just big noisy torpedo and missile sponges against a competent and reasonably capable opponent with missiles and decent submarines.
Plus you don’t have to sink the carrier, you just need to damage it enough to mission kill it.
After the Zumwalt debacle and failure of littoral combat ships, plus the idiotic Ford class development and launch, all the top brass in the Navy should be relieved and cashiered out. They’re wildly incompetent morons who are incapable of winning a war at sea.
ThirdWatcher
11-07-22, 05:30
The World is gearing up for WW3. We should build an export version of the B21, Australia wants to buy them. That would bring the cost down and maybe we could afford more. Instead of building more carriers, we should be building more submarines, that’s what the rest of the World is doing.
The World is gearing up for WW3. We should build an export version of the B21, Australia wants to buy them. That would bring the cost down and maybe we could afford more. Instead of building more carriers, we should be building more submarines, that’s what the rest of the World is doing.
I like the idea of smaller diesel electric subs. I remember the war games when the Swedish Gotland submarine snuck up on the USS Reagan aircraft carrier despite all the picket ships, and got within easy torpedo firing range. I hope we learned something from that.
The World is gearing up for WW3. We should build an export version of the B21, Australia wants to buy them. That would bring the cost down and maybe we could afford more. Instead of building more carriers, we should be building more submarines, that’s what the rest of the World is doing.
Australia, Japan and Britain should be allowed to buy into the program including nuclear cruise missiles.
Australia, Japan and Britain should be allowed to buy into the program including nuclear cruise missiles.
The U.S. has never sold modern heavy bomber aircraft to any country.
Diamondback
11-07-22, 09:14
The U.S. has never sold modern heavy bomber aircraft to any country.
ONCE. Precisely one time, and even then that was only a lease--one B-47 to Canada, for use as an engine testbed. Before that we transferred several WWII-surplus B-29s to the UK as part of nuke tech-transfer, but that's about the extent of it post V-J Day.
I still think when the RAF decided to exit the bomber business, we shoulda bought their entire fleet of Vulcans and Dale Brown Special'ed 'em into escorts to clear paths for the B-52s... which I also still think in light of how they STILL make Vlad shit his sword-and-shield-print undies we should order up another 750 of those too.
Coal Dragger
11-07-22, 09:51
The World is gearing up for WW3. We should build an export version of the B21, Australia wants to buy them. That would bring the cost down and maybe we could afford more. Instead of building more carriers, we should be building more submarines, that’s what the rest of the World is doing.
Yep build an export version of the B-21, as you said bring costs per unit down a bit and encourage larger production capacity to allow for faster production and more robust parts replacement.
We should do the same for the Virginia class submarines, Australia wants to buy them.
In exchange the Australians could set aside areas for US air bases and ports to operate the boats and bombers from.
I like the idea of the X-47B drone. No pilot to be shot down. It has successfully operated from an aircraft carrier and refueled from an aerial tanker. It has 2 internal weapons bays that can each carry a 2,000lb JDAM bomb, or other weapons. We only produced two of these for testing.
https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/1311/1052451/1000w_q95.jpg
Coal Dragger
11-07-22, 16:15
Meh.
Still has to be flown off of a dumb, overpriced, giant torpedo sponge/missile target.
Diamondback
11-07-22, 16:18
I like the idea of smaller diesel electric subs. I remember the war games when the Swedish Gotland submarine snuck up on the USS Reagan aircraft carrier despite all the picket ships, and got within easy torpedo firing range. I hope we learned something from that.
Since DE's frequently are limited range, also dust off the Ohio hull design (or develop a "big sister" that compares to Virginia as an Ohio does to a Los Angeles) and adapt it into a modern version of the Milchkuh supply-subs that Doenitz used for forward replenishment of his wolfpacks.
Aircraft carriers are just big noisy torpedo and missile sponges against a competent and reasonably capable opponent with missiles and decent submarines.
Plus you don’t have to sink the carrier, you just need to damage it enough to mission kill it.
After the Zumwalt debacle and failure of littoral combat ships, plus the idiotic Ford class development and launch, all the top brass in the Navy should be relieved and cashiered out. They’re wildly incompetent morons who are incapable of winning a war at sea.
I disagree. There are arguably too many admirals, and many probably incompetent. However, anecdotally, non-line Admirals are still competent in their fields.
The Navy, IMO, has a big problem with zero defect culture.
ThirdWatcher
11-07-22, 23:15
Yep build an export version of the B-21, as you said bring costs per unit down a bit and encourage larger production capacity to allow for faster production and more robust parts replacement.
We should do the same for the Virginia class submarines, Australia wants to buy them.
In exchange the Australians could set aside areas for US air bases and ports to operate the boats and bombers from.
I totally agree. How long does a foreign Country have to be an ally before we trust them? (My impression is) a lot of the best weapons systems have been the result of the partnership between Nations. When WW3 finally comes, we’re gonna need all the help we can get...
Coal Dragger
11-08-22, 05:40
I disagree. There are arguably too many admirals, and many probably incompetent. However, anecdotally, non-line Admirals are still competent in their fields.
The Navy, IMO, has a big problem with zero defect culture.
Zero defect culture is stupid, and discourages learning and independent thought and autonomy of action by individual commanders. Agreed on that.
That also means that most of todays crop of high ranking naval officers and SNCO’s have been selected on their ability to navigate that culture to advance. So we have a Navy lead by individuals with the wrong personal traits, tendencies, temperament, and training. They will fail, and they will fail hard because they are dogmatic bureaucrats. We observed the same phenomenon with high ranking Army and Marine officers and SNCO’s at the start of the GWOT, and it took time to get rid of the turds and identify actual combat effective leaders.
ThirdWatcher
11-08-22, 06:01
That “Zero Defect Culture” also affected the Submarine Service at the beginning of WW2. During the Great Depression, the Navy couldn’t afford any mistakes because the money wasn’t there to repair damaged vessels. This discouraged risk taking and after Pearl Harbor, these “non-risktakers” were ultimately replaced by the “young lions” who weren’t afraid to risk it all to defeat the enemy.
IIRC, FAdm Nimitz (IMHO one of the greatest leaders this Country has ever produced) said every dog should get two bites (as he ran a ship aground as a young Officer. I think history has proven he learned from his mistake. Damn fine Submarine Officer too…
China’s H-20 Stealth Bomber “Years” Away From Becoming Threat: U.S. Defense Officials
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/11/chinas-h-20-stealth-bomber-years-away-from-becoming-threat-u-s-defense-officials/
Just posting this for information related to the OP
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.