Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

VishnuOsiris said:
Pumping out B-21s is still going to be cheaper than a whole new airframe, no?
Click to expand...
Not if they'd designed the F-47 properly (ie, with large bays) in the first place.

But yes, cheaper than buying a whole new airframe just for the Strike NGAD role.
 
VishnuOsiris said:
Pumping out B-21s is still going to be cheaper than a whole new airframe, no? :)
Click to expand...
Let's assume that a strike fighter (F-15E) derivative of NGAD costs an additional $12 Billion RDT&E (or 60% of NGAD EMD) to develop and test. Spread over a 200 unit buy, that's a $60 Million development cost add-on on a per unit basis...For something that would cost about as much as NGAD platform or say 15-20% more, that's still going to be close to half the cost of a 2035+ B-21 ($700+ Million?). At some point the trade is going to be weather a future strike eagle replacement needs to be supersonic..I think the AF would like to have that.
 
bring_it_on said:
Let's assume that a strike fighter (F-15E) derivative of NGAD costs an additional $12 Billion RDT&E (or 60% of NGAD EMD) to develop and test. Spread over a 200 unit buy, that's a $60 Million development cost...For something that costs about as much as NGAD platform or say 15-20% more, that's still going to be close to half the cost of a 2030+ B-21.
Click to expand...
No problem. But now we have to add the real world metrics into our considerations. There's only so many primes and the B-21 is already here. Plus our strike fighter isn't produced in a vacuum; there are pressing security concerns that need to be addressed.

In other words, given finite time/resources, if I had the power to pull the switch on our new strike fighter, IMO, I would prefer instead to invest deeper into the B-21.
 
bring_it_on said:
Let's assume that a strike fighter (F-15E) derivative of NGAD costs an additional $12 Billion RDT&E (or 60% of NGAD EMD) to develop and test. Spread over a 200 unit buy, that's a $60 Million development cost add-on on a per unit basis...For something that would cost about as much as NGAD platform or say 15-20% more, that's still going to be close to half the cost of a 2035+ B-21 ($700+ Million?). At some point the trade is going to be weather a future strike eagle replacement needs to be supersonic..I think the AF would like to have that.
Click to expand...

What target set would this hypothetical strike fighter hit, and from where would they be based? If the answer is the first island chain, use F-35. If the answer is the second island chain, is that solution superior to just buying more B-21s? The B-21 has everything necessary for the interdiction role, assuming there was even a need for it. It seems more likely to me that any U.S.-PRC conflict gets solved at the strategic level - in a Taiwan scenario, the ports and ships are the more vulnerable logistical targets. Of there is no invasion, does the interdiction mission even exist?
 
Josh_TN said:
is that solution superior to just buying more B-21s?
Click to expand...
The B-21 is going to still be twice or more expensive. If you could afford another couple of hundred B-21's that would be truly amazing. But at the current production rate of 7..even if you double it you will run out of time, and procurement budgets to be able to field a 2-3 times larger fleet than currently planned. NGAD as a program is going to address future fighter requirements through design evolution and frequent technology refresh.
 
bring_it_on said:
The B-21 is going to still be twice or more expensive. If you could afford another couple of hundred B-21's that would be truly amazing. But at the current production rate of 7..even if you double it you will run out of time, and procurement budgets to be able to field a 2-3 times larger fleet than currently planned. NGAD as a program is going to address future fighter requirements through design evolution and frequent technology refresh.
Click to expand...

B-21 is already developed and probably carries four times what any tactical fighter could internally, and can be safely based out theater if necessary.

As for time…is new development quicker? I suspect even waiting for USN FA-XX production to catch up to their needs would be more time consuming than making modest increases to B-21 production.

Assuming there were any money to do any of this. More realistically, USAF will struggle just to fund F-47.
 
Josh_TN said:
What target set would this hypothetical strike fighter hit, and from where would they be based? If the answer is the first island chain, use F-35. If the answer is the second island chain, is that solution superior to just buying more B-21s? The B-21 has everything necessary for the interdiction role, assuming there was even a need for it. It seems more likely to me that any U.S.-PRC conflict gets solved at the strategic level - in a Taiwan scenario, the ports and ships are the more vulnerable logistical targets. Of there is no invasion, does the interdiction mission even exist?
Click to expand...
I was assuming bridges, rail yards, and ports for the target set versus China.

And second island chain in terms of basing.

Primary downside of using B-21s for interdiction is the fact that they cost ~3x what F-47s do.

Edit: So yes, a B-21 can carry probably 3x what an F-47 can in terms of A2G ordnance, at least if we're talking small JDAMs or SDBs. Maybe not if we're talking 2000lb or SiAWs. But it can only be in one place at a time, while 3x F-47s could be in 3 different places.
 
Last edited:
Everyone here is not thinking about time of development. Once we take that into consideration, the b-21 taking up different roles makes sense. It's by far the stealthiest aircraft both in IR and Radar. A really good range and fuel efficiency. A powerful radar. Will have A2A missiles for emergencies. And it's ready. So now it makes sense to let it pick up different missions. If they place orders for more jets price could go down. Maybe let it pick up the NGAS mission. Above all it's easy to get funding for an aircraft who's development has largely come within budget. NG cooked with the B-21, let them keep cooking.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming bridges, rail yards, and ports for the target set versus China.

And second island chain in terms of basing.

Primary downside of using B-21s for interdiction is the fact that they cost ~3x what F-47s do.

Edit: So yes, a B-21 can carry probably 3x what an F-47 can in terms of A2G ordnance, at least if we're talking small JDAMs or SDBs. Maybe not if we're talking 2000lb or SiAWs. But it can only be in one place at a time, while 3x F-47s could be in 3 different places.
Click to expand...
F-35 is less comfortable for pilots, less efficient. Stealthier. And within budget and won't face too much problem in Congress.
 
Speaking of time, when should we expect first LRIP B-21's to begin rolling out? I'm guessing mid-late 2026 which would be about 2.5-3 years from contract award (Dec 2023) and would be consistent with the "mid-2020's" timelines for operational capability shared by the AF back a few years ago..
 
Last edited:
So, I recently heard about the B21 being a sixth-generation aircraft, and I don't really understand it. Can someone tell me why the B21 is called a sixth-generation aircraft, or how it resembles the current F47 program, or is it just a gimmick? I hope someone can give a more accurate reply, thank you very much.
 
SUPER=BUG said:
So, I recently heard about the B21 being a sixth-generation aircraft, and I don't really understand it. Can someone tell me why the B21 is called a sixth-generation aircraft, or how it resembles the current F47 program, or is it just a gimmick? I hope someone can give a more accurate reply, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
B-21 is 'sixth gen' because Northrop Grumman and/or the air-force says it is. Its that simple really. These are mostly marketing terms but it is obviously possible that the AF has loosely defined some characteristics/attributes of advanced 'sixth gen' (borrowing from fighter generations and applying more broadly to advanced aircraft because again, it's good marketing) which the B-21possesses.
 
bring_it_on said:
B-21 is 'sixth gen' because Northrop Grumman and/or the air-force says it is. Its that simple really. These are mostly marketing terms but it is obviously possible that the AF has loosely defined some characteristics/attributes of advanced 'sixth gen' (borrowing from fighter generations and applying more broadly to advanced aircraft because again, it's good marketing) which the B-21possesses.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks for your answer.:)
 
https://theaviationist.com/2025/04/15/b-21-raider-ellsworth-afb-in-mid-2020s/

I believe the mid 2020s was talk about previously as when the B-21 would become operational. Based on the completion of new B-21 support facilities it should be soon. I am curious as to when other test articles will be added to the one undergoing testing at Edwards. Digital models and Open Mission Systems. likely have reduced the time for testing of the aircraft systems. Will find out how much. Perhaps, this will bode well for the F-47.
 
Back n Feb picked up a patch or two at RAF Mildenhall from a gent who been to both Edwards Plant 42 Palmdale over the years He assures me the B-21 patch is genuine and says he was gifted several others from the B-21 CTF but these will never see the light of day, until they will authorise.

1744990272696.png

He describes the other B-21 CTF patches as having psychodelic style, etc and nothing like the one he was allowed to show and give it to me.

cheers
 

Attachments

  • 1744990275484.png
    1744990275484.png
    4.8 MB · Views: 18
RavenOne said:
Back n Feb picked up a patch or two at RAF Mildenhall from a gent who been to both Edwards Plant 42 Palmdale over the years He assures me the B-21 patch is genuine and says he was gifted several others from the B-21 CTF but these will never see the light of day, until they will authorise.

View attachment 767267

He describes the other B-21 CTF patches as having psychodelic style, etc and nothing like the one he was allowed to show and give it to me.

cheers
Click to expand...

flight-test-museum.myshopify.com

B-21 Raider Batman Patch

This patch is not from the B-21 Squadron. It’s made by a local aviation enthusiast.
flight-test-museum.myshopify.com flight-test-museum.myshopify.com
 
RavenOne said:
Back n Feb picked up a patch or two at RAF Mildenhall from a gent who been to both Edwards Plant 42 Palmdale over the years He assures me the B-21 patch is genuine and says he was gifted several others from the B-21 CTF but these will never see the light of day, until they will authorise.

He describes the other B-21 CTF patches as having psychodelic style, etc and nothing like the one he was allowed to show and give it to me.

cheers
Click to expand...

Both of these patches are what collectors refer to as "eye candy" (unofficial and unsanctioned). My friend designed the B-21 patch, as well as a few others. I urged him to contact the unit to get approval and make them official "Friday patches" but he didn't do it.
 
Northrop have booked a $477m loss on the B-21 program due to increased material costs from tariffs. First quarter revenue was down 7% but first quarter profits were down 49% year on year. They are hoping manufacturing costs will come down once the production line is fully up and running. Their company shares fell 7% in pre-market trading after the release of the news.

 
WatcherZero said:
Northrop have booked a $477m loss on the B-21 program due to increased material costs from tariffs. First quarter revenue was down 7% but first quarter profits were down 49% year on year. They are hoping manufacturing costs will come down once the production line is fully up and running. Their company shares fell 7% in pre-market trading after the release of the news.

Click to expand...
I don’t see the direct reference to tariffs as the cause (nor in other articles I’ve read) in the article can you point out the exact part of the article that indicates the loss is directly from tariffs?

Here is the companies press release don’t even see the word tariff.

www.tradingview.com

Northrop Grumman Reports First Quarter 2025 Financial Results

Northrop Grumman Corporation, a leading global aerospace and defense technology company, has released its financial results for the first quarter of 2025. The company reported a decrease in sales and net earnings compared to the same period in 2024, citing several operational and strategic factors…
www.tradingview.com www.tradingview.com
 
You think any company hoping to do business with the White House will publicly ascribe tariffs as the cause of a substantial increase in material costs during the quarter? ($1.8bn increase in program expenditure beating market expectations of a $500m increase and a $477m recorded program loss) You have to read between the lines of market statements to ascertain the underlying message.

Share price is now down 11% peaking at a 12% fall this morning.

 
On tariffs:
Kathy Warden, Chair, CEO and President, Northrop Grumman: Sheila, let me start with what we believe to be the impact of tariffs on our portfolio. We do directly source a small part of our supply chain, about 5% of our total spend, so less than a billion dollars annually and it’s from countries outside of The US, primarily in Europe. When we look at the second and third tiers of our supply chain, we have purchasing agreements in place with the vast majority of those that extend over a long period of time, and we have done an assessment and believe that most of the costs that we might incur due to trade policy are incorporated and covered under our contracts with the US government. So, we do not see at this point in time a significant risk to our company related to the trade policies as we understand them today. We’re going to continue to monitor that closely, and we’re already taking actions to account for and mitigate the risks that we do see, particularly in availability of certain components that we need for delivering on our program.

On the B-21 LRIP loss:
Kathy Warden, Chair, CEO and President, Northrop Grumman: The drivers of the charge were related to a process change and that process change supports the accelerated production rates that I referenced. And so, in that way, it’s a very defined change, and we now understand and have the learning from making that change, and that’s not something we will need to do again. This positions us to ramp to the quantities needed in full rate production, and even as I noted, we can ramp beyond the quantities in the program of record, which is something that we and the government decided was important for the optionality to support the scenarios that they have been looking at to increase the current build rate. The second part of the charge that I mentioned is related to the quantity of general procurement materials as well as the price. And there, we had underestimated the amount of consumption of those materials as well as the price increase that we are seeing.

As to the comment somewhere above that Northrop always expected a loss on the flight test articles, that isn't be the case, as the EMD contract is a cost-reimbursable contract. All the anticipated losses booked to date cut across the five LRIP lots covering the first 21 production articles.
 
WatcherZero said:
You think any company hoping to do business with the White House will publicly ascribe tariffs as the cause of a substantial increase in material costs during the quarter? ($1.8bn increase in program expenditure beating market expectations of a $500m increase and a $477m recorded program loss) You have to read between the lines of market statements to ascertain the underlying message.

Share price is now down 11% peaking at a 12% fall this morning.

Click to expand...
Your original post implies all $477 million impact due to tariffs do you stand by this analysis?

If not can you provide this forum your detailed breakdown of the exact dollar impact from these tariffs on NG?
 
The manufacturing change seems interesting. Is it to enable adherence to the current airframe/year schedule, to accelerate/bring forward the same number of airframes and/or to increase the size of the ultimate buy in a timeframe relevant to the customer? Seems like all three?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom