Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

The requirement for LRS-B was explicitly for a subsonic platform after the Next Gen Bomber cost estimates skyrocketed. Plus that wing sweep is not breaking the sound barrier.
 
TomS said:
Same news, different article:

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force reports lower B-21 costs after negotiations with Northrop

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said the service is also building the support facilities and simulators and sets up training the B-21 program will need.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
$2B under budget. And ahead of schedule. Chinese sorcery level stuff.

I still got salty over how Northrop left NGAD. Definitely for good reasons, but a part inside me thinks its them licking old wounds over ATF.

Northrop should be the role model for military aerospace management nowadays.
 
Northrop was having money problems with the B-2 when they lost the ATF at that time plus the F-117A staring roll during Desert Storm did not exactly help either, I am therefore not surprised at Northrop pulling out of NGAD and concentrating on the F/A-XX instead.
 
asVAL said:
$2B under budget. And ahead of schedule. Chinese sorcery level stuff.

I still got salty over how Northrop left NGAD. Definitely for good reasons, but a part inside me thinks its them licking old wounds over ATF.

Northrop should be the role model for military aerospace management nowadays.
Click to expand...

There's something odd going on here, though, with NG taking a rather large charge (loss) on the development to date, and yet somehow cutting costs going forward. At some point they do actually need to make some money on this program.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
There's something odd going on here, though, with NG taking a rather large charge (loss) on the development to date, and yet somehow cutting coats going forward. At some point they do actually need to make some money on this program.
Click to expand...

Well, wasn't there budget related numbers for the costs associated with RQ-180? If that paid for a significant chunk of the B-21 R&D then that is most of your mystery money right there.
 
asVAL said:
$2B under budget. And ahead of schedule. Chinese sorcery level stuff.

I still got salty over how Northrop left NGAD. Definitely for good reasons, but a part inside me thinks its them licking old wounds over ATF.

Northrop should be the role model for military aerospace management nowadays.
Click to expand...
As with the ATF program, there is no way the USAF is going to allow one contractor to have both the premiere fighter and bomber program. Northrop learned that with ATF. So, knowing they had the B-21 and reportedly the RQ-180, there is simply no way they were getting the NGAD work with Boeing and LM out there needing future work. But, that's also why NG said they would continue development towards the USN FA-XX. It seems to me that NG has management that gets it, in terms of pentagon politics.
 
I think that Northrop have made the right decision in pulling out of the NGAD program and concentrating on F/A-XX instead, though I sill wonder if Northrop are working on classified air force projects that nobody knows about?
 
Commonality between the RQ-180 and the Raider would make a lot of sense in “reducing” (hiding) development cost. I believe that the air force was looking for unmanned capabilities on the raider too, so I bet a lot of equipment and systems from the RQ180 could be used to reduce cost. Not sure if they’re still doing unmanned capabilities for the raider though, as I’ve not seen anything said about that in a while. did it get axed?
 
FighterJock said:
I think that Northrop have made the right decision in pulling out of the NGAD program and concentrating on F/A-XX instead, though I sill wonder if Northrop are working on classified air force projects that nobody knows about?
Click to expand...
For sure, since what is going on the world stage currently, I assume there is a lot of other classified programs for the USAF and USN. LM and NG as an example are doing a lot of hiring in the AV and all across their corporations. NG wants to make sure B-21 goes smooth and I think they have been working USN F/A-XX for some time now.
 
4decaa said:
Not sure if they’re still doing unmanned capabilities for the raider though, as I’ve not seen anything said about that in a while. did it get axed?
Click to expand...
It's been axed.

breakingdefense.com

EXCLUSIVE: Air Force scraps B-21 drone wingman concept - Breaking Defense

After doing some analysis, the idea appears to be “less attractive than we thought it might be," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told Breaking Defense.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

After doing some analysis, the idea appears to be “less attractive than we thought it might be,” Kendall said, with the reasoning coming down to value. Bombers are by nature large planes — not only so they can carry large weapons payloads, but so they can fly at the long ranges needed for an aircraft to conduct a strategic strike anywhere in the world. But that size can drive cost, and in the end, the Air Force determined it wasn’t worth developing an unmanned B-21 counterpart that would be comparable in size to a large bomber.

“For relatively small platforms, taking a crew out can make it much cheaper,” he said. “But for large platforms, you don’t gain that much because the crew is only a small fraction of the weight, a small fraction of the cost by comparison.”
 
The requirement to operate without crew in limited circumstances remains, to my understanding, however emphasis on limited circumstances.
 
It looks as if this development program is more mature than our typical ones. Remember also the premature first flight.

I am on the opinion that this is the equivalent of the A-12/Sr-71 story. So, as @4decaa suggested, some tight communality with the RQ180.
 
Moose said:
The requirement to operate without crew in limited circumstances remains, to my understanding, however emphasis on limited circumstances.
Click to expand...
AFAIK the originally planned unmanned capability was totally scrapped, though it is quite possible someone in the USAF or DOD has been trying to sneak a limited capability back in.
 
Good news, let's see if this makes the B-21 cheaper to buy for the Air Force in per plane dollars than the B-2 was.
 
Sundog said:
As with the ATF program, there is no way the USAF is going to allow one contractor to have both the premiere fighter and bomber program. Northrop learned that with ATF.
Click to expand...

They can be prime and partner, as LM does w F-35.

Personally, I'll be ecstatic if we get to see 6 or more new manufacturers involved with CCA's. This Boeing, LM, NG only thing is for the birds.
 
Sundog said:
As with the ATF program, there is no way the USAF is going to allow one contractor to have both the premiere fighter and bomber program. Northrop learned that with ATF. So, knowing they had the B-21 and reportedly the RQ-180, there is simply no way they were getting the NGAD work with Boeing and LM out there needing future work. But, that's also why NG said they would continue development towards the USN FA-XX. It seems to me that NG has management that gets it, in terms of pentagon politics.
Click to expand...
LM got both F-22 and F-35, and they weren't doing great managing the F-22 when they got the F-35. What worries me is that NG pulled out of NGAD, which makes me wonder if they did for the same reasons they were deliberately noncompliant with the A-12 contract, that there is something in the requirements and cost that has them saying "nope". I'm reading tea leaves here so there are a lot of gains of salt, but I'm a lot less confident NGAD will see the light of day now.
 
I think it is more likely they just are not willing to commit to a larger buy if it occurs ten years out, rather than any specific capability they see on the horizon. Technology might change too much over that time span. I suspect if Congress threw enough money at them, they would increase the production rate.
 
Shoes31 said:
Given new airframe development timelines to IOC, wouldn't they have to begin a new program in a few years if they are looking at a late 2030's capability? Unless they are looking at a B-21 version 2.0 refresh to integrate any new capability.
Click to expand...

If they were intending to produce a new bomber, yes. If they think perhaps the bomber paradigm has run its course and other delivery methods are more effective, or at least cost effective, perhaps not. As some one else noted, this is one general saying something off the cuff in front of Congress; it means less than a powerpoint presentation. I think all the individual meant was that given the advance of technology, it is not clear that continued B-21 production would be relevant in a decade. But that does not preclude the possibility that maybe the B-21 is still relevant and that production continues.
 
To be honest, the terminology most of us grew up with is for all intents and purposes, brown bread. Hovis. Wholemeal. Toast, minus the cheese. Or Marmite........

We have already seen the B21 come down a bit in size from the B2 and engines are more powerful so two rather than four.

The roles are being eroded by a sea change in phylosophy too and this in itself will change how platforms are re roled/tasked. We are also looking at some of the last truly manned platforms with a move to optionally manned and UCAV operations.

In my humble opinion there are many possibilities and we will need to look towards the sbasic platform performing the attack and strike roles while equipment changes and different sensors will allow them to perform interception and boarder security roles. Multi tasking, whatever next?

I know not when my next crystal ball reading will be held, it's not in the Crystal (Balls), or the beer.

Hold on, I see a UAV AWACs with a unified sensor suite and hardened satcoms. What few pilots are still able to get stick time for qualification are trying to work out which part of their flight suit goes where and how to switch on the radio. BBCR2 probably, on the digital chanel, just in time for desert island discs with the hero from 'I Robot'.
 
sferrin said:
"We're cutting the B-21 buy at 31 aircraft because we've found the next "greatest thing"." They never learn.
Click to expand...
Lol. I know they gave the program leads at Northrop a document listing all of the pitfalls of the B-2 and were asked to essentially memorize them, but man. They should have given the papers to the goddamn generals! Seriously can't believe they might end up repeating the same problems as before...
 
To be honest, I don't see total actual procurement dropping below 50, just comparing the size and capabilities of the Raider with the B-2. All of this (as is nearly everything else on this website) is speculation, so we'll definitely need to wait sometime to see how the Pentagon wants to play this.
 
Foo Fighter said:
The roles are being eroded by a sea change in phylosophy too and this in itself will change how platforms are re roled/tasked. We are also looking at some of the last truly manned platforms with a move to optionally manned and UCAV operations.
Click to expand...

Perhaps

Foo Fighter said:
In my humble opinion there are many possibilities and we will need to look towards the sbasic platform performing the attack and strike roles while equipment changes and different sensors will allow them to perform interception and boarder security roles. Multi tasking, whatever next?
Click to expand...

Seems likely. We've seen hints of this for years.

B-21 gassed up "locally" will enable a significant loiter time.
They would be able to direct ground or ship launched SM-6's and other mid range missiles launched over the horizon in a GPS limited environment, no?

www.navalnews.com

U.S. Army Deploys New Missile Launcher to the Philippines - Naval News

The U.S. Army’s new MRC / Typhon system, capable of firing Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles, deployed to the Indo-Pacific for the first time.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Also CCA's will transport munitions from outside the a2ad area which B-21 will manage as they come on station.

Let's not neglect all the time zones to the West (and North) of Taiwan. Taiwan is not the only hotspot in the Indo-pacific. The PRC would bypass the first island chain by "assisting" countries other than Taiwan.

Let's hope we get significant increases in munitions production.
 
All this one general is saying is that he will not commit to a buy more than a decade out, which does not seem unreasonable. My only complaint is that the USAF seems to have little desire to increase production rate, given the comment that the 100 plane goal will not be met until mid 2030s.
 
I find that rather shocking Josh_TN, the last B-21 not being built until the mid 2030s at least. By then the Chinese H-20 and the Russian PAK-DA will be in service.
 
FighterJock said:
I find that rather shocking Josh_TN, the last B-21 not being built until the mid 2030s at least. By then the Chinese H-20 and the Russian PAK-DA will be in service.
Click to expand...
Standard procedure, once production ends, production lines tend to end too. Better to keep them open longer, that way your options remain open longer.
 
FighterJock said:
I find that rather shocking Josh_TN, the last B-21 not being built until the mid 2030s at least. By then the Chinese H-20 and the Russian PAK-DA will be in service.
Click to expand...

H-20 yes, PAK DA…maybe. But in any case, the B-21 seems in front of both those programs and has clear deterrence value; I’d want to produce them as fast as possible.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom