Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[Scott Kenny]

Pumping out B-21s is still going to be cheaper than a whole new airframe, no?

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.

 

[bring_it_on]

Pumping out B-21s is still going to be cheaper than a whole new airframe, no?

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.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

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.

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.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

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?

 

[bring_it_on]

is that solution superior to just buying more B-21s?

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

but the IaF raid that took out Lil Naz

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Assuming there were any money to do any of this. More realistically, USAF will struggle just to fund F-47.

I really hope you're wrong about that, but I'm afraid you're right.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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?

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.

 

[indicisivedivide]

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.

 

[indicisivedivide]

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.

F-35 is less comfortable for pilots, less efficient. Stealthier. And within budget and won't face too much problem in Congress.

 

[bring_it_on]

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..

 

[FighterJock]

Same thoughts here bring_it_on about the first LRIP production B-21.

 

[Grey Havoc]

They may need to speed things up though.