Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Air Force stands up B-21 integration office


The Air Force this month stood up a B-21 integration office aimed at easing communication between the chief of staff and the many organizations involved in developing the new Long-Range Strike Bomber.

Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand told reporters following a July 14 House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing that the office is located in the Pentagon and is modeled off the F-35 integration office, which the service stood up much later into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

"We were later in doing that," he said. "We're right on the front edge now. Our timing is perfect. . . . For now, the chief needs the ability to reach out and touch and it's just easier for us."

Rand described the office as a "funnel point" for the rapid capabilities office -- which is managing the program -- AFGSC, the chief, and prime contractor Northrop Grumman. He said AFGSC talks with the leader of the new office daily and has monthly meetings with Rand and the head of the RCO.

"We can just compare notes and then he can give us guidance and say, 'This is where the chief's at on this,'" Rand said.
 
USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will determine how many Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet after the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

www.flightglobal.com

USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will not determine how many B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet until the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service's deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Flyaway said:
USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will determine how many Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet after the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

www.flightglobal.com

USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will not determine how many B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet until the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service's deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

Hopefully he means determining a ceiling not a floor since the aggressive APUC is premised on a minimum quantity.
 
marauder2048 said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will determine how many Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet after the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-not-settled-on-number-of-b-21s-427700/
Click to expand...

Hopefully he means determining a ceiling not a floor since the aggressive APUC is premised on a minimum quantity.
Click to expand...
Sorry maybe I misunderstand but don't you want them to set a floor (a minimum BUT high number) rather than a ceiling (the maximum)? Don't the services usually say "Hare's how many we need (ceiling)" and that number gets cut to the minimum (floor)?
 
bobbymike said:
marauder2048 said:
Flyaway said:
​USAF not settled on number of B-21s

The US Air Force will determine how many Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers are needed for the fleet after the first aircraft is fielded in the 2020s, according to the service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-not-settled-on-number-of-b-21s-427700/
Click to expand...

Hopefully he means determining a ceiling not a floor since the aggressive APUC is premised on a minimum quantity.
Click to expand...
Sorry maybe I misunderstand but don't you want them to set a floor (a minimum BUT high number) rather than a ceiling (the maximum)? Don't the services usually say "Hare's how many we need (ceiling)" and that number gets cut to the minimum (floor)?
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking more of New START ceilings i.e. counting rules; the treaty may or may not be in effect in the mid 2020s. AFA normally posts audio recordings of their Breakfast series so
hopefully we'll be able to listen to everything that was said rather that just what was reported.
 
Ruling on $80 Billion Bomber to Be Declassified, Air Force Says


by Anthony Capaccio

GAO findings in bid challenge may be public by late September

A declassified version of a ruling that upheld Northrop Grumman Corp.’s victory in a competition to build the next U.S. bomber, a project valued at as much as $80 billion, could be completed by the end of September, the Air Force said. The U.S. Government Accountability Office backed the selection Feb. 16 in a 55-page decision, rejecting a challenge from the competing bidder, a team of Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. But the GAO’s findings haven’t been made public in keeping with the largely classified nature of plans to produce the military’s first new bomber since the Cold War and one of the biggest U.S. weapons systems of the next decade.

The GAO hasn’t yet received a redacted version that removes paragraphs and pages that the Air Force deems classified and the contractors contend are business-sensitive. Northrop, shut out of prime contracts for U.S. warplanes since the B-2 bomber in the 1980s, was chosen by the Air Force in October. “We have checked back with the Air Force regularly to see if they have a non-classified copy we can publicly post, but so far they have not provided one,” GAO spokesman Chuck Young said in an e-mail. Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, said in an interview that “we’re actively engaged with the GAO” and “we’re working it pretty hard right now” so “I don’t think you’ll have to wait a whole lot longer.”
 
breakingdefense.com

How Many B-21s? Answer Pending, Says AF Global Strike - Breaking Defense

CAPITOL HILL: Gen. Robin Rand, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, made it pretty clear he’d like more than the 100 B-21 bombers to which the service is currently committed. He would probably like close to half again that many. Rand told a Mitchell Institute breakfast that the US currently...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
USAF May Need More than 100 B-21s

—Otto Kreisher 7/29/2016

​Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Robin Rand said his command needs a “minimum of 100” B-21s, but indicated strongly that it should have more of the Long-Range Strike Bombers to perform all of its missions. “When asked to give my best military advice, I’ve said we should draw the line at 100 B-21s. Not a single one below that,” Gen. Robin Rand told an AFA Mitchell Institute forum Thursday. “What I haven’t been clear on is what is the ceiling on that, because we’re working our way through that.” Estimates of how many B-21s would be needed have ranged from 80 to 100. “I’ve been very clear at what the floor should be,” Rand said. While others may think differently, as AFGSC commander, “we need a minimum of 100, and we’re working our way through what should that ceiling be.” Rand said he could not imagine how he “would deal with the missions I have,” which go beyond nuclear deterrence, “with fewer bombers than we have in today’s inventory.” The current number of strategic bombers, he said, is 156, a combination of the aged B-52s that are likely to be phased out and 20 of the newer B-2s. (See also: Launching the New Bomber from the January issue of Air Force Magazine.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250+ would be nice............ ;D
 
Defence bill language could affect bomber technology development

www.flightglobal.com

Defence bill language could affect bomber technology development

A provision within the House of Representative's version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2017 could affect the development of emerging technologies for major defence acquisition programmes, including the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
I hope that badge isn't accurate. Seeing big grills on the fronts of the intakes would seem to be a step backwards from the B-2. (Yes, I know, grills might work just fine but they always struck me as a "redneck engineering" kludge.)
 
It will be interesting as to what name they will give to the B-21. Hope that it will be an original name.

By the way any info on the timing of the naming event, especially for us living in the UK.
 
sferrin said:
I hope that badge isn't accurate. Seeing big grills on the fronts of the intakes would seem to be a step backwards from the B-2. (Yes, I know, grills might work just fine but they always struck me as a "redneck engineering" kludge.)
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you see a picture with grills on it? If you're talking about the artwork on the logo, it's just artwork to show the basic shape. Unless it doesn't have any exhaust nozzles or flight control surfaces either. ;)
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Anybody catching the naming ceremony? Livestream's taking a crap over on my end. So I call "No Joy".

http://livestream.com/northropgrumman/events/6174939
Click to expand...

Same thing here XP67_Moonbat you are not alone, my guessing is that it crashed due to the overwhelming demand.
 
Ditto; it's a bit sad when a multi-billion company or 300,000 personnel organisation can't get a livestream to work (you'd think they could have at least organised a YouTube or even Facebook backup stream) :-\
 
That's what I found at the company page.

Well then, till it's officially named, I dub the B-21 Bomby McBomberface.
 

Attachments

  • 2016-09-19-09-03-35.png
    2016-09-19-09-03-35.png
    139.4 KB · Views: 256
Livestream have gone back to show that it is waiting for the event to go live page, fingers crossed.
 
Alternate stream guys, they're just about to announce the name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rrSbCFc8aU
 
That name is a bit unfortunate. It almost admits the plane wont be able to penetrate deep inside enemy airspace at will but can "only" do raids.

Would have expected raider for a smaller, tactical aircraft, helicopter even.
 
And Raider it is...

Meh...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A great name for a bomber if I say so myself, the B-21 Raider, no doubt I will get used to it over the years.
 
totoro said:
That name is a bit unfortunate. It almost admits the plane wont be able to penetrate deep inside enemy airspace at will but can "only" do raids.
Click to expand...

What does that say about the B-2 "Spirit"? That all it can do is die?
 
The B-21 Raider? Oh well I'm sure the Raider Nation will love that, if any of 'em follow aerospace! I thought maybe they'd go with Le May or maybe something like Spectre.

Still, it's not a bad name. Lol
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
The Raider? Oh well I'm sure aviation-minded Raiders fans will love that! I thought maybe they'd go with Le May or maybe something like Spectre.

Still, it's not a bad name. Lol
Click to expand...

First thing that came to mind:
 

Attachments

  • Cylon_Raider_16.jpg
    Cylon_Raider_16.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 347
My money was on something unsubtle and brash, my guess was Penetrator so Raider isn't so far off from that.
 
Hood said:
My money was on something unsubtle and brash, my guess was Penetrator so Raider isn't so far off from that.
Click to expand...

Mine was on something ultra PC and harmless. Something you'd name a Prius competitor.
 
sferrin said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
The Raider? Oh well I'm sure aviation-minded Raiders fans will love that! I thought maybe they'd go with Le May or maybe something like Spectre.

Still, it's not a bad name. Lol
Click to expand...

First thing that came to mind:
Click to expand...
LOL, me too. ;D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom