Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[marauder2048]

Those "easier" ways don't exist. MAYBE a cruise missile could be made to do the job but is there a program to even develop one that can? An F-35 could probably do it but they don't plan on clearing it with the B83 so that option's out.

That's precisely what LRSO is about, isn't it?

Given the development and production timelines, I tend to think that B-21 would be last in line for LRSO as well as B61-12 the latter mostly being allocated to dual capable tactical aircraft.

There's likely a great deal of uncertainty surrounding nuclear earth penetrators since AFAIK the US never conducted any NEP weapons effects tests.
And maybe there's concern about older physics packages surviving the setback forces.

 

[Flyaway]

Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?

 

[sferrin]

Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?

I believe I just indicated the opposite. If a politician has nothing to gain (because if a thing is classified he can't roll out his soapbox and feign outrage in the name of votes) then possibly. Make it public then no way.

 

[Flyaway]

Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?

I believe I just indicated the opposite. If a politician has nothing to gain (because if a thing is classified he can't roll out his soapbox and feign outrage in the name of votes) then possibly. Make it public then no way.

I was including the politicians read into the program?

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force pushes B-21 advanced stealth bomber with more flexible tech approach

The Air Force's super-secret B-21 long-range strike bomber under development will feature flexible technology to stave off obsolescence.

www.cnbc.com

 

[FighterJock]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/air-force-pushes-b-21-advanced-stealth-bomber-with-more-flexible-tech-approach.html

Thanks for posting bobbymike. In the article it states that the B-21 will be expected to cost $500 million, but that is still way cheaper than the B-2's final cost of $1 billion dollars per plane.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/air-force-pushes-b-21-advanced-stealth-bomber-with-more-flexible-tech-approach.html

Thanks for posting bobbymike. In the article it states that the B-21 will be expected to cost $500 million, but that is still way cheaper than the B-2's final cost of $1 billion dollars per plane.

Let's see how much the B-21 costs if we only build 20 of them.

 

[FighterJock]

Let's hope that the USAF sticks to the 100 B-21's that they promised, and don't start cutting back.

 

[Airplane]

Let's hope that the USAF sticks to the 100 B-21's that they promised, and don't start cutting back.

It's not up to the USAF or else more than 21 B-2's would have been manufactured. It's up to who is in the White House (and congress) and how serious they are about maintaining an effective bomber force. It's impossible to say how many Raiders will be needed since we know nothing about it, but ~140 would be nice to replace all the legacy bombers and Spirits with some to spare. Won't happen but it would be nice.

 

[marauder2048]

Those "easier" ways don't exist. MAYBE a cruise missile could be made to do the job but is there a program to even develop one that can? An F-35 could probably do it but they don't plan on clearing it with the B83 so that option's out.

That's precisely what LRSO is about, isn't it?

Given the development and production timelines, I tend to think that B-21 would be last in line for LRSO as well as B61-12 the latter mostly being allocated to dual capable tactical aircraft.

B-52 and Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) Cruise Missile (CM) Integration

https://www.fbo.gov/notices/3bf661d8e14c5394105dfa282a35547a

 

[bobbymike]

STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)

 

[Dragon029]

Maybe someone can twist the statement to say that 100 B-21s is enough for the strategic bomber role, but that more will be needed to fulfil other responsibilities that the B-21 is going to inevitably wind up with (high-end SEAD / DEAD, CAS, other potential future roles as an armament plane or UCAV command / comms node, etc).

 

[sferrin]

STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)

This. No need for Russia to negotiate away our bombers when our own generals will do it for them.

 

[Grey Havoc]

STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)

This. No need for Russia to negotiate away our bombers when our own generals will do it for them.

Indeed. The only way they could think of getting away with this even in the short term would be to restore the B-1 fleet's nuclear capability, vapid treaties notwithstanding. And that's even before you get to such inconvenient things as the USAF's Congressionally mandated sea-control mission. Otherwise I fear that at least some Air Force generals would appear to have been taking advantage of Colorado's recent legalisation of pot...

 

[NeilChapman]

STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)

If we get to 100, and I hope that is the case, it is likely that on-going techdev will present an alternative platform. I don't see the rate of production getting to a point where a greater quantity is available, sooner.

"Chapman's unsubstantiated opinion"

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/appropriators-cut-20m-from-b-21-program-in-omnibus-spending-bill

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force B-21 Bomber's Secrecy to Be Reviewed by Inspector General

The Pentagon’s inspector general has opened a review into whether the Air Force has imposed excessive secrecy on fundamentals of its $80 billion program to develop and build the new B-21 bomber.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[FighterJock]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-15/air-force-b-21-bomber-s-secrecy-to-be-reviewed-by-inspector-j2qc0lwh

The USAF should keep the B-21 secret until Northrop is ready to reveal in in the 2020's.

 

[robunos]

I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[FighterJock]

I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?

 

[Ian33]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-15/air-force-b-21-bomber-s-secrecy-to-be-reviewed-by-inspector-j2qc0lwh

The USAF should keep the B-21 secret until Northrop is ready to reveal in in the 2020's.

Even before having a VERY frank conversation (think interview without coffee) from the MoD last week about the 'need to keep ones mouth shut, eyes from prying and picture deleted,' I've always been inclined to agree with this whole heartedly.

It is fine having a little intellectual banter and a dash of speculation, but, at the end of the day it is going to be the very tip of the spear and should remain pitch black until it's rolled out.

 

[robunos]

I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?

I do indeed, but then here's the Catch-22 esque scenario . . .
Pols say "We demand to how much money the B-21 is costing, and where the money's being spent", translation, if the money's not going to benefit our voters, we're going to cancel it, or at the very least, cut the programme back hard.
USAF says "We have to keep everything super secret, this programme is critically important to our future defence plans. So sorry, no can do.", translation, We're not going to give you any information about this programme, that you can use to make a case for cancellation, or cutbacks.
Pols say "In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.", translation, In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[sferrin]

I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?

I do indeed, but then here's the Catch-22 esque scenario . . .
Pols say "We demand to how much money the B-21 is costing, and where the money's being spent", translation, if the money's not going to benefit our voters, we're going to cancel it, or at the very least, cut the programme back hard.
USAF says "We have to keep everything super secret, this programme is critically important to our future defence plans. So sorry, no can do.", translation, We're not going to give you any information about this programme, that you can use to make a case for cancellation, or cutbacks.
Pols say "In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.", translation, In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.


cheers,
Robin.

If that worked nothing would be able to be kept secret.

 

[bobbymike]

B-21 Bomber Boost? KC-46 Still Late - Breaking Defense

CORRECTED: What Gen. Harris Meant To Say Was A Total Bomber Fleet of 165; Still “At Least” 100 B-21s WASHINGTON: How many B-21 bombers will the US need? 80? 100? 165? Bound by the president’s budget on one side and congressional appropriations on the other, the head of Air Force acquisition was...

breakingdefense.com

165 is a good start............ ;D

 

[Airplane]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/b-21-bomber-boost-general-touts-165-kc-46-still-late/

165 is a good start............ ;D

165 of what? A four engined twin weapon bay aircraft similar to a B2? Or a twin engined single weapon bay 1/2 the payload of a B2 type of bomber? Either way 100 is far too few.

 

[bobbymike]

Home - DODBUZZ

Find The Daily Latest News, Best Product & Online Website Reviews. Define all Products with Features, Ratings, Scam Alerts and Price and Customer's Reviews.

www.dodbuzz.com

Given the increasingly advanced air defense systems deployed by countries such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, he added, “It seems to me the right number of bombers should be north of 160.”

“And certainly [Lt. Gen. Michael] Moeller agrees and calls for as many as 200 B-21s,” Gallagher noted, referring to an analysis study from the retired Air Force general, also a former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.

Air Force Chief Vows to Avoid Excess Secrecy Over U.S. Bomber

The U.S. Air Force’s top general says he’s determined to avoid excessive secrecy during development of the service’s new B-21 bomber, citing its predecessor as a cautionary tale.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/05/air-force-wants-165-bombers-not-b21s/

Given the increasingly advanced air defense systems deployed by countries such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, he added, “It seems to me the right number of bombers should be north of 160.”

“And certainly [Lt. Gen. Michael] Moeller agrees and calls for as many as 200 B-21s,” Gallagher noted, referring to an analysis study from the retired Air Force general, also a former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-06/air-force-chief-vows-to-avoid-excess-secrecy-over-u-s-bomber

Perhaps the conversation should be...

To meet congressionally mandated US military response requirements; which were lowered for reasons that included cost before the increase in aggressive behavior by Russia, the PRC, North Korea, Iran and other actors; the US determined it needed, at minimum, ~165 combat coded heavy bombers.

At the moment, the US is in a critical situation with ~97 combat coded bombers. The majority of these bombers have gone through life extensions for decades. It's been estimated that a minimum of 60 bombers would be needed to fight a war in North Korea, ~100 for Iran, ~260 for Russia.

Until technology negates the need for heavy bombers, the US must keep a minimum of ~165 combat coded advanced heavy bombers to meet the emergence of new, resurfacing and unrecognized global threats.

~~~~~

Is it feasible to contemplate a "B" version of the KC-46A as a low-op's cost augmentation for the B-21. The building blocks seem to be there; open systems, EMP protected, ~same thrust as 52 but more efficient, ~85% of B-52's max takeoff weight, ~80% of the un-refueled range, field requirement ('8k-'9k). Plus there's the interoperability of engines, avionics, support systems & maintainers in-theater w/the KC.

I wouldn't waste much time or money trying to make it more then it was - a relatively cheap bomb carrier for minimally contested environments - but could it work well as an 80% solution?

 

[Flyaway]

I see Sen. John McCain was doing his nut about the secrecy around the B-21 as regards its costs.

Sen. John McCain blasted newly confirmed Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson Tuesday during one of her first appearances on Capitol Hill over a $2 billion bomber request.

McCain told Wilson he has "never seen anything like" the secrecy around the service's budget request and spending on the B-21 stealth bomber, to be built by Northrop Grumman.

Wilson, who had only testified as secretary to Congress once before about space operations, told McCain that the service is "very open" and sharing spending information with the committees on Capitol Hill.

"That is not true, Madame Secretary, that is simply not true," McCain fired back.

Wilson dodged a question from McCain over when the service will release more details on the requested development money.

"There is always a balance between not telling our enemies what we are doing and making sure we are forthcoming with the representatives of the American people," Wilson said.

McCain tangles with new Air Force secretary over $2 billion bomber request

Sen. John McCain blasted newly confirmed Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson Tuesday during one of her first appearances on Capitol Hill over a $2 billion bomber request.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[sferrin]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

 

[sublight_]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.

 

[sferrin]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.

The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.

 

[marauder2048]

The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.

McCain lost a vote (by a large majority) in the committee that he chairs for his amendment that would have made costs public.

If you can't convince your own colleagues, who by the way depend on staying in your (the SASC chair's) good graces for access to SAPs,
then it strikes me that you have a pretty feeble case.

 

[bobbymike]

The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.

McCain lost a vote (by a large majority) in the committee that he chairs for his amendment that would have made costs public.

If you can't convince your own colleagues, who by the way depend on staying in your (the SASC chair's) good graces for access to SAPs,
then it strikes me that you have a pretty feeble case.

Taking nothing away from his military career but over the last few years "feeble case" has been his middle name.

 

[NeilChapman]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.

Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?

 

[marauder2048]

Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?

Along with any other member of the SASC who has requested access and been given the nod by McCain.

 

[sferrin]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.

Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?

Which would do zip to keep him from scurrying to the nearest mic to wail about "too expensive" aircraft in order to grab a headline. (Whether or not it was actually true wouldn't matter.)

 

[phrenzy]

McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.

Plus the B-2, despite it's many upgrades has been compromised through at least a couple of high profile technology leaks. An Indian engineer who worked on the program sold technical data on the RAM shim and IR airvonditioner intakes and signature reducing duct technology to a Chinese agent since time ago so unless they made serious upgrades in response to that it's possible that it's no longer a day 1 bird against tier one threats.

That would necessitate a whole new level of signature reduction and ECM platform.

They should have built the FB-22, stick to 100-150 B-21s and retire the old fleet (B-52, B1 etc...) except for a selected heavy lift smart bomb carrier and spooky type COIN support craft. Plus maybe a few specialised EMP and cyber/Intel craft like the B-1 conversion proposal.

 

[Harry64]

They should have built the FB-22, stick to 100-150 B-21s and retire the old fleet (B-52, B1 etc...) except for a selected heavy lift smart bomb carrier and spooky type COIN support craft. Plus maybe a few specialised EMP and cyber/Intel craft like the B-1 conversion proposal.


Phrenzy,

do you have nearer info about this proposal, I found nothing elsewhere.

Harry

 

[phrenzy]

I'd have to dig up something more substantial but episode 18 of season 2 of history channels dogfights stated that a B-1 EMP test had been done. Concepts of a B-1 aim-120 missile carrier launching from forward deployed F-22s and F-35s was detailed as well.

Not exactly meaty stuff but I'm sure their research staff weren't making things up.

I'd actually be curious to know the credentials of the staff on the production.

This actually relates to my ISKANDER research since the B-1 and B-2 were designed to work in tandom with AARS to locate target and destroy road mobile ICBMs. Something I'm sure they have in mind for the B-21. I'm also sure that it's going to be a competition between NRO and prompt global strike systems and B-21 numbers.

 

[totoro]

https://mobile.twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/874054783593787392/photo/1

image of NG made model of the plane. a bit more details visible than on the air force image.