Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

phrenzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're using a documentary on the History Channel as your source.
 
Of B-1R from the concept creators, not that TV bullshit.

All Systems Go

Offering Unique Solutions for Global Strike Force
web.archive.org
 
Haha only what I had off the top of my head. Just some light entertainment.

Somewhere I have more detail on the B-1R proposal and seperately the directed energy weapons integration (including the EMP proposal).

Thanks for the link FR.

They've come a long way from dropping conductive filaments on Iraqi power lines...
 
phrenzy said:
They've come a long way from dropping conductive filaments on Iraqi power lines...
Click to expand...

What makes you think they got rid of that? I wish they'd have deployed the alternative, one they thought too destructive to deploy. The carbon spools could be cleaned up and the equipment put back into operation. The alternate (essentially carbon powder IIRC) ruined the equipment. It got into everything and, short of completely taking everything apart and cleaning it, made affected equipment unusable.
 
No doubt they retain a similar capability, probably improved, I was just pointing out that compared to the ECM and EMP concepts for the B-1R and start they are packing into CHAMP the technology has mind on in leaps and bounds.
 
Goldfein: Air Force to roll out updated bomber roadmap in September


The Air Force expects to unveil an updated bomber roadmap in September that will detail future bomber force-structure needs and identify the new B-21 Raider's role in that future fleet.

Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said Wednesday the service is in the midst of "aggressive dialogue" with Congress over its initial proposal for how the bomber fleet will shift to make room for the B-21 when it begins fielding in the mid 2020s.

"We're in the process of doing something that we've been accused in the past of not doing very well, and that is including Congress in the dialogue about where we're going," Goldfein said during a July 26 Air Force Association event on Capitol Hill. "And so we've been socializing this and in September, our current game plan is to roll out a bomber roadmap for the future."

The updated roadmap, which Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand has called a "bomber vector," will include feedback from Congress, Goldfein added.

Goldfein told lawmakers in June the new roadmap currently indicates the service will need at least 100 B-21s -- a requirement that could grow -- and a total fleet of 165 bombers to operate in the 2030 threat environment. The Air Force currently has 76 B-52s, 20 B-2s and 62 B-1s.

Speaking to reporters after the event, Goldfein said the service is still working to update a similar roadmap for combat aircraft. Asked how many combat jets the service needs, Goldfein said that requirement would be informed by the recently completed National Military Strategy and the ongoing Defense Strategic Review.

"Out of that Defense Strategic Review will be, 'Here's what this force needs to look like to most effectively operate,'" Goldfein said. "For me to give you a number right now before that strategic review is complete would be inappropriate."

Senate authorizers are calling for more details on the service's aircraft inventory requirement in the 2030 time frame in their version of 2018 defense policy legislation. The bill proposes the department conduct three independent studies of future force-structure needs -- one led by the Air Force, one by a federally funded research and development center and a third by an independent, non-government institute with national security expertise.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told reporters in June the Air Force's current requirement is for 1,350 combat-coded fighter jets, which equates to 2,100 total aircraft inventory. The fiscal year 2018 budget request supports 1,175 combat fighters, which meets minimum requirements set in Defense Planning Guidance, Stefanek said.
Click to expand...
 
AFA: In what may be a hint of things to come, the head of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office says his office is keeping a close eye on the B-21 bomber’s stealth costs. While he didn’t indicate there were any cost overruns or scheduler problems, the fact that RCO Director Randall Walden mentioned this for the first time in public would seem to indicate a heightened level of interest.
Click to expand...

If we put a few pieces together, Walden may be focused on stealth because Northrop Grumman, the plane’s builder, is constructing a new 45,900 square foot “coatings facility” at its facility at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif. And, as Walden noted during a panel yesterday, stealth is one of the program’s most likely risk areas.

I confirmed that the plant is part of the B-21 program and that the facility would be key to stealth coatings for the plane. Development of a stand-alone plant for coatings, presumably for stealth, highlights the importance of security to the program.

Bottom line on the B-21 program seems to be summed up by Walden’s comment that, “Based on what I’ve seen so far, it’s actually a pretty good deal for us and the taxpayers.”
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

Rapid Capabilities Office Watching B-21 Stealth Costs 'Closely' - Breaking Defense

AFA: In what may be a hint of things to come, the head of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office says his office is keeping a close eye on the B-21 bomber’s stealth costs. While he didn’t indicate there were any cost overruns or scheduler problems, the fact that RCO Director Randall Walden...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Interesting...

www.ainonline.com

Confusion Arises Over the JSTARS Recap Plan | AIN

Senior U.S. Air Force leaders said that source selection would proceed on schedule, even as the requirement is re-assessed.
www.ainonline.com www.ainonline.com

"Meanwhile, in another media briefing, the head of Strike Command General Robin Rand did not disagree with a suggestion that the forthcoming B-21 stealth bomber might act as a specialized penetrating ISR platform, including the JSTARS mission. He said that the objective of acquiring only 100 B-21s would be re-assessed because “there are a lot of missions to be done.” "

Now if they'd consider a tanker variant as well... ;)
 
Does not make much sense, at least worded that way. Think at the effect of surprise, force resilience and cpfh. Not talking about the political disaster of having to rely on a bomber flying at the edge of a nation airspace to track moving trucks (or do covert penetration).

A JSTAR have some lighter mode of usage than a full scale war.
 
TomcatViP said:
Does not make much sense, at least worded that way. Think at the effect of surprise, force resilience and cpfh. Not talking about the political disaster of having to rely on a bomber flying at the edge of a nation airspace to track moving trucks (or do covert penetration).

A JSTAR have some lighter mode of usage than a full scale war.
Click to expand...


Don't think of it as a bomber. Think of it as a platform - or - a variant of a platform. You can make it disappear when you want to - or - with some tweaks you can make it light up radar like a Christmas tree.

It's a big gas tank w/sensors.
 
breakingdefense.com

Boost The US Bomber Force: Dollars vs. Operational Needs - Breaking Defense

The United States Air Force should consider shifting its balance of its strike forces from fighters to long-range bombers. At the end of the Cold War, the Air Force’s combat aircraft inventory included 411 bombers. Today, it has a total of 158 B-1, B-52, and B-2 bombers, of which only 96 are...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Interesting as well.

Wonder what the cost would be to plan for increased B-21 production?
What is the expected production rate?

Some assumptions...

Current B-2 squadron is 3 ships.
Likely B-21 squadron will be 3 ships.
Initial build is for two or three test articles. Would any of these be flyable?
IoC, for B-2 required a full squadron of ships - 3.
IoC for B-21 was initially ~2025.
Initial purchase is for 21 ships in 5 LRIP batches - seven squadrons.
NG has been working on Palmdale plant in preparation for B-21 production since 2015
NG has learned a great deal about production having built the center fuselage section of F-35's since 2011.
i.e. B-21 won't be hand-made like each B-2. There'll likely be lots of 9-axis robots involved, reducing cost and build time.
B-21 passed Preliminary Design Review early in 2017
As of early 2017, B-21 in EMD phase
B-21 in or starting Critical Design Review in September 2017. First of two major reviews in EMD.
Next milestone is Production Readiness Review followed by
Low Rate Initial Production
Stealth coatings facility at Palmdale completion date is December 25, 2019
Plan is for qty 100 B-21's
Plan is to retire all B-52's and B-1's by 2040
Speculative LRIP rate of 1/2/6/6/6 or 1/3/5/5/7
Likely one LRIP batch per fiscal year
LRIP Batch 1, 2023 / LRIP Batch 2, 2024 = 3 ships for IoC in 2025
LRIP Batch 3, 2025 / LRIP Batch 4, 2026 / LRIP Batch 5, 2027 / FRP in 2028
Additional 79 B-21's built between ~2028 & 2039 12 years / 7 ships per year minimum
With everything that's been going on the in world, there is great pressure to not let these timelines slip.
B-1 and B-52 are fine for dealing with N.Korea but not very functional against a near-peer.

Granted - all speculation. But it helps do some numbers.

If IoC slips to 2030, production needs to be 11-12 ships per year. That's, potentially a significant increase for your subs.

Back to my initial question, what would it cost to increase production. Answer is that it depends on the initial production plans. If they plan for 7 ships per year, jumping to 11-12 is at least a 60% increase. They may not have the space in Palmdale nor the subs the capacity to accommodate that.

Hopefully they're planning for ~10-12 ships per year, they get IOC in 2025 and they can build 120-140 B-21's by 2040.

Increasing the production rate by reducing time on the production floor resulting in reduction of man hours per ship will lower costs. I expect that NG wants to get the labor pool proficient as quickly as possible because that's when they'll start making money.

@600M per ship, FRP of 10 ships per year is $6Billion. Is there any documentation out there about USAF future spend? That seems like a chunk of change. I think the total USAF aircraft procurement budget for 2016 was just under US$16Billion. Adding 6+ billion to that will be interesting. Perhaps we can buy 10 and get two free? ;)

Maybe it's all moot. We'll have hypersonic's, re-engine B-52's as bomb trucks, and the world changes in an instant.

Or Both!
 
Sheesh, 7 a year? We will never get even 50 built at that rate. Its not as if this is a cottage industry, building heavy bombers. I remember not too long ago when Bones were rolling off the line at much faster rate. We will get about 50 built and then congress and the GAO will say the threat has changed, the bomber is obsolete, blah blah blah, and shudder the line. What ever happened to mass production?
 
Airplane said:
Sheesh, 7 a year? We will never get even 50 built at that rate. Its not as if this is a cottage industry, building heavy bombers. I remember not too long ago when Bones were rolling off the line at much faster rate. We will get about 50 built and then congress and the GAO will say the threat has changed, the bomber is obsolete, blah blah blah, and shudder the line. What ever happened to mass production?
Click to expand...

All 100 B-1Bs were built in about 4 years. I remember seeing photos of the checkout facility, where they could do four B-1Bs at a time.
 
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
 
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
 
FighterJock said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
Click to expand...

They cut it to 21 B-2.
 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
Click to expand...

They cut it to 21 B-2.
Click to expand...
This is not a political statement but from '89 to today, IMHO, the US gave away a generation lead in military technology, R&D, production and deployment.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
Click to expand...

They cut it to 21 B-2.
Click to expand...
This is not a political statement but from '89 to today, IMHO, the US gave away a generation lead in military technology, R&D, production and deployment.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's putting it mildly.
 
Grey Havoc said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
Click to expand...

They cut it to 21 B-2.
Click to expand...
This is not a political statement but from '89 to today, IMHO, the US gave away a generation lead in military technology, R&D, production and deployment.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's putting it mildly.
Click to expand...

7 airframes a year has to be on par with the number of submarines we used to build in a year back in the shipyard glory days. We will never see 100. Its no wonder the buffs are required to last many more years.
 
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Click to expand...

Purely academic but:

Aside from GAO, is there another source for this? Grant's 2013 book (pretty much the official history) only gives a FRP of 30/year.
 
sublight is back said:
The head of Strategic Command, General John Hyten, says the biggest problem is that America's defense industrial complex has lost the ability to design and build these platforms fast.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when there's only one contract every 20 years. Tough to get good at anything that way.
 
sublight is back said:
The head of Strategic Command, General John Hyten, says the biggest problem is that America's defense industrial complex has lost the ability to design and build these platforms fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m691gCJWME
Click to expand...

That's the first time I heard anyone in the military echo my thoughts about this subject. Good find.
 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Those were the times, yeah.
Click to expand...

I can remember those times too flateric, pity the US Air Force never kept to those figures, or at least only cut the number to 100 B-2.
Click to expand...

They cut it to 21 B-2.
Click to expand...

I suspect that "21" is a painful number for NG as well. Hence the cost plus requirement for development. No way NG is "sticking their necks out", financially, for DoD on B-21. The sooner they get some financial commitment from DoD for FRP jets the sooner prices will stabilize and start to drop.

As long as "stealth", and its unavoidable cost structure, is working/necessary, it makes sense to utilize variations of this platform for other missions. Funding stability, quantity, an experienced and consistent labor force will make it more affordable over time. Think Virginia-Class SSN's or the F-35 program.

At $600M a copy, the 60Billion for acquisition of just the airframe it is an unavoidable, significant impact on procurement budgets. If you want a bomber force that can fight two wars simultaneously, with one against a near peer, you won't do it with 100, or even 120 bombers. You're going to need at least 150-200 combat coded bombers. That means 200-250 actual bombers. If the projected build was 150 ships over 12 years the build rate would be 1 per month and the acquisition costs could be lower if there were MYP's or large bulk buys. I'm sure the B-21 Program Office will look at MYP's and other term's options to manage cost as well as vendor specific projects to "buy" cost reductions.

Pivot to the San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphib program as an example. They developed the LX(R) program to replace the Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry class amphibs. Instead of a new hull, they took advantage of a hot production line, stripped out cost from LPD-17 hull and called it a day. LX(R) will be much bigger than the previous class but they will take advantage of funding stability, quantity, an experienced and consistent labor force.

If one can re-envision the the Raider as a multi-use airframe, modifying its capabilities based on requirements then more volume can be added to portions of the B-21 production line, which will reduce cost. Perhaps A2/AD doesn't allow my JSTARS platforms to get as close as I want/need to so I use some Raider variant as a forward sensor.

I'd be looking for any way to extend the "usefulness" of the general airframe to justify larger quantities.
 
sublight is back said:
The head of Strategic Command, General John Hyten, says the biggest problem is that America's defense industrial complex has lost the ability to design and build these platforms fast.


That's the first time I heard anyone in the military echo my thoughts about this subject. Good find.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said.

I look at our industry today. People think I am insulting industry when I talk about them.
I’ve worked with industry. Industry has the ability to go as fast as we want them to go.
As fast as we tell them to go. If we get them good contracts, good incentives, they will go fast. If we don’t, they won’t. It’s really that simple.
Click to expand...

http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/1329490/afa-air-space-and-cyber-conference/
 
marauder2048 said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Click to expand...

Purely academic but:

Aside from GAO, is there another source for this? Grant's 2013 book (pretty much the official history) only gives a FRP of 30/year.
Click to expand...

"We have in place the plant and equipment to build 24-36 B-2s per year." - Thomas V. Jones to AvLeak, July 1989
 
flateric said:
marauder2048 said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Click to expand...

Purely academic but:

Aside from GAO, is there another source for this? Grant's 2013 book (pretty much the official history) only gives a FRP of 30/year.
Click to expand...


"We have in place the plant and equipment to build 24-36 B-2s per year." - Thomas V. Jones to AvLeak, July 1989
Click to expand...

Ah. Regression towards the mean. Thanks!
 
flateric said:
marauder2048 said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Click to expand...

Purely academic but:

Aside from GAO, is there another source for this? Grant's 2013 book (pretty much the official history) only gives a FRP of 30/year.
Click to expand...

"We have in place the plant and equipment to build 24-36 B-2s per year." - Thomas V. Jones to AvLeak, July 1989
Click to expand...


And those were hand built ships.

F-35 is an internationally sourced program and FRP is expected to be 15-17 per month. It's taken, literally, years (and looks like one more) to ramp up to those build rates.

Raider has a drastically smaller subcontractor list. NG will not be building Raider the same way as B-2. There will be ways to increase production through vendor specific projects identified after production begins. e.g. Production streamline, value engineering, etc.

The problem is funding. That's it. The only way to justify increased build rates is to change the total number of ships required - over time.

B-2's fly about 50 times per year. Since they practice long haul runs I'm going to assume that the average B-2 flight is 10 hours. That's 8k hours in 16 years. Seems like a good run before costly structural overhauls. (As an aside, B-2's seem to have problems w/cracks in the back that the new design may eliminate.)

Perhaps an option would be to define Raider as a continuous production run. The replacement bomber for the US. Fifteen ships per year for 16 years with improvements added incrementally in blocks to production aircraft. Design ships to last 16 years and retire them at 16, replacing them with new ships at retirement. If "peace on earth" occurs before hand you can stop production. If not, you drive cost out of the program to get acquisition down by 1/2 over 10 years - $300M in 2016 dollars.
 
flateric said:
marauder2048 said:
flateric said:
"Prior to April 1990, the Air Force had planned to buy 132 [B-2] aircraft, with a peak production rate of 36 a year."
Click to expand...

Purely academic but:

Aside from GAO, is there another source for this? Grant's 2013 book (pretty much the official history) only gives a FRP of 30/year.
Click to expand...

"We have in place the plant and equipment to build 24-36 B-2s per year." - Thomas V. Jones to AvLeak, July 1989
Click to expand...


And those were hand built ships.

F-35 is an internationally sourced program and FRP is expected to be 15-17 per month. It's taken, literally, years (and looks like one more) to ramp up to those build rates.

Raider has a drastically smaller subcontractor list. NG will not be building Raider the same way as B-2. There will be ways to increase production through vendor specific projects identified after production begins. e.g. Production streamline, value engineering, etc.

The problem is funding. That's it. The only way to justify increased build rates is to change the total number of ships required - over time.

B-2's fly about 50 times per year. Since they practice long haul runs I'm going to assume that the average B-2 flight is 10 hours. That's 8k hours in 16 years. Seems like a good run before costly structural overhauls. (As an aside, B-2's seem to have problems w/cracks in the back that the new design may eliminate.)

Perhaps an option would be to define Raider as a continuous production run. The replacement bomber for the US. Fifteen ships per year for 16 years with improvements added incrementally in blocks to production aircraft. Design ships to last 16 years and retire them at 16, replacing them with new ships at retirement. If "peace on earth" occurs before hand you can stop production. If not, you aggressively drive cost out of the program to get attempt to get acquisition down by ~1/4 - 1/2 over 10 years - $300M in 2016 dollars.


** Edit: If the production is 15 ships per year for 1st 12 years you get 180 - drive out cost during those 12 years - then you have a choice to drop to 12 per year for total of 228. Total will then drop to a steady 192 over time.

** I'm sorry for the duplicate post. I "mucked" it up. :-[
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom