Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[marauder2048]

Something will have to change since New START doesn't allow you to locate
nuclear capable and conventional bombers at the same air base.

 

[TomS]

Something will have to change since New START doesn't allow you to locate
nuclear capable and conventional bombers at the same air base.

New START expires in 2021 (or possibly 2026 if extended), so it may not matter by the time the B-21 is fully deployed.

 

[marauder2048]

You're right; it's only an issue if the treaty gets extended.
The wrinkle is that B-21 is supposed to be nuclear capable at IOC.

 

[NeilChapman]

You're right; it's only an issue if the treaty gets extended.
The wrinkle is that B-21 is supposed to be nuclear capable at IOC.

I thought no nukes for IOC+2? Is this new?

 

[TomS]

You're right; it's only an issue if the treaty gets extended.
The wrinkle is that B-21 is supposed to be nuclear capable at IOC.

I thought no nukes for IOC+2? Is this new?

Nuclear qualification at approximately IOC+2, but hardware capability at IOC. The treaty probably doesn't care about the qualification process, just the verifiable hardware provisions.

 

[marauder2048]

What TomS said but including the (mostly redacted) DODIG report that confirms it.

http://www.dodig.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Components/AI/(U)%20DODIG-2015-170%20(Redacted)_508.pdf?ver=2017-11-15-112152-610

 

[bobbymike]

America’s New Stealth Bomber has a Stealthy Price Tag

Revealing how much the Air Force’s B-21 is costing won’t help America’s enemies — but will make oversight possible.

www.defenseone.com

The B-21 Raider — the U.S. Air Force’s next nuclear-capable bomber — is being designed to evade enemy air defenses for decades to come. But there’s one thing the program is evading right now: the scrutiny of the American taxpayer and many of their elected representatives.

Citing the need to protect national security, the Air Force has kept secret the value of its 2015 contract award to Northrop Grumman Corp. to continue developing the bomber as well as the estimated total program acquisition and sustainment costs.

As lawmakers in the House and Senate continue to write and debate the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act this week, they should support efforts to force the public disclosure of the contract and other program cost data.

Doing so won’t give U.S. adversaries a leg up. Fear of a “sticker shock” backlash or embarrassing cost overruns are not legitimate reasons to keep taxpayers in the dark about the price tag of one of the Pentagon’s largest and most important programs.

 

[sferrin]

Oh look, journalists crying about not being able to generate clickbait titles and faux outrage because they don't have any dollar numbers.

 

[FighterJock]

Oh look, journalists crying about not being able to generate clickbait titles and faux outrage because they don't have any dollar numbers.

Look at what happened to the B-2 program. No one would want a repeat of that to happen to the B-21.

 

[LowObservable]

Oh look, someone who claims to be an expert on everything but can't be bothered to read the author's bio and find out that he isn't a journalist.

 

[sferrin]

Oh look, someone who claims to be an expert on everything but can't be bothered to read the author's bio and find out that he isn't a journalist.

Where have I claimed to be an expert on anything? Oh right, I haven't.

 

[sferrin]

Oh look, journalists crying about not being able to generate clickbait titles and faux outrage because they don't have any dollar numbers.

Look at what happened to the B-2 program. No one would want a repeat of that to happen to the B-21.

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

 

[LowObservable]

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

Not at all, but then nobody said that it would.

 

[sferrin]

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

Not at all, but then nobody said that it would.

Given that those are the groups complaining the loudest that would be the end result. Lot's of hit pieces that do nothing but drive up cost.

 

[kaiserd]

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

Not at all, but then nobody said that it would.

Given that those are the groups complaining the loudest that would be the end result. Lot's of hit pieces that do nothing but drive up cost.

Many contributors here wouldn’t look so kindly on such secrecy for equivalent figures for other large public spending projects.
None of the comments by contributors here are indicating any actual legitimate reasons for keeping these spending/ budgeted figures secret (no mention of legitimate national security concerns).
Just trying to avoid awkward news stories isn’t a legitimate reason and would come back to bite and undermine the B-21 project (which I support by the way, not bashing the B-21).

 

[sferrin]

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

Not at all, but then nobody said that it would.

Given that those are the groups complaining the loudest that would be the end result. Lot's of hit pieces that do nothing but drive up cost.

Many contributors here wouldn’t look so kindly on such secrecy for equivalent figures for other large public spending projects.
None of the comments by contributors here are indicating any actual legitimate reasons for keeping these spending/ budgeted figures secret (no mention of legitimate national security concerns).
Just trying to avoid awkward news stories isn’t a legitimate reason and would come back to bite and undermine the B-21 project (which I support by the way, not bashing the B-21).

^---Like this. Nowhere here do you even consider that there is legitimacy to keeping costs secret. How would you know? How would anybody on this board? Instead you imply the only reason they want to keep it under wraps is to avoid, "awkward news stories".

 

[kaiserd]

How would having anti-military members of the general public writing click-bait prevent that?

Not at all, but then nobody said that it would.

Given that those are the groups complaining the loudest that would be the end result. Lot's of hit pieces that do nothing but drive up cost.

Many contributors here wouldn’t look so kindly on such secrecy for equivalent figures for other large public spending projects.
None of the comments by contributors here are indicating any actual legitimate reasons for keeping these spending/ budgeted figures secret (no mention of legitimate national security concerns).
Just trying to avoid awkward news stories isn’t a legitimate reason and would come back to bite and undermine the B-21 project (which I support by the way, not bashing the B-21).

^---Like this. Nowhere here do you even consider that there is legitimacy to keeping costs secret. How would you know? How would anybody on this board? Instead you imply the only reason they want to keep it under wraps is to avoid, "awkward news stories".

I never said or implied anything of the kind.
I was referring to contributors comments here promoting secrecy as a counter to legitimate scrutiny, suggesting that such flawed logic if applied would in the end hurt not protect the B-21.

 

[sferrin]

I never said or implied anything of the kind.
I was referring to contributors comments here promoting secrecy as a counter to legitimate scrutiny, and that such flawed logic if applied would in the end hurt not protect the B-21.

Do you honestly believe the program isn't under scrutiny? That whatever money they ask for is just handed to them on a silver platter, that any deadline they want to blow is blessed from on high with no repercussions? Seriously?

 

[kaiserd]

I never said or implied anything of the kind.
I was referring to contributors comments here promoting secrecy as a counter to legitimate scrutiny, and that such flawed logic if applied would in the end hurt not protect the B-21.

Do you honestly believe the program isn't under scrutiny? That whatever money they ask for is just handed to them on a silver platter, that any deadline they want to blow is blessed from on high with no repercussions? Seriously?

No, that’s clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.
It’s a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important very large figures relating to this project remain shrouded in secrecy.
Of course there is an entire apparatus behind this secrecy that aims to keep this project to account; for all I know it may be doing a fantastic or a terrible job.
And the probable plan is not to keep these figures secret longer than necessary as the politicians and the Pentagon know better than contributors here advocating secrecy as a panacea for negative press.

 

[sferrin]

No, that’s clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.

No need to project. I just find it telling that the only people complaining are those who make their scratch by churning out hit pieces on military programs.

It’s a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important

How much of the public is even qualified to form a valid opinion? Consider how many bought the, "F-35 was slaughtered by an F-16 in a dogfight contest" idiocy.

 

[kaiserd]

No, that’s clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.

No need to project. I just find it telling that the only people complaining are those who make their scratch by churning out hit pieces on military programs.

It’s a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important

How much of the public is even qualified to form a valid opinion? Consider how many bought the, "F-35 was slaughtered by an F-16 in a dogfight contest" idiocy.

So your own chosen argument for this specific secrecy around these figures appears to be that you don’t like the only people you perceive as complaining about it and that anyway most people are too stupid to care or understand either way.
A clear quality argument with absolutely no projection involved
And back to my actual on topic point; delivery not secrecy is how the B-21 has to see off any negative press it may get.

 

[dark sidius]

Keeping the B-21 in high classified is the better idea possible, national security have no price , and nobody in public have realy a need to know about it. We must wait the roll out it's like that, the B-21 is so important for USAF and futur airpower , we can wait some years .

 

[Flyaway]

No, that’s clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.

No need to project. I just find it telling that the only people complaining are those who make their scratch by churning out hit pieces on military programs.

It’s a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important

How much of the public is even qualified to form a valid opinion? Consider how many bought the, "F-35 was slaughtered by an F-16 in a dogfight contest" idiocy.

Yes but you’ve always against proper scrutiny of this project. You seem to think that taxpayers should just cough up however many dollars it takes all in defense of excessive secrecy. Or is it the case that the costs wouldn’t stand up to such scrutiny. And don’t come up with the argument that’s already being scrutinised as that’s no argument at all when it’s done behind a curtain.

 

[NeilChapman]

No, that’s clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.

No need to project. I just find it telling that the only people complaining are those who make their scratch by churning out hit pieces on military programs.

It’s a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important

How much of the public is even qualified to form a valid opinion? Consider how many bought the, "F-35 was slaughtered by an F-16 in a dogfight contest" idiocy.

Yes but you’ve always against proper scrutiny of this project. You seem to think that taxpayers should just cough up however many dollars it takes all in defense of excessive secrecy. Or is it the case that the costs wouldn’t stand up to such scrutiny. And don’t come up with the argument that’s already being scrutinised as that’s no argument at all when it’s done behind a curtain.

The whole "release the cost figures" brouhaha is just political theater. McCain was the loudest - and he got to see the numbers in closed session.

Nothing to see here.

 

[marauder2048]

McCain was the loudest - and he got to see the numbers in closed session.

Yeah..we've been through this.

For this type of SAP, even co-sponsors of that amendment, neither of whom are members of a defense or
intelligence committee, can get access in a pretty straightforward manner.

I just think some of these members don't want to have their hands officially dipped in blood.

 

[sferrin]

Yes but you’ve always against proper scrutiny of this project.

No, our definitions of "proper scrutiny" differ. Mine is that it should be monitored by those who have a clue and are responsible for reporting costs up to the SecDef. Others seem to think "proper scrutiny" means giving access to everybody on the planet so they can get coin generating metric fooktons of bull---t.

 

[Triton]

Yes but you’ve always against proper scrutiny of this project.

No, our definitions of "proper scrutiny" differ. Mine is that it should be monitored by those who have a clue and are responsible for reporting costs up to the SecDef. Others seem to think "proper scrutiny" means giving access to everybody on the planet so they can get coin generating metric fooktons of bull---t.

The Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association and the Director of the CDI Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight are hardly objective when it comes to scrutinizing nuclear weapons and other military programs. They want the cost information to mislead the American taxpayer to embrace their unilateral nuclear disarmament agenda.

 

[kaiserd]

Yes but you’ve always against proper scrutiny of this project.

No, our definitions of "proper scrutiny" differ. Mine is that it should be monitored by those who have a clue and are responsible for reporting costs up to the SecDef. Others seem to think "proper scrutiny" means giving access to everybody on the planet so they can get coin generating metric fooktons of bull---t.

The Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association and the Director of the CDI Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight are hardly objective when it comes to scrutinizing nuclear weapons and other military programs. They want the cost information to mislead the American taxpayer to embrace their unilateral nuclear disarmament agenda.

And they could equally validly argue that keeping such costs secret misleads US tax payers by hiding the true costs of this system from US tax payers.
As ever the truth is somewhere in between; some initial secrecy re: some budgetary aspects is defensible and appropriate but blanket secrecy with an agenda is equally destructive as blanket disclosure with a different agenda.
As mentioned in my previous posts I seriously doubt the US military etc. actually intend such an approach but it unfortunately speaks to the reflexive authoritarianism of some contributors that they are so keen on it.

 

[marauder2048]

I'd like to see evidence that a taxpaying member of the public
(not connected to arms control issues and not a journalist or pundit)

a. asked their representative/senator sitting on the HASC/SASC to look into the B-21 cost question

and

b. that member of Congress attempted to do so but was denied access by DoD

Otherwise, the impetus for this discussion feels like astroturf i.e. fake grassroots.

 

[Triton]

And they could equally validly argue that keeping such costs secret misleads US tax payers by hiding the true costs of this system from US tax payers.
As ever the truth is somewhere in between; some initial secrecy re: some budgetary aspects is defensible and appropriate but blanket secrecy with an agenda is equally destructive as blanket disclosure with a different agenda.
As mentioned in my previous posts I seriously doubt the US military etc. actually intend such an approach but it unfortunately speaks to the reflexive authoritarianism of some contributors that they are so keen on it.

The United States is a representative democracy with black budget items known to decision makers who have a need to know.

 

[kaiserd]

I'd like to see evidence that a taxpaying member of the public
(not connected to arms control issues and not a journalist or pundit)

a. asked their representative/senator sitting on the HASC/SASC to look into the B-21 cost question

and

b. that member of Congress attempted to do so but was denied access by DoD

Otherwise, the impetus for this discussion feels like astroturf i.e. fake grassroots.

Apologies but your logic is somewhat spurious.
Why would such secrecy be rendered legitimate or not legitimate depending on if this “normal tax payer” did or did not make such a request?
And why would such a “normal tax payer” have more or less right to these details than another tax payer with a potential (or probable or certain) pro- or con- agenda re: those figures ?
And if it’s known certain figures are secret then why would a congressman/ congresswoman asking for them knowing they won’t get them make any real difference.
As I said in my previous comments I’m not advocating any absolute position on this issue of secrecy, I am merely challenging contributors comments that secrecy is great to prevent media scrutiny and that this is itself a valid basis for such secrecy.

 

[sferrin]

I'd like to see evidence that a taxpaying member of the public
(not connected to arms control issues and not a journalist or pundit)

a. asked their representative/senator sitting on the HASC/SASC to look into the B-21 cost question

and

b. that member of Congress attempted to do so but was denied access by DoD

Otherwise, the impetus for this discussion feels like astroturf i.e. fake grassroots.

Well said.

 

[marauder2048]

And if it’s known certain figures are secret then why would a congressman/ congresswoman asking for them knowing they won’t get them make any real difference.

Because HASC/SASC members are supposed to be able to get access to Acknowledged SAPs.
If they aren't able to then that's a very separate issue. But we've seen no evidence of that.

A disinterested (in the sense of not belonging to a special interest group) member of the taxpaying
public is more important because they constitute the vast majority of taxpayers and their livelihood
and/or ideological imperative doesn't need or depend on reporting/digesting/dissecting the figures.

 

[kaiserd]

And if it’s known certain figures are secret then why would a congressman/ congresswoman asking for them knowing they won’t get them make any real difference.

Because HASC/SASC members are supposed to be able to get access to Acknowledged SAPs.
If they aren't able to then that's a very separate issue. But we've seen no evidence of that.

A disinterested (in the sense of not belonging to a special interest group) member of the taxpaying
public is more important because they constitute the vast majority of taxpayers and their livelihood
and/or ideological imperative doesn't need or depend on reporting/digesting/dissecting the figures.

Under the US constitution and/or the relevant secrecy regime do these “disinterested” tax payers have more rights or are considered “more important” than “interested” ones?
Again I’m not against a moderate secrecy as warranted by legitimate national secrecy concerns and balanced against every Americans right to know how their money is being spent.
And the current secrecy around aspects of the B-21 budget may well legitimately fall within this.
Again I am merely pointing out that there is no legitimate argument for withholding certain information from specific parties you don’t like just because you don’t like them and personally could consider them less important. It is that line of thinking that is dangerous to democracy and individual rights.

 

[marauder2048]

Under the US constitution and/or the relevant secrecy regime do these “disinterested” tax payers have more rights or are considered “more important” than “interested” ones?

Of course. The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

Again I am merely pointing out that there is no legitimate argument for withholding certain information from specific parties you don’t like just because you don’t like them and personally could consider them less important. It is that line of thinking that is dangerous to democracy and individual rights.

The piece of course doesn't mention that post B-2 (and A-12) Congress reformed how Acknowledged SAP
info was shared with committee members.

What they are arguing for is that additional reform is needed yet there's no evidence whatsoever that the
current reforms are flawed or even being utilized.

 

[LowObservable]

The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

What limits?

 

[marauder2048]

The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

What limits?

Advocating for the adoption or rejection of legislation aka lobbying.
In this case, the Norman-Blumenauer amendment.

There's only so much of that these organizations are allowed to do.

 

[kaiserd]

The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

What limits?

Advocating for the adoption or rejection of legislation aka lobbying.
In this case, the Norman-Blumenauer amendment.

There's only so much of that these organizations are allowed to do.

Limits on lobbying are very much not the same as differentiated rights for different tax payers being differentiated on the basis of if they agree with you or not.

And I was not necessarily arguing for reform of the current system; I was arguing against the contributors on this site advocating for the exploitation of the current system to deny access to budget details to interest groups they don't like or agree with on the basis that they don't like or agree with them.

If there was any evidence that the current system was being exploited in this way or was potentially vulnerable to being exploited in this manner then it would badly need reform.

And I would contend that such advocates logic is very troubling but unfortunately not now uncommon, with its authoritarian basis making a shameful come-back .

 

[marauder2048]

The government regularly denies FOIA requests of this nature where really only the self-interest
of the requester is being served by disclosure; the authors of this piece can't show that the public is
being harmed by non-disclosure because they can't demonstrate that the reformed oversight
polices for SAPs are inadequate.

That's not authoritarianism. Just a recognition that grandiose claims about public
interest are often marshalled in the service of advancing a particular agenda...
which why these groups are, in many cases, 501(c)(3) in the first place.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/b-21-will-complete-critical-design-review-year-s-end?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180626_AW-05_703&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=15392&utm_medium=email&elq2=dcda397af9224458aec4bc1f54a94227

One of the U.S. Air Force’s top acquisition programs, the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, will complete its critical design review (CDR) by year’s end, a senior official says.

Randall Walden, Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office director, said June 25 at a Mitchell Institute Event that the service has completed the preliminary design review (PDR) and will soon formally kick off a CDR.

Once the program passes its CDR, the service will move onto manufacturing a test aircraft, he said.

“This is about building 100 bombers, not about getting through development,” Walden said. “My focus is getting production started, but we can’t get through that until we understand what the design looks like.”

In March, House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) told reporters there were a series of early production “hiccups” with the next-generation stealth bomber’s engine and wings. The problem Wittman described about the B-21 engine is related to airflow.

“This is an extraordinary, complex aircraft,” Wittman said. “The issue is not that you have uncertainties, the issue is how you address them.”

Walden said the problems Wittman mentioned in March are fixed. The program experienced these hurdles because everything produced at that point was built on predictions, he said. But the program office is currently conducting component-level testing and now has a good feeling for each part.