Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[Foo Fighter]

Not a surprise, policy is driving procurement at the expense of standards but is nothing new anywhere in the world. MB results are there for all to see, apart from data/results held back by procurers.

 

[TomS]

That's a doozy of a letter. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so pointedly dismantle one of Loren Thompson's articles before. This is a very clear demonstration of the fact that Thompson is not primarily a defense analyst, he's primarily a defense marketer. His opinion depends on who is writing the checks.

 

[AeroFranz]

Dismantled? that was more like vivisection. Ouch.
But seriously, it's pretty bad for an analyst to claim, without any substantiation, that there is no competition because the other company can't meet the requirements. Never mind that the other company has been way more successful and builds the most advanced seat ever.
I didn't like Loren Thompson before, I respect his writings even less now.

His opinion depends on who is writing the checks.

This.

 

[marauder2048]

Never mind that the other company has been way more successful and builds the most advanced seat ever.

Hard to reconcile that with the fact that MB's losing entry in the T-X competition included a STAPAC knockoff.
And MB's seat was not able to meet the F-35 spec without help.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Never mind that the other company has been way more successful and builds the most advanced seat ever.

Hard to reconcile that with the fact that MB's losing entry in the T-X competition included a STAPAC knockoff.
And MB's seat was not able to meet the F-35 spec without help.

Is there proof of this that cannot be dismissed with the clarification letter from MB?

Sour grapes from a US manufacturer that has consistently failed.

 

[AeroFranz]

If MB is so bad, have an open competition and they will lose. End of story.

 

[marauder2048]

Is there proof of this that cannot be dismissed with the clarification letter from MB?

Sour grapes from a US manufacturer that has consistently failed.

If MB is so bad, have an open competition and they will lose. End of story.

Martin-Baker lost the open competition for T-X. End of story.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Because a second class submission never got chosen for production for political or industrial base considerations. ;D

 

[marauder2048]

Because a second class submission never got chosen for production for political or industrial base considerations. ;D

If those were actual considerations for T-X then Martin-Baker would have claimed as much in their letter.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Because a second class submission never got chosen for production for political or industrial base considerations. ;D

If those were actual considerations for T-X then Martin-Baker would have claimed as much in their letter.

Not sure if serious.....

The letter predates the contract award to UTC.

And regardless, noone's going to say "We awarded the contract to a US company cos we want to Make America(n ejector seats) Great Again not on merit".

 

[Foo Fighter]

Regardless of nationality or other considerations, MB have a better record, full stop.

 

[flateric]

Martin Baker is bidding with Mk16E as ejection seat for LRS-B, and UTC Aerospace Systems with ACES 5

Martin Baker was recently claiming that there was no competition for B-21 and it was sole-sourced to UTAS.

http://martin-baker.com/2018/11/29/letter-editor-forbes/

Though they did predict the future with their loss in the T-X competition.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-06-15/martin-baker-saving-lives-family-way

Recently, both teams competing for the secret U.S. Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) requirement have proposed Martin-Baker seats.

 

[marauder2048]

Because a second class submission never got chosen for production for political or industrial base considerations. ;D

If those were actual considerations for T-X then Martin-Baker would have claimed as much in their letter.

Not sure if serious.....

The letter predates the contract award to UTC.

And regardless, noone's going to say "We awarded the contract to a US company cos we want to Make America(n ejector seats) Great Again not on merit".

The letter merely predates the public announcement of the award; UTAS was already hinting at this time that they had won it.

If MB sensed a rigged competition they would have said so either then or now; they've been extremely vocal in the press
when they've felt they were being treated unfairly e.g. the Aces II -> Aces 5 upgrade for the B-2.

 

[marauder2048]

Full quote:

Recently, both teams competing for the secret U.S. Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) requirement have proposed Martin-Baker seats.
And, adds Martin, “All the primes who will bid for the U.S. T-X requirement have selected us."

Proposed the seat in which round? The LRS-B rounds were still ongoing when that article was written.
And of course proposed doesn't mean selected and selected doesn't even mean selected
since MB claims to have been selected for T-X when in fact it was an open competition which they lost.

MB have a better record, full stop.

MB has a criminal record in the UK after the recent indictment and conviction.

 

[RavenOne]

The US Air Force announces Ellsworth AFB will be first B-21 Raider base.

Air Force announces Ellsworth AFB as first B-21 base

The Air Force announced Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, has been selected as the preferred location for the first operational B-21 bomber and the formal training unit, March 27.

www.af.mil

Cheers

 

[NeilChapman]

The US Air Force announces Ellsworth AFB will be first B-21 Raider base.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1797946/air-force-announces-ellsworth-afb-as-first-b-21-base/

Cheers

From the article...

“These three bomber bases are well suited for the B-21," said Secretary of the Air Force Heather A. Wilson. “We expect the first B-21 Raider to be delivered beginning in the mid-2020s, with subsequent deliveries phased across all three bases.”

Probably can't read much into this but...

not "late-2020's" but "mid-2020's"

Also speaking of delivery with reference to this base, not necessarily test articles.

 

[kitnut617]

Probably can't read much into this but...

not "late-2020's" but "mid-2020's"

Also speaking of delivery with reference to this base, not necessarily test articles.

Does that mean it's already being tested then ?

 

[bring_it_on]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngBbblBFN4E

 

[Sundog]

May be partly what the new hangar is for at the area which doesn't exist?

Doubtful, since Edwards has been preparing part of their base for the B-21 test program.

 

[TomS]

Probably can't read much into this but...

not "late-2020's" but "mid-2020's"

Also speaking of delivery with reference to this base, not necessarily test articles.

Does that mean it's already being tested then ?

As of a year ago, they were still finalizing engine inlet design and working toward an "iron bird" version. A lot can happen in a year, but it seems unlikely they have a flying aircraft quite yet.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25915.msg325891/topicseen.html#msg325891

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop Grumman's B-21 Stealth Bomber to Get Procurement Boost

The U.S. Air Force plans to spend as much as $5.9 billion over the next five years to begin buying Northrop Grumman Corp.’s B-21 stealth bombers, according to unclassified but previously unreleased five-year budget figures.

The figures are “another confirmation that B-21 is on track and production should entail higher margins for Northrop Grumman,” Byron Callan, defense analyst for Capital Alpha Partners in Washington, said in an email statement.

Procurement spending will start with $202 million in 2022 before surging to $2.4 billion in 2023 and then $3.3 billion in 2024, according to the figures, which weren’t included in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 budget justification, released March 18.

 

[totoro]

Wild interpretation time! long lead items contract in 2022, contract for two planes in 2023, and three more in 2024. Assuming 2-3 years from contract to delivery , first LRIP planes might get delivered in 2025/2026.

 

[NeilChapman]

Wild interpretation time! long lead items contract in 2022, contract for two planes in 2023, and three more in 2024. Assuming 2-3 years from contract to delivery , first LRIP planes might get delivered in 2025/2026.

These are interesting insights.

It is worth noting that part of B-21 project was Northrop lining up expertise with production line prior to contract award. I think it is reasonable to expect that, given NG's F-35 line experience, B-21 test articles will be built on production rather than prototype tooling. Given the rapid advances in manufacturing prowess let's hope it is less than 2-3 years from contract to delivery of LRIP 1.

But it is a big jet...

 

[bring_it_on]

"Initial Capability" (I assume this is the arrival of the first aircraft to an operational unit) is scheduled for the Mid-2020's and as we heard in the recent HASC hearing the program is on track and schedule.

 

[FighterJock]

"Initial Capability" (I assume this is the arrival of the first aircraft to an operational unit) is scheduled for the Mid-2020's and as we heard in the recent HASC hearing the program is on track and schedule.

That is excellent news bring_it_on, as long as the program does not slip or suffer from cost overruns then 2025 cannot come fast enough.

 

[kitnut617]

"Initial Capability" (I assume this is the arrival of the first aircraft to an operational unit) is scheduled for the Mid-2020's and as we heard in the recent HASC hearing the program is on track and schedule.

That is excellent news bring_it_on, as long as the program does not slip or suffer from cost overruns then 2025 cannot come fast enough.

That's how I read the announcement, it's only a year away. It would suggest to me there's an aircraft already flying ----

 

[Sundog]

That's how I read the announcement, it's only a year away. It would suggest to me there's an aircraft already flying ----

There isn't a B-21 flying already, we would have seen it flying already, since it's hard to hide something that big at Edwards and NG would be talking about it (good press). It just passed critical design review not too long ago and even with advanced manufacturing techniques, we can't get something like that built that fast. We do know various demonstrators have flown as proof of concept vehicles for some of the technologies being used in it. But those were not the B-21.

 

[kitnut617]

That's how I read the announcement, it's only a year away. It would suggest to me there's an aircraft already flying ----

There isn't a B-21 flying already, we would have seen it flying already, since it's hard to hide something that big at Edwards and NG would be talking about it (good press). It just passed critical design review not too long ago and even with advanced manufacturing techniques, we can't get something like that built that fast. We do know various demonstrators have flown as proof of concept vehicles for some of the technologies being used in it. But those were not the B-21.

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding what "Initial Capability" means then ---

 

[_Del_]

Mid-2020's means 2023-27. Not Summer of 2020.

 

[Sundog]

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding what "Initial Capability" means then ---

My understanding is, for the most part, it is being developed with systems that have mostly already been developed. Of course they'll be modified to fit the B-21, but I think the RCO, the group at the Pentagon in charge of it's development works based on what is ready to go in now, not based on promises for what is to be ready by 2030. Having said that, I think that's also why they want it to be "plug and play," so to speak, so it can be easily upgraded as new technologies become available.

While a lot of the tech in the B-21 will probably be new to us, they, the Pentagon and the contractors, in this case NG, have spent at least the past decade to decade and a half developing the technologies that went into the B-21 and making them robust enough for a production program. So there shouldn't be too much "new development" work required for this program like there was with the F-35.

 

[Grey Havoc]

We hope!

 

[RavenOne]

That's how I read the announcement, it's only a year away. It would suggest to me there's an aircraft already flying ----

There isn't a B-21 flying already, we would have seen it flying already, since it's hard to hide something that big at Edwards and NG would be talking about it (good press). It just passed critical design review not too long ago and even with advanced manufacturing techniques, we can't get something like that built that fast. We do know various demonstrators have flown as proof of concept vehicles for some of the technologies being used in it. But those were not the B-21.

So what with the Amarillo triangles then? The other OEMs built their offerings to the Pentagon and got duly rejected.

Not one but two different triangular mystery jets are being secretely flown across the US

Texas and Kansas sightings have unveiled two different Black Projects. As we have already reported here, on Mar. 10, 2014 Steve Douglass and Dean Muskett

theaviationist.com

Or maybe N-G had a prorotype squirrelled away flew it for the powers to be and received glistening pearls?

Cheers

 

[flateric]

Amarillo triangles are just B-2s

 

[RavenOne]

Amarillo triangles are just B-2s

Apparently someone wrote to Whiteman PAO and got response that no B-2 in the air that area.

Plus the wings are too swept back from flying wing almost artichoke.

Just my two Euros worth of thoughts.

Cheers

 

[sferrin]

Amarillo triangles are just B-2s

Apparently someone wrote to Whiteman PAO and got response that no B-2 in the air that area.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a PR person get details wrong.

Plus the wings are too swept back from flying wing almost artichoke.

Cheers

A B-2 viewed at the right angle would look like that.

 

[Flyaway]

Amarillo triangles are just B-2s

Some might have been. But an ideal place to hide something else is to to put it amongst similar things and then you can guarantee responses like yours.

 

[sferrin]

Amarillo triangles are just B-2s

Some might have been. But an ideal place to hide something else is to to put it amongst similar things and then you can guarantee responses like yours.

So you think they'd fly a formation of bombers, including a secret bomber, in broad daylight over a large city?

 

[flateric]

Some might have been. But an ideal place to hide something else is to to put it amongst similar things and then you can guarantee responses like yours.

Yes. Brilliant idea - put them together in daylight to give an observer or spotter with 600mm lenses a perfect ability to compare things. SECOP at its best.

 

[flateric]

Apparently someone wrote to Whiteman PAO and got response that no B-2 in the air that area.

That's not true. Whiteman responded that they are not commenting on B-2 ops.

 

[NeilChapman]

Agreed. CDR + 3 years for first flight.

You're likely correct. There is interesting new tech to watch. Might transform our expectations about what is possible.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihR9SX7dgRo

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2thSsQrZUM

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNkx-JR7jxM

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5N2Jl8k14

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7XS7rVdEI