I found this on Steve Trimble's DEW Line. As he notes, the B-2 went from CDR to first flight in about three and a half years and the B-21's CDR was in Novemeber of 2018. Just saying. I expect the B-21 to be a little faster since it is using advanced manufacturing and it is smaller than the B-2.

Oriana Pawlyk

Verified account

@Oriana0214
Follow Follow @Oriana0214
More
Bunch says next critical milestone for B-21 is....first flight.

He didn't disclose when, but keep an eye to the skies... sometime...

1:00 PM - 9 Apr 2019
 
fightingirish said:
A great honor to the airmen of the Doolittle Raid. B)
101-year-old Lt. Col. (ret) Richard E. Cole names B-21 "Raider"
Source: View: https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/777887944715726848

On a sad side note:

R.I.P.
 
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant. Complexity is. Of which we know little, if any.

F-35 was using much more advanced manufacturing than older planes yet that didn't help. So requirements and complexity trump all those.

That being said, I don't see why B-21 could not indeed make the first flight sometime in summer of 2022. Still on track for entry into service in late 2020s.
 
totoro said:
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant.

Size will have a huge effect on payload and range. (Being dependent on a flock of tankers so you can perform your mission is not a positive.)
 
sferrin said:
totoro said:
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant.

Size will have a huge effect on payload and range. (Being dependent on a flock of tankers so you can perform your mission is not a positive.)

Size isn't very relevant for the time between CDR and first flight, which was the question at hand here.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
totoro said:
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant.

Size will have a huge effect on payload and range. (Being dependent on a flock of tankers so you can perform your mission is not a positive.)

Size isn't very relevant for the time between CDR and first flight, which was the question at hand here.

Good point. :-X
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
totoro said:
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant.

Size will have a huge effect on payload and range. (Being dependent on a flock of tankers so you can perform your mission is not a positive.)

Size isn't very relevant for the time between CDR and first flight, which was the question at hand here.

Good point. :-X


And the mission is different. B-2 is designed to accommodate low level flight. B-21 looks to be designed for 50k+ missions. The efficiency of flight at this level would determine fuel load and engine selection, hence size, no?

Also seems likely that B-21 will be strategically smaller if only to open up a significant number of alternative runways. There just aren't that many available to aircraft the size of B-2.

Plus, given the small production run, weren't all B-2's were basically hand built? I don't see that even being feasible given where we are with materials and manufacturing today.
 
totoro said:
We don't really know how much smaller, if any, B-21 is going to be. It does seem the requirements and size grew over time, over the last 10 or so years.
Also, size is not really very relevant. Complexity is. Of which we know little, if any.

F-35 was using much more advanced manufacturing than older planes yet that didn't help. So requirements and complexity trump all those.

That being said, I don't see why B-21 could not indeed make the first flight sometime in summer of 2022. Still on track for entry into service in late 2020s.

Complexity is relative.

All the 'tech' in B-21 is supposedly the 'latest' but not "new" for the program. Airframe and integration were to be the 'only' new endeavors. How difficult is building a new airframe? Even though it's a clean-sheet design, it looks a lot like B-2 to me and they've been working on B-2 and it's maintenance upgrades for 30 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is very little risk here except for manufacturing techniques. And if there is, the risk was mitigated with RQ-180. How successful is the integration? We'll see in testing. Yet modeling flight dynamics was pretty good even back with YF-23 and that was 30 years ago.

F-35 was different, ostensibly one but really three new airframes and net new tech throughout. That's what B-21 program was seeking to avoid from what I understood. Also, F-35 has 1500 domestic and nine partner countries of international suppliers. B-21 has 7 top-tier suppliers and NG supplies significant portions of F-35 tech, some portion of which will be in B-21. It's likely that Palmdale is not only being used for final assembly but that a large amount of process and part work is also being done there. Vertical integration also adds a certain level of efficiency.

DoD was beat up pretty good for B-2 with $20B in R&D cost. It was further beat up by F-35 but those 1500 suppliers in almost every state guaranteed some base level of congressional support. It's likely why B-21 is being handled by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office to limit the possibility of bureaucratic changes to the program. Also, the DoD is not allowing cost information to be used politically. Strategically and fiscally the US can't afford another program debacle like F-35.

NG seems risk averse to me. They ate the F-20. YF-23 didn't win, probably in part because of the late USAF changes to B-2 and the difficulties those changes saddled on the program. We've seen them remove themselves from TX and then the X-47B change in priorities. Looking at how they've written the contracts for B-21, they have chosen to protect themselves financially from the changing priorities of DoD. That being said, they are a relatively nimble (compared to Boeing and LM) company focused on engineered solutions. NG's outreach to automobile manufacture assembly line suppliers allowed them to develop the Integrated Assembly Line (IAL) for F-35. The IAL has achieved a 450% increase in throughput cutting the assembly time of all three of the F-35 center fuselage by half compared to previous fighters. This history suggests to me they may have their ducks in a row for the B-21 build.

So now we have the unique situation of DoD recognizing their procurement shortcomings and taking steps to mitigate political and bureaucratic influences and the manufacturer a bit gun shy. We've seen NG partner with KUKA Systems North America early in the B-21 program, the same group that help create the IAL. We seen NG already hire some 5000 employees working B-21 at the Palmdale plant

If I were NG, I'd suspect that the perceived success or difficulty with B-21 and F-35 will play some part in what company is trusted with the next prize, PCA and F/A-XX. For these reasons I expect NG will surprise us with B-21.
 
NeilChapman said:
And the mission is different. B-2 is designed to accommodate low level flight. B-21 looks to be designed for 50k+ missions.

As was the B-2. That they added low-level flight didn't change the size of the bomber or it's payload.

NeilChapman said:
The efficiency of flight at this level would determine fuel load and engine selection, hence size, no?

Which is why the B-2 uses basically the same engine as the U-2.


NeilChapman said:
Also seems likely that B-21 will be strategically smaller if only to open up a significant number of alternative runways. There just aren't that many available to aircraft the size of B-2.

How do you figure?
 
Full article.

Next Milestone for Future B-21 Bomber? First Flight

The Air Force's stealthy new bomber is getting ready to take its first flight.

"Our next major milestone is first flight," Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force's military deputy to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition at the Pentagon, said of the B-21 Long Range Strategic Bomber program.

During a Senate Armed Services subcommittee on airland hearing Tuesday, Bunch told lawmakers the program has met all developmental checkpoints and is on schedule.

While he didn't reveal when the flight will take place, officials have said the first B-21 is expected to reach initial operating capability in the mid-2020s.
 
Don't forget the complex ducting associated with a distributed propulsion system. Additive manufacturing and generative design will certainly lead to some time gain, hence money.
 
Joerg at Dreamland Resort reports on 4-12-19;

And who knows, you may even catch a glimpse of the B-21. We are pretty sure it is flying out of Groom. There is some activity some nights around 3-4am on the UHF Groom Control frequency. The actual mission is not on any of the known UHF Dreamland frequencies though.

Now, I think that may be a demonstrator, as the hangers to build the B-21 aren't even completed yet. I suppose there could be a "hand built" prototype, but until it is built from the actual tooling, I wouldn't consider it an actual B-21, IMHO.
 
B-21 will be built at existing free space at Bld C401 at Site 4 at Plant 42, will be rolled out at Site 4 and will make her maiden flight from PMD to EDW just like B-2 where as it's already confirmed by DoD it will be tested. "New hangars" being built at Site 4 are not for B-21 production line.
 
B-21 will be built at existing free space at Bld C401 at Site 4 at Plant 42, will be rolled out at Site 4 and will make her maiden flight from PMD to EDW just like B-2 where as it's already confirmed by DoD it will be tested. "New hangars" being built at Site 4 are not for B-21 production line.

Oh, wow, thanks for the info. Do we know what those new hangers are for?
 
It was discussed here before. New coatings facility for B-2 PDM.
 
Additive manufacturing and generative design is not helping reduce time to flight of any full-size aircraft rght now. Mainly due to materials and processes qualifications. In the future, maybe...

Industrial improvements in terms of tooling, CF processing and robotics are far more likely to be driving any reductions in industrial schedules.

Are materials and process qualifications different for manned and unmanned air vehicles?

Just wondering if RQ180 could have been the test vehicle for materials and process qualifications for B-21 tech.
 
Additive manufacturing and generative design is not helping reduce time to flight of any full-size aircraft rght now. Mainly due to materials and processes qualifications. In the future, maybe...

Industrial improvements in terms of tooling, CF processing and robotics are far more likely to be driving any reductions in industrial schedules.

Are materials and process qualifications different for manned and unmanned air vehicles?

Just wondering if RQ180 could have been the test vehicle for materials and process qualifications for B-21 tech.


Why would they use an active program as a test bed.
 
anyone here of it having built in guns? weird I know but i heard it was a potential possibility.
 
Additive manufacturing and generative design is not helping reduce time to flight of any full-size aircraft rght now. Mainly due to materials and processes qualifications. In the future, maybe...

Industrial improvements in terms of tooling, CF processing and robotics are far more likely to be driving any reductions in industrial schedules.

Are materials and process qualifications different for manned and unmanned air vehicles?

Just wondering if RQ180 could have been the test vehicle for materials and process qualifications for B-21 tech.


Why would they use an active program as a test bed.

Good point.

Perhaps 'test' depends on the level of risk one's willing to incur. Maybe I should have said 'helped qualify'. There might be tech one's willing to use on a limited run, black, ISR program rather than a front-line bomber program - at least at first. But operations with that tech on the former for a while may reduce the risk for the latter. Maybe not.
 
From Aviation Week:

Program staff also briefed the wing’s leadership on the B-21 itself, telling them to expect the future bomber to fly as quietly as a Boeing 737.

The CSBA’s analysts, which include former Pentagon budget programmers, assessed that Northrop could deliver as many as 55 operational B-21s over the next decade, starting with the first production aircraft in 2024.

As such, I still lean towards it being a twin engine bomber smaller than the B-2.
 
From Aviation Week:

Program staff also briefed the wing’s leadership on the B-21 itself, telling them to expect the future bomber to fly as quietly as a Boeing 737.

The CSBA’s analysts, which include former Pentagon budget programmers, assessed that Northrop could deliver as many as 55 operational B-21s over the next decade, starting with the first production aircraft in 2024.

As such, I still lean towards it being a twin engine bomber smaller than the B-2.

I thought the fact it would be twin engined was always assumed to be the case?
 
Assumed but not confirmed; there's still a tiny chance that the B-21 will be larger / heavier than the B-2.
 
It really doesn't need to be smaller if those two engines (assuming there are two of them) are F135 derived and give 133 kn of thrust each. B2's engines output 77 kn, based on f110 which had 74 kn of dry thrust. So a similar improvement from 128 kn to 133 kn would give a total of 266 kn of thrust. comparing that to B2's 308 kn it's not a VERY big difference. It may point to a somewhat smaller plane, but certainly not one half the size.
 
It really doesn't need to be smaller if those two engines (assuming there are two of them) are F135 derived and give 133 kn of thrust each. B2's engines output 77 kn, based on f110 which had 74 kn of dry thrust. So a similar improvement from 128 kn to 133 kn would give a total of 266 kn of thrust. comparing that to B2's 308 kn it's not a VERY big difference. It may point to a somewhat smaller plane, but certainly not one half the size.

Won't be packing 80 500lb JDAMs or a pair of GBU-57 MOPs.
 
I do not understand why people bother to photochop stuff at all, what is the point?
 
Not to mention the odd bit of grey propaganda/misinformation. Hiding any real leaked info in a sea of noise is a time honoured tactic for instance.
;)
 
Won’t they be building the first example by now as I thought it had completed all its design reviews?
 
Won’t they be building the first example by now as I thought it had completed all its design reviews?

I certainly hope that Northrop have started building the prototype now and that there has been no delays as a result of the design reviews.
 
They likely have 2 under construction, staggered. Very exciting, but not as exciting as 1988 when the F-117 and B-2 were revealed with 2 ATF waiting in the wings. Considering the B-21 is partially based on some existing and proven technology, I wonder if they pull the wraps on some unseen drone/plane/demonstrator that precedes the Raider after the Raider reveal.
 
Nothing new, but will keep the thread fresh:
 
Interesting comment in the article '“We’re closely monitoring the build of the additional test aircraft and associated software to support the first flight,” ' 'additional' test aircraft so more than one in production?
Nothing new, but will keep the thread fresh:
 
Well given the programming timing to field it, they can't build 1 and wait a year or two before they get article #2 and #3 in the air. With the aggressive timing, it's a given they are building more than just 1 at time of rollout.

After re-reading, it sounds like #1 is completed. I wonder if they have gotten the point of taxi tests yet. Would be amazed they could do that with such a large aircraft and keep it secret.

Public rollout must be coming any time now.

the USAF is finally seeing some sunlight after the long drought. New AAM coming out, JSF in full swing, B-21 coming into the light any day apparently, hypersonic weapons, new ALCM coming along with ICBM program, the new tanker. Cross your fingers for PCA.
 
We will see, maybe we will witness 2 big rollouts in Q4 of this year, the B-21 and chinese H-20.
 
Hmm... not so sure it means the first one is completed. But it may be well along by now and we may indeed see a roll out sometime in 2020. If B-2 programme is something of comparison, then we may have 8 months between a roll out and first flight. So first flight in late 2020 or sometime in 2021?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom