Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

TomcatViP said:
I think some of you are seeing a balanced equation when us see an Heaviside curve: before, there is nothing to score untill there is a threshold of capability.
Click to expand...
Don't understand why some are so desperate to avoid admitting the B-21 is almost certainly less capable than the B-2 is some regards. Hell, I'll bet the same people don't have a problem admitting the B-2 is less capable than the B-52 in some regards. Reality is your friend.
 
I feel the 21 was designed to be palatable to Congress with a lower cost than something bigger with 2 more engines and a bigger payload. There really was no reason to build something smaller than the already compact 2 other than to have a lower cost. But now they need more 21s to make up for that fact. I don't know how going to a smaller payload makes the aircraft better. The point of a bomber is to haul stuff from A to B.
 
rooster said:
I feel the 21 was designed to be palatable to Congress with a lower cost than something bigger with 2 more engines and a bigger payload. There really was no reason to build something smaller than the already compact 2 other than to have a lower cost. But now they need more 21s to make up for that fact. I don't know how going to a smaller payload makes the aircraft better. The point of a bomber is to haul stuff from A to B.
Click to expand...
Heck just pass a B-21 stimulus at $2.2 trillion and buy 4000 o_O
 
Alternatively, if you can purchase and operate two or more B-21's for each B-2 you can retire, then if we assume the B-21 hauls half as much, you haven't lost hauling capability in terms of potential force projection. If it carries 2/3's as much, then your ability to put tonnage on targets as an operational force increases, even if the Raider is "less capable" as an individual airframe.

Would it be better if it carried more? Sure. It'd also be significantly more expensive and under a more intensive gaze from Congress. Is a beefier, more heavily-loaded B-whatever still "more capable" if we only buy another two dozen?

We're really just parsing words and definitions at this point. Is it "less capable" in terms of payload? Sure. Does that support some blanket assertion that replacing B-2's with B-21's will result in a strategic bomber force with "less capability"? Not at all, really...
 
_Del_ said:
Alternatively, if you can purchase and operate two or more B-21's for each B-2 you can retire, then if we assume the B-21 hauls half as much, you haven't lost hauling capability in terms of potential force projection. If it carries 2/3's as much, then your ability to put tonnage on targets as an operational force increases, even if the Raider is "less capable" as an individual airframe.

Would it be better if it carried more? Sure. It'd also be significantly more expensive and under a more intensive gaze from Congress. Is a beefier, more heavily-loaded B-whatever still "more capable" if we only buy another two dozen?

We're really just parsing words and definitions at this point. Is it "less capable" in terms of payload? Sure. Does that support some blanket assertion that replacing B-2's with B-21's will result in a strategic bomber force with "less capability"? Not at all, really...
Click to expand...

Assuming they buy and support enough of them. Say the B-21 has half the payload (but a large enough bay to carry the GBU-57). If they buy twice as many, and they aren't losing range, then yeah, that would be a better fleet than the B-2.
 
Is that not the point over an unrealistic expectation of 1:1 parity or better with the new aircraft. I would not put any final number on the acquisition yet either, especially with what is going on globally,
 
If you believe this article some of the heavy lifting will be done by the arsenal plane which would allow the B-21 to conduct the surgical strikes. Some have suggested that the arsenal plane be a Blended Wing Body aircraft with a modicum of stealth. Call it semi-stealthy but enough to get close for the launch of stand-off weapons.

www.airforcemag.com

Ray Touts 'Clean-Sheet' Arsenal Plane, Hypersonics, B-1 Recovery, End of Bomber CAS | Air & Space Forces Magazine

AFGSC chief Gen. Timothy Ray told reporters he believes the arsenal plane concept likely means a new, “clean sheet” design rather than an existing bomber.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
I'm sure they'll have no problems pushing two concurrent bomber development/acquisition projects through Congress...
 
Think Congress rightly would see the arsenal plane as a B-52 replacement. Wouldn't start any program of record until the last B-52 had been re-engined and it's radar replaced. If they would wait until the hypersonic weapons mature a bit think they would have a smaller more capable aircraft. As we have seen with the AGM-182 being canceled for size and the push for the AGM-183 the hypersonic systems will gain in capability and decrease in size over the next 10 years. That coupled with the future LRSO and JASSM-XR will define the size and performance of the aircraft.
 
Mark S. said:
If you believe this article some of the heavy lifting will be done by the arsenal plane which would allow the B-21 to conduct the surgical strikes. Some have suggested that the arsenal plane be a Blended Wing Body aircraft with a modicum of stealth. Call it semi-stealthy but enough to get close for the launch of stand-off weapons.

www.airforcemag.com

Ray Touts 'Clean-Sheet' Arsenal Plane, Hypersonics, B-1 Recovery, End of Bomber CAS | Air & Space Forces Magazine

AFGSC chief Gen. Timothy Ray told reporters he believes the arsenal plane concept likely means a new, “clean sheet” design rather than an existing bomber.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

It would work only if the AF lists the programs or capabilities that it would be prepared to shed in order to pay for it.
 
Mark S. said:
Think Congress rightly would see the arsenal plane as a B-52 replacement. Wouldn't start any program of record until the last B-52 had been re-engined and it's radar replaced. If they would wait until the hypersonic weapons mature a bit think they would have a smaller more capable aircraft. As we have seen with the AGM-182 being canceled for size and the push for the AGM-183 the hypersonic systems will gain in capability and decrease in size over the next 10 years. That coupled with the future LRSO and JASSM-XR will define the size and performance of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Where did you get "AGM-182" from?
 
Mark S. said:
Think Congress rightly would see the arsenal plane as a B-52 replacement. Wouldn't start any program of record until the last B-52 had been re-engined and it's radar replaced. If they would wait until the hypersonic weapons mature a bit think they would have a smaller more capable aircraft. As we have seen with the AGM-182 being canceled for size and the push for the AGM-183 the hypersonic systems will gain in capability and decrease in size over the next 10 years. That coupled with the future LRSO and JASSM-XR will define the size and performance of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
An aircraft the size of the 2 would carry more of those weapons and attack more targets than 21 can. See how the numbers work out? Instead of sending 3 or 4 of the 21, the US would save money by sending out the typical 2 ship strike package and not need to risk 3 or 4 along with less tanker support and expenditures.
 
rooster said:
An aircraft the size of the 2 would carry more of those weapons and attack more targets than 21 can. See how the numbers work out? Instead of sending 3 or 4 of the 21, the US would save money by sending out the typical 2 ship strike package and not need to risk 3 or 4 along with less tanker support and expenditures.
Click to expand...
This assumes that:

1. 2 of the larger bombers would not be more expensive than 3-4 of the smaller ones
2. That they would not consume just as much support.
3. That there are enough missions where 2 smaller bombers do not carry enough payload to justify making larger ones.

I think all three assumptions are dubious. After a certain point, as size goes up and production numbers go down, cost of both manufacture and upkeep goes up rapidly and non-linearly. The clipped production run of the B-2 was a harsh lesson on that, and I think that the Air Force learned it well. Furthermore, improvements in accuracy have dramatically brought down the size of bombs that are used. For CAS, single 285lb SDBs are now routinely used in situations that would have warranted multiple much heavier bombs in past wars.

The kind of situations where two B-21 bomb bays full of SDBs are no longer enough are also the kind of situations where you are very glad to have more redundancy in your fleet, because you are pretty much fighting all-out against China or Russia (or both) and are going to take casualties.
 
The arsenal plane won't have the stealth that the B-21 has nor be as survivable. As they have been talking it will probably be as stealthy as the B-1B or a little bit better. The rational is to produce an affordable aircraft to supplement the B-21. This aircraft will use stand-off weapons in lieu of stealth to make it's strikes. The greater cost of stand-off weapons would for prolonged use evaporate any cost advantage it would have over the B-21.
 
Assuming the B-21 meets its cost targets, which looks quite possible given what we've heard so far, I think they need to concentrate on buying as many as they can and sustaining that production program for the next 15-20 years. They really need to look at getting to a 10-12 aircraft/year program by the late 2020's/early 2030's. With budgets likely to remain flat (or even decrease) in the coming years it would be beneficial to get more from the programs that are delivering or getting ready to deliver compared to introducing additional cost/schedule risk into the bomber portfolio.
 
Or an arsenal plane could replace futur NGAD program, a new type of aircraft some sort of modern B1-B, full loading of long range air-air missile and UAV wingman could be the USAF reponse of air-air dominance for the futur, we will be no need of dogfighting fighter... With all of the NGAD budget could go to this kind of plane, and with 1 Billion by year it could become reality. Dual role long range strike and long range anti-air, with hypersonic weapon could be the ultimate plane in inventory.
 
There will be no other bomber program outside of the B-21. There is no funding and AFAIK little interest for an arsenal plane.
 
AFAIK = As far as I know. It seems like a safe bet with the nation's economy lying in ruins that even if a black program exists now, it soon won't.
 
Well I work for a major defense contractor and there has been almost zero impact due to the pandemic. No cancellations, no delays, no slowdowns, not even talk of them happening. All the employees have been declared essential and work is progressing as normal, even got a new contract order last week. If black programs exists they could very well still be ongoing.
 
Let's be honest with ourself, war will see casualty rate much higher than Covid can get. It would be then expected from the US war machine to act as not impaired for good reasons.

Boeing did restart its production line of P-8 and KC-46 today.
 
Desertfox said:
Well I work for a major defense contractor and there has been almost zero impact due to the pandemic. No cancellations, no delays, no slowdowns, not even talk of them happening. All the employees have been declared essential and work is progressing as normal, even got a new contract order last week. If black programs exists they could very well still be ongoing.
Click to expand...
Funding for this year is already allocated. Projects ready and near-ready for production probably won't see much change. A "black" clean-sheet bomber a decade or more from fruition would not survive next year's austerity budget (assuming it existed). I expect there to be ripples from this for another ten years.
Unless there's a shooting war, in which case the money will obviously flow pretty freely.
 
Desertfox said:
Well I work for a major defense contractor and there has been almost zero impact due to the pandemic. No cancellations, no delays, no slowdowns, not even talk of them happening. All the employees have been declared essential and work is progressing as normal, even got a new contract order last week. If black programs exists they could very well still be ongoing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps with your employer. Others have not been so lucky. Boeing has shut down many of its military production programs for days and even weeks for others. Yet others, particularly the suppliers have taken a pause and may ultimately be a bottleneck going forward. You will see delays in a number of production programs in the coming weeks to months. Some will be minor but others could go into a few months.
 
Perhaps the stock market, though I doubt it. Employment and GDP will be no where near January’s level.
 
bring_it_on said:
Desertfox said:
Well I work for a major defense contractor and there has been almost zero impact due to the pandemic. No cancellations, no delays, no slowdowns, not even talk of them happening. All the employees have been declared essential and work is progressing as normal, even got a new contract order last week. If black programs exists they could very well still be ongoing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps with your employer. Others have not been so lucky. Boeing has shut down many of its military production programs for days and even weeks for others. Yet others, particularly the suppliers have taken a pause and may ultimately be a bottleneck going forward. You will see delays in a number of production programs in the coming weeks to months. Some will be minor but others could go into a few months.
Click to expand...

 
^ This is what I'm hearing as well. Ranging a few days to a few weeks for most but others who are operating differently. However we'll need to wait to see what the overall disruptions are which is why I think we could see a few months of delays, at most, for some of the most impacted programs while others may see only slight deviations.
 
I was referrring less to direct manufacturing interruptions and more the long term budget impacts. If some black project is already being produced, I'm sure at this point it will be produced, even if delayed. If it is in the early stages of planning and development and it is redundant with another platform, as any arsenal plane would be with the B-21, it will be cancelled next year in all likelihood. That and I find it hard to believe such a project would remain black while the B-21 would not; an arsenal plane would be a comparatively lower technology capability. The more likely situation is that no such project exists outside someone's powerpoint presentations and National Interest articles.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was referrring less to direct manufacturing interruptions and more the long term budget impacts. If some black project is already being produced, I'm sure at this point it will be produced, even if delayed. If it is in the early stages of planning and development and it is redundant with another platform, as any arsenal plane would be with the B-21, it will be cancelled next year in all likelihood. That and I find it hard to believe such a project would remain black while the B-21 would not; an arsenal plane would be a comparatively lower technology capability. The more likely situation is that no such project exists outside someone's powerpoint presentations and National Interest articles.
Click to expand...

Who knows what exists or doesn't exist in the classified portfolio. But to assume that whatever is included will just be cancelled "next year" is a gross over simplification and doesn't really get to what is likely to shape the FY-22 budget and what range the defense spending is likely to fall into (and the R&D or procurement accounts within those).

The bomber portfolio should really be concerned with two programs at the moment. First should be to buy as many B-21's at as fast a rate as possible. The next focus should be the B-52 upgrade plan that enhances both capability and readiness. That should keep them busy for the next decade. IMO, the AF doesn't need to be distracted by something else.
 
Don't expect the defense industry to be greatly affected, it will be the last to go. They will shut down hospitals and farming before they shut us down. Note that the only military programs that have been affected are the KC-46 and P-8 lines, both are based on civilian platforms and built on civilian lines.
 
Desertfox said:
Don't expect the defense industry to be greatly affected, it will be the last to go. They will shut down hospitals and farming before they shut us down. Note that the only military programs that have been affected are the KC-46 and P-8 lines, both are based on civilian platforms and built on civilian lines.
Click to expand...


www.defensenews.com

Boeing stops work at Philadelphia facility, halting production of H-47 and V-22 aircraft

Boeing will close for two weeks amid the spread of COVID-19 in region.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

breakingdefense.com

COVID-19: Army Delays Missile Defense Network Test EXCLUSIVE - Breaking Defense

The long-awaited IBCS battle network is meant to connect a wide range of Army radars and weapons – and potentially other services’ as well – for anti-aircraft and missile defense.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

t.co

Bath Iron Works reports about 25% decline in workforce attendance

Bath Iron Works says over the last several weeks, the attendance of its workforce is down 25% to 30% as workers use vacation, sick leave and excused time during the coronavirus outbreak.
t.co t.co

It is way to early to have a definitive impact assessment on defense program schedule impact. You are right defense is essential and will always be last to go. But that doesn't mean there would be no delays or schedule challenges both directly related to COVID 19, and on account of supply disruptions (you don't have to completely shut programs down for a time to have disruptions). Things could slip but I think impact will not be widespread and in most cases minor. I think we'll get a good indication of what the macro impact is going to be once the economy re-opens and how that is executed. We'll also know a little bit more in the coming weeks as some of the A&D firms share their earnings and future projections.
 
Last edited:
All I'm saying is the defense industry has a lot of power and lobbyists and will (and already has) fight tooth and nail to stay open and to keep their current contracts running. Will there be delays or schedule slips? There always are, but you can be sure the defense contractors will do everything in their power to prevent them.
 
Defense essential and last to go - instead of enabling economic activity to generate money to pay for anything at all? Infrastructure rings a bell?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom