Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[rooster]

Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate

No, not at all. A Hustler was slightly cheaper to operate, but some "creative accounting" made a powerful talking point that survives to this day.

I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but the talking point was created by saying the two Hustler wings were as expensive as six BUFF-equipped SAC wings. This ignored the fact that the Hustler wings had three times as many aircraft.
A BUFF wing was typically one bombardment squadron (BS) of 12-15 aircraft, frequently, but not always with an aerial refueling squadron. All 100+ Hustlers produced (minus operational losses) belonged to just two wings. The 63rd, 64th, 65th BS all belonged to one wing (43rd) in Little Rock, for example, as did the KC-135 squadron there.

Acquisition costs for the Hustler were roughly three times as much as a Buff, but that was sunk cost by the time the decision to retire them came about. SAC wanted to keep them, but the decision came down from on high.

Sorry for the delay on this and for a couple of other things I may post on this topic. I've got some input on the topic of B-52 vs. B-58 costs.

Each B-52 wing had 15 "Unit Equipped" (Air Force jargon, I don't know what it means), while each B-58 wing had 39 UE aircraft. One time acquisition cost of a B-58 was 2.46 times that of a B-52 in constant dollars. If you threw in planned tanker support for both but didn't count the four GAM-72 decoys usually acquired with each B-52, the ratio was still 2.28 in the B-52's favor. But those were one-time costs and that money had already been spent. However, the Annual O&M and personnel costs for each B-52 was 17% higher than the B-58 and those were recurring costs. Put another way, for the cost of operating 66 B-52s you could operate 78 B-58s.

Regarding why the B-58 went away, originally Robert McNamara wanted it gone by mid 1970 (extended by him in 1966 to mid 1971) partly to create a need to be filled by his beloved F-111 (the FB-111 variant). Once, he was gone, though, for operational reasons in early 1969 the date moved out to at least 1974 by DoD. However, in the latter part of 1969 the head of SAC, apparently without input from his B-58 experts, briefed the Air Force Chief of Staff that 78 B-58s should be phased out in order to preserve about 60 older B-52s. General Ryan took this recommendation of his SAC Chief to SECDEF. Having earlier in the year extended the B-58 in service per AF input, OSD was now being told it wasn't wanted after all. SECDEF Laird then directed that the B-58 was to be gone by Jan 31, 1970

The hustler was a slick looking airplane but was fraught with danger even in peacetime training flights. It needed to go. It would have needed significant re- engineering to be viable but we were knee deep in the b1a which was a better airplane. Recall the b1 was initially a regional bomber. There have been a lot writeups about the bone inception and its relatively short range when carrying external stores essentially making it a longer ranged 111.

 

[Sundog]

Like I said, I was purposely doing wild speculation. I'm wasn't definitely promulgating that the whatever-it-is was the B-21, just tossing out an idea for discussion.

That said, a couple of thoughts on a the thoughtful questions raised:

"Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?" Sooner or later you've got to. Can't test everything at night. Happened with previous Black programs that later turned White.

"I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing". There were no big roll outs for the SR-71 and the F-117, and in the latter case it had already been announced that the aircraft was being built (remember the "F-19"?). Anyway, you can always have a public rollout any time you want. Doesn't mean it actually has to be before first flight... AF has already acknowledged that they've already assembled the first two test aircraft.

Remember, just strrin' the pot

Have they said both aircraft are completely assembled? I know they said the second was in assembly but I haven't seen any indication that either airframe is completed. Also, the second airframe is usually the structural testbed and not destined for flight. Just saying.

 

[rooster]

Like I said, I was purposely doing wild speculation. I'm wasn't definitely promulgating that the whatever-it-is was the B-21, just tossing out an idea for discussion.

That said, a couple of thoughts on a the thoughtful questions raised:

"Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?" Sooner or later you've got to. Can't test everything at night. Happened with previous Black programs that later turned White.

"I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing". There were no big roll outs for the SR-71 and the F-117, and in the latter case it had already been announced that the aircraft was being built (remember the "F-19"?). Anyway, you can always have a public rollout any time you want. Doesn't mean it actually has to be before first flight... AF has already acknowledged that they've already assembled the first two test aircraft.

Remember, just strrin' the pot

The a12 and f117 were all flight tested in daylight.

 

[rooster]

Like I said, I was purposely doing wild speculation. I'm wasn't definitely promulgating that the whatever-it-is was the B-21, just tossing out an idea for discussion.

That said, a couple of thoughts on a the thoughtful questions raised:

"Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?" Sooner or later you've got to. Can't test everything at night. Happened with previous Black programs that later turned White.

"I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing". There were no big roll outs for the SR-71 and the F-117, and in the latter case it had already been announced that the aircraft was being built (remember the "F-19"?). Anyway, you can always have a public rollout any time you want. Doesn't mean it actually has to be before first flight... AF has already acknowledged that they've already assembled the first two test aircraft.

Remember, just strrin' the pot

Have they said both aircraft are completely assembled? I know they said the second was in assembly but I haven't seen any indication that either airframe is completed. Also, the second airframe is usually the structural testbed and not destined for flight. Just saying.

If the second aircraft is just a static example they can certainly produce it faster than a flying article

 

[Grey Havoc]

In theory at least. With all the bureaucracy these days for even the simplest things, I have to wonder though.

 

[rooster]

In theory at least. With all the bureaucracy these days for even the simplest things, I have to wonder though.

Well knowing that #2 is for stress testing then logically they will complete a certain amount of tests long before #1 is doing high speed taxi testing.

 

[F-14D]

The hustler was a slick looking airplane but was fraught with danger even in peacetime training flights. It needed to go. It would have needed significant re- engineering to be viable but we were knee deep in the b1a which was a better airplane. Recall the b1 was initially a regional bomber. There have been a lot writeups about the bone inception and its relatively short range when carrying external stores essentially making it a longer ranged 111.

After the B-58 became operational, there were 17 lost over 10 years. One was destroyed in a taxiing incidentt and two were lost at Paris airshows. Of those, one was while it was performing aerobatic maneuvers at low altitudes and one was lost on approach when the pilot got behind the power curve at low altitude, something critical for all pure deltas. Even including those unique accidents, that works out to a loss rate of 1.7 per year over 10 years (1.4 if we don't count those three). The B-47, for comparison, had 28 fatal accidents in just one operational year.

McNamara first ordered the B-58 killed in 1965, well before any major work was taking place on the future B-1. . He blocked the AMSA (which became the B-1). The RFP for AMSA by the new Administration didn't even go out until after the B-58 was canceled and the award for the development contract to North American Rockwell didn't even take place until 5 months after the B-58 had left the skies, so it didn't impact B-1A development.

The B-1A was a much better aircraft than the B-58, it was to replace the B-52, but with a weapons load in excess of 60,000 lbs internally, it's not likely you'd need to use the external weapons capability regularly. Yeah, range would go down when you started carrying bombs externally, but you'd know that when you decided you wanted carry a humongous load of external bombs.


Maybe some of these latest posts should be moved over to the B-58 topic?

 

[F-14D]

Like I said, I was purposely doing wild speculation. I'm wasn't definitely promulgating that the whatever-it-is was the B-21, just tossing out an idea for discussion.

That said, a couple of thoughts on a the thoughtful questions raised:

"Why would the USAF flight test a Black Program in broad daylight?" Sooner or later you've got to. Can't test everything at night. Happened with previous Black programs that later turned White.

"I doubt that there would be an unveiling of such thing as big as the B-21 without a big roll-out or a white house press briefing". There were no big roll outs for the SR-71 and the F-117, and in the latter case it had already been announced that the aircraft was being built (remember the "F-19"?). Anyway, you can always have a public rollout any time you want. Doesn't mean it actually has to be before first flight... AF has already acknowledged that they've already assembled the first two test aircraft.

Remember, just strrin' the pot

The a12 and f117 were all flight tested in daylight.

True. I didn't mention the A-12 because its very existence wasn't reealed until long after it had left service.

 

[TomcatViP]

Regarding the two crashes discussed above:

3 June 1961 | This Day in Aviation

www.thisdayinaviation.com

'The aircraft broke in half … the cockpit was engulfed. Charlie didn't have a chance.'

It was a picturesque summer morning in France 44 years ago as Lt. Col. Charles Dale...

www.mrt.com

 

[flateric]

what discussion on Hustler losses does in B-21 topic?

 

[Maury Markowitz]

McNamara first ordered the B-58 killed in 1965, well before any major work was taking place on the future B-1

SLAB was completed in 1961. ERSA and LAMP in 1962. AMPSS was October 1963, which led directly to AMSA in early 1964. The AMPSS and AMSA aircraft are largely identical to the final design. While it is true he vetoed production, development continued throughout his tenure, including engine and avionics development, and Laird ordered it into production as-was when McNamara left.

 

[F-14D]

I shudder to continue this off-topic discussion, but just for clarity, McNamara resigned in February, 1968 and his successor, Clark Clifford showed no more enthusiasm than McNamara for AMSA. I would opine that had Hubert Humphrey won the election, AMSA would never have seen the light of day. The RFP for the B-1 was actually issued in November, 1969 and Rockwell was awarded the contract in June, 1970, so I don't see why the B-58's O&M (which is a different pot of money) affected B-1 development one way or another.

I'll stay on topic now.

 

[piginapoke]

I thought the RQ-180 was rumoured to be designed to operate with the B-21. I am guessing there is also the rumours that the RQ-180 is armed so I don’t know if that means they have a secondary rule to take out defences for the B-21. Hence maybe the RQ designation is inaccurate?

In that role, it sounds like the RQ-180 is the modern equivalent of the cancelled AARS which would have supported the B-2 by locating mobile targets although I don't recall discussion of AARS being armed..

 

[jsport]

In that role, it sounds like the RQ-180 is the modern equivalent of the cancelled AARS which would have supported the B-2 by locating mobile targets although I don't recall discussion of AARS being armed..

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aars-lockheed-quartz-tier-iii-frontier-systems-w570-arrow-shadow.511/

 

[bring_it_on]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1439974751418687492

View: https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1439974751418687492

 

[seruriermarshal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1439974683156353028

View: https://twitter.com/MarcusReports/status/1439974683156353028

 

[sferrin]

That could mean anything. Technically, the moment they started producing the forgings for long-lead parts they started "building". Now five in final assembly would be something, but I'd bet everything I own that is not the case. Not even close.

Looks like I may have been incorrect. It would be nice if things are moving this smoothly.

 

[bring_it_on]

They had 2 in production at Palmdale in early 2021. That number is now up to five. That means the entire EMD fleet is now at some stage of production so subsequent contracts will fund the production aircraft which should begin making their way to operational bases around 2026?

 

[NeilChapman]

They had 2 in production at Palmdale in early 2021. That number is now up to five. That means the entire EMD fleet is now at some stage of production so subsequent contracts will fund the production aircraft which should begin making their way to operational bases around 2026?

IIRC, there were to be 2-3 development airframes preceding LRIP. LRIP was to be five lots totaling 21 airframes preceded by said development units. Production budget was supposed to be included in FY22 budget. So if 5 are under construction then perhaps it's in anticipation of FY22 budget? Not that I'm complaining. I'm glad they feel they have enough understanding to move forward.

An additional tweet by Weisgerber states they are all test aircraft. If that's the case, has something changed?

 

[bring_it_on]

An additional tweet by Weisgerber states they are all test aircraft. If that's the case, has something changed?

No as most media writing on this has been speculative (and confusing, and often contradictory). I suspect two dedicated program flight test aircraft (one static and one flight testing), and three additional EMD aircraft that will be eventually upgraded and used operationally once testing finishes. We will know more once it is revealed next year and Northrop can open up and begin talking about its production plans just as they did once the B-2 was revealed.

 

[BDF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1431252256792453130

Hmmmm, this guys twitter avatar looks very familiar lol

 

[Hydroman]

Probably building the B-21s in a similar manner as the B-2s back in the day.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

More detail in this article.

Northrop Grumman now has five B-21 stealth bombers in production

The program is making good progress, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Monday.

www.defensenews.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The U.S. Air Force has five B-21 Raider bombers currently in various states of production at manufacturer Northrop Grumman’s plant in California, the service’s top civilian said on Monday.
“We have been living off of bomber fleet investments made many decades ago, but that is rapidly changing,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told the audience at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference here.

“As I speak there are now five test aircraft being manufactured on the B-21 production line at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California,” he said. “You will never hear me make optimistic predictions about programs. All programs have risk and the same is true of the B-21, but at this point at least, the program is making good progress to real fielded capability.”
Previously, the Air Force had only acknowledged two B-21 test aircraft in production — a sign that the program may be accelerating as it heads toward a planned first flight in 2022.
The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 B-21s, which will begin fielding in the mid-2020s.

It’s unclear how close Northrop Grumman is to finishing construction on the first B-21.
In January, Randall Walden, who directs the Air Force’s Rapid Capability Office that manages the B-21 program, stated that the first aircraft had not yet begun final assembly but was “really starting to look like a bomber.”
Production of the second Raider — which will be used to validate the air vehicle — showed signs of becoming more efficient, Walden said at the time, and Northrop was working on creating more space at its plant to begin work on additional test aircraft.
“The second one is really more about structures, and the overall structural capability,” he said. “We’ll go in and bend it, we’ll test it to its limits, make sure that the design and the manufacturing and the production line make sense.”

 

[NeilChapman]

Probably building the B-21s in a similar manner as the B-2s back in the day.

I get your meaning.
But...
It's an opportunity to mention that B-21 is being built much differently than B-2.

B-2 was basically built by hand. Compare that to descriptions of NG's F-35 production line.

Newsroom

news.northropgrumman.com

 

[bobbymike]

Five Next-Gen US Test Bombers Currently in Production

Five Next-Gen U.S. Test Bombers Currently in Production

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[NeilChapman]

Five Next-Gen US Test Bombers Currently in Production

Five Next-Gen U.S. Test Bombers Currently in Production

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

I like the way FK stresses USAF and USSF as key to winning the fight.

Below is an excercise I went through almost exactly two years ago guesstimating at production. I was figuring five completed by 12/21. Five may not be completed but perhaps I'm less than a year out? Certainly closer than it looked six months ago.

---

Here's a hypothetical exercise to see what B-21 procurement might look like based on the info available today.

Since we're talking integration and production of existing tech we'll assume there are mostly F-35 systems
and sensors on the new bomber. My point being that flight testing will be just that - flight and integration
testing. Not so much testing of new systems. The decade of F-35 testing will transfer to B-21.

Here are some examples of possible B-21 systems that might be reused from F-35

Dry version of F135 engine	P&W listed as Sub for B-21
CNI Avionics on F-35	NG - This includes MADL and sensor fusion. B-21 talks cleanly w/F-35.
AESA Radar on F-35	NG
DAS on F-35	Originally NG but dropped for Raytheon starting in 2023. Let's hope they fixed the lens problem or perhaps the USAF will specify the change to Raytheon?
EOTS from F-35	LM - not listed as a supplier but doesn't the USAF own the technology?

Could they use large portions of F-35 code for B-21 since they are working on Block 4 already? Perhaps someone here knows?

If the stars align, maybe flight testing will go "head-spinning-ly" quickly and they move to building operational
air vehicles within two years. With the recent news concerning production funding in '22 it leads me to believe
the USAF wants to accelerate the completion of the EMD program.

With all those caveats, maybe the next few years looks something like this.

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
	~6.13B spent through 2018
	$2.3B	2019	AV-1	Test
	$3.0B	2020	AV-2 and AV-3	Test

In Q1 2021, by historical reference, we expect roll-out and ground testing to begin since 1st flight is Dec '21.
This would mean that NG keeps all AV's under wraps throughout 2020.

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
	$3.1B FYDP	2021	AV-4 and AV-5	Pre-First Flight - Upgrade later

AV-1 or AV-2 first flight in December 2021. AV-2 through AV-5 leave for Edwards throughout 2022 as they are finished.
Block 10 build is locked down in 2021. I believe I recall seeing that the first lot is development and consists of 5 air
vehicles so the math works. USAF projecting procurement funding to begin in '22.

Production increase from 2 to 3 air vehicles for 2022

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
$0.2B FYDP	$3.1B FYDP	2022	AV-6 through AV-8	10	LRIP-1

During 2022, B-21 begins operational training as Block 10 air vehicles become available and are
flown to Edwards throughout the year.

It's a very interesting that procurement spending is projected for '22 - '24. These are most likely
long lead time purchases but the big $$ makes me think they are planning for early completion
of the EMD contract. This $$ allows them to finish the EMD contract in FY2024 w/all 20 bombers
completed and begin production of 8 bombers per year starting in 2025.

Production increase from 3 to 5 for 2023

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
$2.4B FYDP	$2.7B FYDP	2023	AV-9 through AV-13	10	LRIP-2/3

It's been mentioned that FRP target is 8 bombers per year. At ~$700M each that's $5.6B per year. If you
add the '22-'24 procurement $$ you get $5.9B. That provides the budget for qty 8 bombers to be
purchased in 2025 w/a budget of ~$5.9 each year after. A squadron per year.

Production increases from 5 to 7 for 2024.

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
$3.3B FYDP	$2.3B FYDP	2024	AV-14 through AV-20	10	LRIP-3/4/5

IOC sometime in 2025 with at least 8 bombers and one trainer. With this accelerated EMD contract
completion there could be almost twice that number. This ends the EMD contract.

Production increases from 7 to 8 for 2025.

Procurement $ in Budget	Dev $ in Budget	By December	Air Vehicles Completed	Block No.	Production Lot
$5.9B		2025	AV-21 through AV-28	10	FRP-1
$5.9B		2026	AV-29 through AV-36	10	FRP-2
$5.9B	NUC in 2027	2027	AV-37 through AV-44	20	FRP-3
$5.9B		2028	AV-45 through AV-52	20	FRP-4
$5.9B		2029	AV-53 through AV-60	20	FRP-5

In my exercise, best case scenario is 57 bombers by 2030. Six operational squadrons and a training
squadron. These are huge procurement numbers. No wonder the USAF wants to stop funding the
B-1 asap. Maybe they're speculating that the external threats will grow significantly between 2030
and 2040. In the mean time, they can save the B-1 upgrade $$ for B-21.

 

[rooster]

These numbers being procured basically stops the bleeding from the bomber force readiness given the bones dismal readiness rates and frequent standdowns. 12 to 14 would be huge... Especially if this plane doesn't match the payload of the spirit which I know has been debated because of the smallish size. Now we need to get ngad rolling.

 

[Josh_TN]

There will be a capability gap with the withdrawl of seventeen B-1s, and the fleet will continue to be difficult to maintain even at that level. At least the B-21 seems to be relatively on time and budget such there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I'd be surprised if the final buy doesn't exceed the original requirement given what seems to be the relative progress of the program. I'm sure there will be a need.

 

[bring_it_on]

Haven't delivered a bomber for more than two decades (and have burned B-1's down supporting COIN operations), so there will be pain as the force transitions but at least there is a platform in production that could possibly hit a steady state production rate of 8 bombers per year.

 

[Hydroman]

Probably building the B-21s in a similar manner as the B-2s back in the day.

I get your meaning.
But...
It's an opportunity to mention that B-21 is being built much differently than B-2.

B-2 was basically built by hand. Compare that to descriptions of NG's F-35 production line.

Newsroom

news.northropgrumman.com

All B-2s were built on production tooling, AV-1 and AV-2 were more built by hand being the first two aircraft but we did receive fully stuffed center sections and wings from Boeing and intermediate wing sections from LTV for all 21 aircraft. AV-3 and on were built in a "production-type" line. I agree, the B-21 will be built differently probably with a good amount of input and techniques from Scaled Composites. Also, it is easier having a single prime building the aircraft with no teammates, Boeing was difficult to work with but not LTV, we worked well with LTV.

 

[rooster]

Probably building the B-21s in a similar manner as the B-2s back in the day.

I get your meaning.
But...
It's an opportunity to mention that B-21 is being built much differently than B-2.

B-2 was basically built by hand. Compare that to descriptions of NG's F-35 production line.

Newsroom

news.northropgrumman.com

All B-2s were built on production tooling, AV-1 and AV-2 were more built by hand being the first two aircraft but we did receive fully stuffed center sections and wings from Boeing and intermediate wing sections from LTV for all 21 aircraft. AV-3 and on were built in a "production-type" line. I agree, the B-21 will be built differently probably with a good amount of input and techniques from Scaled Composites. Also, it is easier having a single prime building the aircraft with no teammates, Boeing was difficult to work with but not LTV, we worked well with LTV.

Having worked on cooperatively engineered cars I can say the up front engineering work is a pain in the ass beyond belief but the manufacturing capability of 2 manufacturers can't be beat for volume production.

 

[Hydroman]

Probably building the B-21s in a similar manner as the B-2s back in the day.

I get your meaning.
But...
It's an opportunity to mention that B-21 is being built much differently than B-2.

B-2 was basically built by hand. Compare that to descriptions of NG's F-35 production line.

Newsroom

news.northropgrumman.com

All B-2s were built on production tooling, AV-1 and AV-2 were more built by hand being the first two aircraft but we did receive fully stuffed center sections and wings from Boeing and intermediate wing sections from LTV for all 21 aircraft. AV-3 and on were built in a "production-type" line. I agree, the B-21 will be built differently probably with a good amount of input and techniques from Scaled Composites. Also, it is easier having a single prime building the aircraft with no teammates, Boeing was difficult to work with but not LTV, we worked well with LTV.

Having worked on cooperatively engineered cars I can say the up front engineering work is a pain in the ass beyond belief but the manufacturing capability of 2 manufacturers can't be beat for volume production.

I agree with your statement regarding manufacturing, providing the prime's guidelines and responsibilities to the subcontractor are clearly defined, agreed upon and adhered to. Boeing was and is a pain to deal with in general (example: KC-46). For B-2, Boeing always thought they should be the prime over NGC (building big airplanes) when I worked B-2 in the early days. NGC may or may not use a subcontractor for B-21 production and with a combination of current NGC and Scaled Composite manufacturing methodologies/capabilities may work out fine, I'm not involved with B-21 so this is just my hopeful speculation.

 

[Inst]

In my exercise, best case scenario is 57 bombers by 2030. Six operational squadrons and a training
squadron. These are huge procurement numbers. No wonder the USAF wants to stop funding the
B-1 asap. Maybe they're speculating that the external threats will grow significantly between 2030
and 2040. In the mean time, they can save the B-1 upgrade $$ for B-21.

B-1s aren't survivable in a war with a near-peer / peer power. B-21s are, at least against current counterstealth technology.

Also, here's something most people don't get. The PLAAF, between its JH-7 fighter-bombers and H-6 light strategic bombers, has about 67% of the USAF's bomber-based bomb-load. This stuff is generally antiquated and has to rely on coastal anti-air defenses for air-to-air protection, as well as stand-off weapons against surface / naval threats. If the H-20 program turns out to produce a high-payload bomber, like I expect, and the PLAAF ends up producing at least 50 by 2030 as rumored, the PLAAF meets the USAF's bomber force in total bomb load, or, if you neglect the short-ranged JH-7s, they have 67% of the US's bomb load.

If the Chinese are going to have bombers pointed at American assets in East Asia, the USAF should be able to do so as well. With the B-21 claiming an unrefueled range of 18,000 km, it'd likely have the range to strike key Chinese targets (albeit at a low sortie rate) from Anchorage or American bases in the Eastern Pacific (i.e, Hawaii) which are unlikely to get bombed out by the cruise-ballistic-bomber triad in the event of a war.

 

[NeilChapman]

All B-2s were built on production tooling, AV-1 and AV-2 were more built by hand being the first two aircraft but we did receive fully stuffed center sections and wings from Boeing and intermediate wing sections from LTV for all 21 aircraft. AV-3 and on were built in a "production-type" line. I agree, the B-21 will be built differently probably with a good amount of input and techniques from Scaled Composites. Also, it is easier having a single prime building the aircraft with no teammates, Boeing was difficult to work with but not LTV, we worked well with LTV.

Thanks for that. I didn't know that. I recall reading about a guy crawling in the serpentine duct to drill holes by hand. It was lamenting the fact that 9-axis robots weren't available at the time. I was thinking of that as by hand.

I wasn't aware that SC did production at scale. I would have thought at this point production expertise would come from NG and the quick prototype experience from SC. It looked to me like NG put a lot of time and thought into preparing for F-35 center fuselage production. I assumed that experience would translate to B-21.

 

[kaiserd]

In my exercise, best case scenario is 57 bombers by 2030. Six operational squadrons and a training
squadron. These are huge procurement numbers. No wonder the USAF wants to stop funding the
B-1 asap. Maybe they're speculating that the external threats will grow significantly between 2030
and 2040. In the mean time, they can save the B-1 upgrade $$ for B-21.

B-1s aren't survivable in a war with a near-peer / peer power. B-21s are, at least against current counterstealth technology.

Also, here's something most people don't get. The PLAAF, between its JH-7 fighter-bombers and H-6 light strategic bombers, has about 67% of the USAF's bomber-based bomb-load. This stuff is generally antiquated and has to rely on coastal anti-air defenses for air-to-air protection, as well as stand-off weapons against surface / naval threats. If the H-20 program turns out to produce a high-payload bomber, like I expect, and the PLAAF ends up producing at least 50 by 2030 as rumored, the PLAAF meets the USAF's bomber force in total bomb load, or, if you neglect the short-ranged JH-7s, they have 67% of the US's bomb load.

If the Chinese are going to have bombers pointed at American assets in East Asia, the USAF should be able to do so as well. With the B-21 claiming an unrefueled range of 18,000 km, it'd likely have the range to strike key Chinese targets (albeit at a low sortie rate) from Anchorage or American bases in the Eastern Pacific (i.e, Hawaii) which are unlikely to get bombed out by the cruise-ballistic-bomber triad in the event of a war.

With respect;
1) total “bomber based bombload” as you appear to have defined it is essentially all but meaningless (how much precision weapons, how much stand-off weapons etc etc.)
2) The maths appears highly selective and probably just wrong. Re: the H-6 aren’t the vast majority of those still in service dedicated stand-off missile carriers or dedicated air-to-air refuellers? And what would be the relevance of latent capacity for more traditional bombing that is likely never be used, particularly as would be unsurvivable against US level defences. If we are talking the relative “throw weights” of CALCMs equally unclear where you are getting the 67 percent figure (can’t be any where that given the difference in aircraft numbers and the much larger capacity of each US bomber aircraft in this regard).
And the inclusion of the JH-7 is a bit of a farce; on that basis US F-15Es, F-35s, F-16s, carrier strike aircraft etc should be included. As should Chinese J-16s and other aircraft with credible medium-long range strike capacity.

There may be a valid point in there somewhere about an increasing threat from Chinese CALCMs following the introduction of the next generation Chinese bomber.

 

[Josh_TN]

Where did you get the 18,000km figure for B-21? That seems ver suspect.

 

[Inst]

With respect;
1) total “bomber based bombload” as you appear to have defined it is essentially all but meaningless (how much precision weapons, how much stand-off weapons etc etc.)
2) The maths appears highly selective and probably just wrong. Re: the H-6 aren’t the vast majority of those still in service dedicated stand-off missile carriers or dedicated air-to-air refuellers? And what would be the relevance of latent capacity for more traditional bombing that is likely never be used, particularly as would be unsurvivable against US level defences. If we are talking the relative “throw weights” of CALCMs equally unclear where you are getting the 67 percent figure (can’t be any where that given the difference in aircraft numbers and the much larger capacity of each US bomber aircraft in this regard).
And the inclusion of the JH-7 is a bit of a farce; on that basis US F-15Es, F-35s, F-16s, carrier strike aircraft etc should be included. As should Chinese J-16s and other aircraft with credible medium-long range strike capacity.

There may be a valid point in there somewhere about an increasing threat from Chinese CALCMs following the introduction of the next generation Chinese bomber.

I'll admit where you're correct, especially since I haven't run the numbers recently:

-The H-6 force on the lower bound has about 1,560,000 kg worth of payload.
-The JH-7s have around 2,000,000 kg of payload, and combining them you get about 3,560,000 kg worth of payload, or 59% of the USAF's bomber force if we go with the JH-7s (this is more complicated, I agree with you that it's unfair not to include the F-15E or EX, since, like the JH-7, it's not a valid air-to-air platform in a fifth generation environment).
-The pure USAF bomber fleet (B-52s, B-1s, B-2s) is currently 6,328,000 kg worth of payload.
-The H-20s are rumored to be capable of 30,000 kg bomb loads, so 50 of them come out to 1,500,000 kg worth of payload, or 5,060,000 kg including the JH-7s, but removing the JH-7s you come out to only 3,060,000 kg worth of payload, which is less than half the USAF's strategic bomber force.
-If the B-1s are fully phased out by B-21s, that's a loss of 3,534,000 kg worth of payload, but only an increment of 700,000 kg worth of payload, putting the fight to 3,494,000 kg vs 3,060,000 kg.

===

However, the Chinese do have SDB-equivalents and their own GPS-equivalent (which, by virtue of being newer, is more capable where it has coverage, at least on the civilian level).

The concern with bombing, and this gets us to a point where we're talking about the PLAAF isn't the VVS (i.e, the PLAAF cannot content itself with air defense or air denial for a variety of reasons), is over scenarios where the Chinese both get air superiority and can conduct SEAD missions. Gravity bombs, guided or otherwise, are actually substantially more cost-effective than cruise missiles in terms of being able to deliver ordinance to a target, since the propulsion unit is reusable, while with cruise missiles the engine is destroyed with the cruise missile.

===

A key issue I think is that the Chinese are likely interested in saturation bombing of US as well as opposing assets in the East Asia region. This is not merely for military utility, but also to encourage potential elements in the American containment chain to consider going neutral instead. Cruise missiles, subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic are one way of achieving this, ballistic missiles are another, but bombers present yet another way to do so. A sufficiently stealthy bomber aircraft, especially considering the relatively low level of counterstealth investment the US has put in, could provide low-cost sustained bombing.

@Josh_TN

US Air Force and Northrop Grumman reveal the B-21 Raider bomber

The US Air Force and industry partner Northrop Grumman have lifted the veil of secrecy on the service’s next-generation long-range strike bomber, the B-21 Raider, as the program progresses well.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Then again, that could be refuelled ferry range. The 19,000 figure seems high to me as well, so I have to assume it's ferry range, not combat radius. Practical combat radius is more likely to be 19,000 * .3 or *.4.

 

[stealthflanker]

I'll admit where you're correct, especially since I haven't run the numbers recently:

-The H-6 force on the lower bound has about 1,560,000 kg worth of payload.
-The JH-7s have around 2,000,000 kg of payload, and combining them you get about 3,560,000 kg worth of payload, or 59% of the USAF's bomber force if we go with the JH-7s (this is more complicated, I agree with you that it's unfair not to include the F-15E or EX, since, like the JH-7, it's not a valid air-to-air platform in a fifth generation environment).
-The pure USAF bomber fleet (B-52s, B-1s, B-2s) is currently 6,328,000 kg worth of payload.
-The H-20s are rumored to be capable of 30,000 kg bomb loads, so 50 of them come out to 1,500,000 kg worth of payload, or 5,060,000 kg including the JH-7s, but removing the JH-7s you come out to only 3,060,000 kg worth of payload, which is less than half the USAF's strategic bomber force.
-If the B-1s are fully phased out by B-21s, that's a loss of 3,534,000 kg worth of payload, but only an increment of 700,000 kg worth of payload, putting the fight to 3,494,000 kg vs 3,060,000 kg.

Why you are not using Sortie generation method instead ? That will give you a better merit in terms of gauging strike performance of a bomber fleet and the respective countries operates them.

 

[Josh_TN]

We’d also have to talk about practical targets and weapons to really characterize capabilities, as well as discussing how many systems could actually be based in theater (or in the US case potentially outside it, with the sortie penalty that entails). Neither side is committing long range assets with free fall ordnance, guided or not, unescorted to hostile territory. IE, b-52s and H-6s are effectively only missile carriers. Both sides would have physical and political limitations as to how much of their force was focused in any one area.

I don’t think it’s a thing that really could be calculated without at least some AI, and even then the results would be limited by human assumptions.

Clearly there is an advantage to having long range penetrating assets, especially for the US which would be working at a distance. That would reintroduce the possibility of short range guided weapons on heavy bombers, greatly reducing inventory cost and perhaps more importantly increasing payload. The B-2 can deliver 80 JDAMs at around 5000km unrefueled. If the B-21 could deliver a similar number of SDBs at a similar range, that would be very problematic for the PRC. And obviously vice versa.

 

[sferrin]

That would reintroduce the possibility of short range guided weapons on heavy bombers,.

Air defenses would like a word.