I appreciate expansion of Chinese and/ or Russian nuclear forces would see equivalent US force numbers being looked at again.
But in terms of a numbers game it’s never going to be they have X number of bombers so we’re going to buy the same X number of B-21s; it’s far more complicated than that.

What's concerning is that China has better manufacturing infrastructure and capability to turn things around faster and at higher quantities if they wanted to. The United States is missing that luxury at the moment (something continually highlighted by think tanks).
Do they really?
I would say it very much varies by the sector.
For example how many F-35s versus J-20s currently produced per year, how many B-21s versus what ever new Chinese bomber emerges per year, etc?
This is not to minimise the genuine challenge and threat the emergence of China as a true military superpower represents.
But generalisations with more than tinge of alarmist non-specificity don’t really help.
 
I appreciate expansion of Chinese and/ or Russian nuclear forces would see equivalent US force numbers being looked at again.
But in terms of a numbers game it’s never going to be they have X number of bombers so we’re going to buy the same X number of B-21s; it’s far more complicated than that.

What's concerning is that China has better manufacturing infrastructure and capability to turn things around faster and at higher quantities if they wanted to. The United States is missing that luxury at the moment (something continually highlighted by think tanks).
Interestingly, Frank Kendall doesn't think China actually moves any faster than us. Its more that they've got the resources and political will to pursue everything they want.



China’s timetable for fielding new equipment is “not better than ours. It’s probably not as good as ours. But they started earlier and they’ve been working aggressively on a larger number of things,” Kendall said.

 
I appreciate expansion of Chinese and/ or Russian nuclear forces would see equivalent US force numbers being looked at again.
But in terms of a numbers game it’s never going to be they have X number of bombers so we’re going to buy the same X number of B-21s; it’s far more complicated than that.

What's concerning is that China has better manufacturing infrastructure and capability to turn things around faster and at higher quantities if they wanted to. The United States is missing that luxury at the moment (something continually highlighted by think tanks).
Quantity sure, Quality and complexity is another question. Quantity is a quality in itself though.
Where do they have a problem with complexity? On the other hand they do MANY things we have problems with, if we can do them at all.
 

Producing New B-21 Bomber Will Cost $20 Billion Through 2027​


April 26, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force expects to spend close to $20 billion on producing the B-21 Raider through fiscal 2027, but it doesn’t say how many of the advanced bombers it will buy for that cost. Including research and development, USAF will spend more than $32 billion on the Raider through fiscal 2027, according to service budget documents.

Justifications for the Air Force’s fiscal 2023 budget request include spending estimates across the future years defense plan, or FYDP, stretching through 2027. B-21 procurement, which does not include military construction or research and development, is requested at the following amounts:

Fiscal Year B-21 Procurement Funding Request
2022 (enacted)$108 million
2023$1.787 billion
2024$3.551 billion
2025$4.429 billion
2026$4.638 billion
2027$5.023 billion

The 2022 amount is likely to be for materials and long-lead items for initial production. For the period ’23 through ’27, the planned B-21 production total request is $19.536 billion. Northrop Grumman is building the B-21.

The Air Force has opted to classify how many B-21s it plans to buy for the requested amount. However, at the outset of the program, the cost of the bomber was capped at $550 million each in base year 2010 dollars, or $729.25 million in current dollars. That figure was intended to be an average unit cost over a production run of about 100 airplanes, and early examples of a new military aircraft always cost the most, when the learning curve is highest and the most tweaks tend to be made to the design.

Meeting the price cap was deemed a “critical parameter” of the program, the Air Force said. The B-21’s predecessor, the Next-Generation Bomber, was canceled because Pentagon officials deemed its cost too high and its capability too “exquisite.”

If production costs were fixed at the current level, the Air Force could buy 2.5 B-21s in fiscal ’23; nearly five in fiscal ’24; six in fiscal ’25; and between six and seven per year after, or just over 20 for the five-year period. Those figures roughly agree with initial revelations about the B-21 contract, which calls for 21 Raiders to be built in the first five production lots. However, that would not include further cost escalation due to inflation or new capabilities demanded by changing threats.

The amounts suggest that the fiscal ’25 budget achieves something of a plateau for the bomber, with rapid growth in the near years slowing to more modest growth in the latter part of the FYDP. The Air Force has said early versions of the B-21, although designated for testing, will nonetheless be “useable assets” available for combat operations.

Research and development of the Raider doesn’t stop, though.

Fiscal YearB-21 Research and Development Funding
2022 (enacted)$2.873
2023$3.254
2024$2.322
2025$1.708
2026$1.527
2027$1.262

From fiscal ’22 through ’27, the Air Force expects to spend $12.946 billion on B-21 research and development, making the six-year grand total for both procurement and R&D $32.482 billion.

Randall Walden, head of the Rapid Capabilities Office, which is developing the B-21, has said the first example could roll out of the Northrop Grumman plant at Palmdale, Calif., in the next few months.
 

Producing New B-21 Bomber Will Cost $20 Billion Through 2027​


April 26, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force expects to spend close to $20 billion on producing the B-21 Raider through fiscal 2027, but it doesn’t say how many of the advanced bombers it will buy for that cost. Including research and development, USAF will spend more than $32 billion on the Raider through fiscal 2027, according to service budget documents.

Justifications for the Air Force’s fiscal 2023 budget request include spending estimates across the future years defense plan, or FYDP, stretching through 2027. B-21 procurement, which does not include military construction or research and development, is requested at the following amounts:

Fiscal YearB-21 Procurement Funding Request
2022 (enacted)$108 million
2023$1.787 billion
2024$3.551 billion
2025$4.429 billion
2026$4.638 billion
2027$5.023 billion

The 2022 amount is likely to be for materials and long-lead items for initial production. For the period ’23 through ’27, the planned B-21 production total request is $19.536 billion. Northrop Grumman is building the B-21.

The Air Force has opted to classify how many B-21s it plans to buy for the requested amount. However, at the outset of the program, the cost of the bomber was capped at $550 million each in base year 2010 dollars, or $729.25 million in current dollars. That figure was intended to be an average unit cost over a production run of about 100 airplanes, and early examples of a new military aircraft always cost the most, when the learning curve is highest and the most tweaks tend to be made to the design.

Meeting the price cap was deemed a “critical parameter” of the program, the Air Force said. The B-21’s predecessor, the Next-Generation Bomber, was canceled because Pentagon officials deemed its cost too high and its capability too “exquisite.”

If production costs were fixed at the current level, the Air Force could buy 2.5 B-21s in fiscal ’23; nearly five in fiscal ’24; six in fiscal ’25; and between six and seven per year after, or just over 20 for the five-year period. Those figures roughly agree with initial revelations about the B-21 contract, which calls for 21 Raiders to be built in the first five production lots. However, that would not include further cost escalation due to inflation or new capabilities demanded by changing threats.

The amounts suggest that the fiscal ’25 budget achieves something of a plateau for the bomber, with rapid growth in the near years slowing to more modest growth in the latter part of the FYDP. The Air Force has said early versions of the B-21, although designated for testing, will nonetheless be “useable assets” available for combat operations.

Research and development of the Raider doesn’t stop, though.

Fiscal YearB-21 Research and Development Funding
2022 (enacted)$2.873
2023$3.254
2024$2.322
2025$1.708
2026$1.527
2027$1.262

From fiscal ’22 through ’27, the Air Force expects to spend $12.946 billion on B-21 research and development, making the six-year grand total for both procurement and R&D $32.482 billion.

Randall Walden, head of the Rapid Capabilities Office, which is developing the B-21, has said the first example could roll out of the Northrop Grumman plant at Palmdale, Calif., in the next few months.

Twenty billion Dollars through 2027 for the B-21 program? I am just wondering how does this compare with the entire cost of the B-2 program back in 1990 when only 21 B-2s were built?
 
Twenty billion Dollars through 2027 for the B-21 program? I am just wondering how does this compare with the entire cost of the B-2 program back in 1990 when only 21 B-2s were built?

The total program cost for B-2 is estimated to have been ~$45B, of which a tad more than half was R&D and a bit less than half was procurement.
 
The first 21 are LRIP. Isn't that being paid for under development $? Production would be post those 21 LRIP air vehicles, no?
 
I'm curious if there has been anything alluding to advanced tech that will be incorporated in this. There is seemingly a lot of work into meta materials and composites. Even optically. There is a ton of work being done in grey spaces in “academics”.

I think it’s interesting that OXCART incorporated plasma generation to reduce RCS almost from day one with cesium additive and Project KEMPSTER which was an electron beam generator that I’m not sure was implemented. This was in the 60s. 60 years ago.

With the B2. It’s been long rumored that there are 5+ areas or elements that are still unknown to the public.

This seems to be a low cost replacement for an aging and expensive fleet built around lower cost to maintain.

I feel like I’m either missing the hype on this as it’s just a fleet aircraft essentially. Less about innovation.

Or is my mind going to be blown at some point with pocket aces on this aircraft.

Hmmm wonder what those 5 x elements be ..is it the avionics, the structure ? Skin paint ? Defense aided suites etc ?

Theres been plenty of books with in depth drawings and photos of B-2 for the last 3 decades.

Cheers
 
I'm curious if there has been anything alluding to advanced tech that will be incorporated in this. There is seemingly a lot of work into meta materials and composites. Even optically. There is a ton of work being done in grey spaces in “academics”.

I think it’s interesting that OXCART incorporated plasma generation to reduce RCS almost from day one with cesium additive and Project KEMPSTER which was an electron beam generator that I’m not sure was implemented. This was in the 60s. 60 years ago.

With the B2. It’s been long rumored that there are 5+ areas or elements that are still unknown to the public.

This seems to be a low cost replacement for an aging and expensive fleet built around lower cost to maintain.

I feel like I’m either missing the hype on this as it’s just a fleet aircraft essentially. Less about innovation.

Or is my mind going to be blown at some point with pocket aces on this aircraft.

Hmmm wonder what those 5 x elements be ..is it the avionics, the structure ? Skin paint ? Defense aided suites etc ?

Theres been plenty of books with in depth drawings and photos of B-2 for the last 3 decades.

Cheers
Electroluminescent paint... You can look right at it and until it's turned in you'll never know. Just 1 example. The other thing is that the B2 uses differential thrust for flight maneuvers when in full stealth modes to avoid spikes from deflecting the control surfaces.
 
The other thing is that the B2 uses differential thrust for flight maneuvers when in full stealth modes to avoid spikes from deflecting the control surfaces.

I did not know that the B-2 used differential thrust when it was in full stealth mode, I had thought that it may have used such a system it makes sense to use engine thrust to control movement to avoid using the control surfaces when over hostile territory.
 
That does make me wonder how the B-21 is going to manage this. It looks like the engines are far less spaced out, presumably to avoid the problems of differential thrust in the case of a total engine failure. That configuration and the use of two engines vice four would make it harder to use as a turning mechanism.


Also this is the first I've heard of the B-2 using that as a turning mechanism (though it makes sense). Does anyone have a source for that?
 
That does make me wonder how the B-21 is going to manage this. It looks like the engines are far less spaced out, presumably to avoid the problems of differential thrust in the case of a total engine failure. That configuration and the use of two engines vice four would make it harder to use as a turning mechanism.


Also this is the first I've heard of the B-2 using that as a turning mechanism (though it makes sense). Does anyone have a source for that?
Fluidic TVC I'd think.
 
It was published at contract award by DoD that NG would be producing B-21 for $510m in FY2010 dollars, well under the $550m per copy requirement. Since quantities in the article are based on the $550m/2010 dollar base it is potentially off by a substantial margin.
 
I'm curious if there has been anything alluding to advanced tech that will be incorporated in this. There is seemingly a lot of work into meta materials and composites. Even optically. There is a ton of work being done in grey spaces in “academics”.

I think it’s interesting that OXCART incorporated plasma generation to reduce RCS almost from day one with cesium additive and Project KEMPSTER which was an electron beam generator that I’m not sure was implemented. This was in the 60s. 60 years ago.

With the B2. It’s been long rumored that there are 5+ areas or elements that are still unknown to the public.

This seems to be a low cost replacement for an aging and expensive fleet built around lower cost to maintain.

I feel like I’m either missing the hype on this as it’s just a fleet aircraft essentially. Less about innovation.

Or is my mind going to be blown at some point with pocket aces on this aircraft.

Hmmm wonder what those 5 x elements be ..is it the avionics, the structure ? Skin paint ? Defense aided suites etc ?

Theres been plenty of books with in depth drawings and photos of B-2 for the last 3 decades.

Cheers
Electroluminescent paint... You can look right at it and until it's turned in you'll never know. Just 1 example. The other thing is that the B2 uses differential thrust for flight maneuvers when in full stealth modes to avoid spikes from deflecting the control surfaces.

Last time I saw B-2 close up (not flying) was a decade ago at Royal International Air Tattoo (my pics below).

Anything springs to mind please?

cheers
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1395.JPG
    IMG_1395.JPG
    3.2 MB · Views: 59
  • IMG_1382.JPG
    IMG_1382.JPG
    3.1 MB · Views: 58
  • IMG_1404.JPG
    IMG_1404.JPG
    2.2 MB · Views: 58

So 2023 for the first flight for the B-21 Raider, and a public unveiling projected to be later this year. Wonder why they choose next year for the first flight and not after the unveiling? Seams rather strange anyway got something to look forward to.
 
So 2023 for the first flight for the B-21 Raider, and a public unveiling projected to be later this year. Wonder why they choose next year for the first flight and not after the unveiling?

You need time for some ground testing (taxi tests, etc.) between rollout and first flight. The B-2 was rolled out in late November 1988 and was supposed to have its first flight in around January/February 1989, which was delayed to July due to problems found in those ground tests. So to me, this announcement suggests that the B-21 rollout will also be late in the year (4th quarter anyway), with a couple of months planned between rollout and first flight in early 2023.
 
So 2023 for the first flight for the B-21 Raider, and a public unveiling projected to be later this year. Wonder why they choose next year for the first flight and not after the unveiling?

You need time for some ground testing (taxi tests, etc.) between rollout and first flight. The B-2 was rolled out in late November 1988 and was supposed to have its first flight in around January/February 1989, which was delayed to July due to problems found in those ground tests. So to me, this announcement suggests that the B-21 rollout will also be late in the year (4th quarter anyway), with a couple of months planned between rollout and first flight in early 2023.

Thanks TomS, at least there is two things that I have to look forward to concerning the B-21.
 
Hmmm

No suggestion that there's a problem but... Recall the risk in this build was not tech but integration.

This is a substantive (but not substantial - yet) delay in any book. There has been a steady drumbeat of information suggesting Q2 as rollout which was itself a push from last year. Now we are another year out. Seems plausible to consider that something has been found in loads testing that requires additional testing or certification to understand better. Or perhaps it's something schedule related to final prep such as coatings.

Either way, if this is the case, I hope the issue is relatively mundane and resolved quickly. I'd hate to see production slowed.
 
Hmmm

No suggestion that there's a problem but... Recall the risk in this build was not tech but integration.

This is a substantive (but not substantial - yet) delay in any book. There has been a steady drumbeat of information suggesting Q2 as rollout which was itself a push from last year. Now we are another year out. Seems plausible to consider that something has been found in loads testing that requires additional testing or certification to understand better. Or perhaps it's something schedule related to final prep such as coatings.

Either way, if this is the case, I hope the issue is relatively mundane and resolved quickly. I'd hate to see production slowed.
Could be anything under the sun. No use speculating about 1 out of thousands of reasons. I doubt its structure related with all the analytical tools we have in engineering. In automotive for the last several years its always software related when there is a delay never structural considering structurally everything is over engineered. We will likely never know
 
Hmmm

No suggestion that there's a problem but... Recall the risk in this build was not tech but integration.

This is a substantive (but not substantial - yet) delay in any book. There has been a steady drumbeat of information suggesting Q2 as rollout which was itself a push from last year. Now we are another year out. Seems plausible to consider that something has been found in loads testing that requires additional testing or certification to understand better. Or perhaps it's something schedule related to final prep such as coatings.

Either way, if this is the case, I hope the issue is relatively mundane and resolved quickly. I'd hate to see production slowed.
Could be anything under the sun. No use speculating about 1 out of thousands of reasons. I doubt its structure related with all the analytical tools we have in engineering. In automotive for the last several years its always software related when there is a delay never structural considering structurally everything is over engineered. We will likely never know

I too hope that the problem affecting the B-21 is nothing serious and can be sorted without too much of a fuss, and that the B-21 can hopefully (fingers and toes crossed) still meet it's end of year roll out date whenever that will be.
 
New Patches:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/area51/comments/uuy1xv/b21_raider_maintenance_patch/

47583.jpg
47728.jpg
 
Isn’t Sentinel supposed to fly in late 2023 as well?

What is Sentinel, again please?

cheers
New ICBM. Minuteman replacement

Thanks for that, totally forgot what it is


So the future nuclear triad or quad be the Raider, B-2, Buff and Sentinel.

Without putting doubts on anything but wonder with all the hype around the B-21 when its rolled out later this year wonder if some of will go 'ah ok' so that was that...

cheers
 
I'm wondering about the plausibility of trolling spotters by exposing a partially disassembled static model with the rear missing on the day of the inauguration, to avoid any unexpected surprises like in 1988. Or even better, just quietly announce it's been cancelled and limit to release a lowly lit photo of a profile obscured against the sun/lights, just like another member suggested before, while having technically delivered with the promise of revealing the aircraft.
f-117-nighthawk-revealed-hangar-footage-010716796_iconl.jpeg
images
 
This is a substantive (but not substantial - yet) delay in any book.

The first flight projection of 2023, as is now being reported by the Air Force, is aligned with the information communicated during the company's Q1 earnings call and remains on-schedule to the government Acquisition Program Baseline.

As the Air Force has indicated, the focus is on a safe first flight of a production representative aircraft. With six aircraft in various stages of production and test, Northrop Grumman is progressing toward that objective as it continues to reduce risk, refine the building process, and mature the test fleet ahead of first flight.

It was published at contract award by DoD that NG would be producing B-21 for $510m in FY2010 dollars, well under the $550m per copy requirement. Since quantities in the article are based on the $550m/2010 dollar base it is potentially off by a substantial margin.

The $564 Million per unit in FY-16 dollars ($650+ Million in 2022) was an APUC KPP for the program across the entire production plan of 100 aircraft (used in the calculation). APUC is average across total production not an average across say the first five production lots. You can expect the first 21 aircraft to be higher than that APUC KPP. Adjusting for inflation (through FY22 - FY-27) and adding a 25-30% premium over APUC you are basically in the $20 billion range for the first 21 aircraft. There has been no indication that the B-21 is not performing to cost targets or has breached any cost metric.
 
Last edited:


The $564 Million per unit in FY-16 dollars ($650+ Million in 2022) was an APUC KPP for the program across the entire production plan of 100 aircraft (used in the calculation). APUC is average across total production not an average across say the first five production lots. You can expect the first 21 aircraft to be higher than that APUC KPP. Adjusting for inflation (through FY22 - FY-27) and adding a 25-30% premium over APUC you are basically in the $20 billion range for the first 21 aircraft. There has been no indication that the B-21 is not performing to cost targets or has breached any cost metric.
I understand your point and the normal process but are we sure? EMD was cost+. Production was fixed price. There have only been indications that costs have been lower than projected. Nothing has been said re higher pricing for first lots.
 


The $564 Million per unit in FY-16 dollars ($650+ Million in 2022) was an APUC KPP for the program across the entire production plan of 100 aircraft (used in the calculation). APUC is average across total production not an average across say the first five production lots. You can expect the first 21 aircraft to be higher than that APUC KPP. Adjusting for inflation (through FY22 - FY-27) and adding a 25-30% premium over APUC you are basically in the $20 billion range for the first 21 aircraft. There has been no indication that the B-21 is not performing to cost targets or has breached any cost metric.
I understand your point and the normal process but are we sure? EMD was cost+. Production was fixed price. There have only been indications that costs have been lower than projected. Nothing has been said re higher pricing for first lots.

Don't understand your point. I would recommend you go back to the original contract and public (on record) statements. The quoted $564 Million per unit (FY16) was the program APUC for a production run of 100-aircraft. It is an average cost over the production run..not the cost of the very first one or the average over the first few low rate production lots. To refresh, the KPP was $550 Million APUC using FY10 dollars. The APUC estimate at the time of award was $511 million which was nearly $40 million lower. That $511 APUC became $564 Million in FY16 dollars and will top $650 Million FY-2023 and beyond dollars. Initial low rate lots will have a higher unit cost than subsequent FRP lots on account of learning curve efficiencies and economies of scale. The KPP was for the program to come to an average of $564 or below per unit.

Nothing has been said re higher pricing for first lots.

This is how production works. Initial low rate lots come in at a higher cost and subsequent lots come in lower as you become more proficient at building the aircraft which reduces your touch labor and brings in EOS based on production rate increases and multi-year buys. Production lot #1 costs more to deliver than lot #10.

DOD uses APUC to track the average cost of a weapon system across its production run (Total production cost divided by the number of units produced) where as fly-away unit cost metrics are used to track individual production lots. B-21 KPP was for the APUC across the production life of the program.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is sure; there are no official dates. But everyone in know has released statements to the effect that program is advancing on schedule and that the EMD aircraft are going to be very close to full production models. Id put money on us seeing a first flight this year.

Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks speaking during an April 12 Defense Writers Group breakfast seems to confirm the rollout of the B-21, predicted for the April/May timeframe, will happen on schedule.

A roll-out in April or May does not necessarily mean that the project is on schedule. They can roll out an airframe without engines or fuel tanks or electronics or anything else inside that is not visible from the outside. As long as it looks good and has wheels it will do. It's just a show for the media.

First real flight could very well be in 2023. But who knows, maybe they succeed to get it into the air on 31 December for a short hop just for show, with still a lot of things missing inside, so that they can claim that it flew in 2022. A bit like the Tu-144 ("Concordski") that first flew on 31 December 1968.

Don't believe all the propaganda from the USAF, the US DoD and the manufacturer. They usually will not admit delays or problems until they really can't deny it any longer.
This isn't the ussr parading plywood icbms for a parade.
May has passed without a roll-out.
Not even an empty shell.
Not even a plywood fake.
And there will not even be a "Concordski" on the last day of 2022 either.

But Northrop need not worry. Just like Bezos saved the Ariane 6, Putin saved the B-21 by starting a war in Ukraine.
 
But Northrop need not worry. Just like Bezos saved the Ariane 6, Putin saved the B-21 by starting a war in Ukraine.

There was hardly any threat of the program ever being cancelled. There seems to be a minor delay in the taxi testing; by US standards the program is overwhelmingly successful to be more or less on time and budget.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom