Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
By any standards really. Major aircraft projects are not known for their punctuality, or being to budget for that matter.
 
B-21 Bomber Delivers Pentagon Surprise: It’s Under Budget So Far

Air Force devotes savings to reducing technical risks later
Northrop Grumman won bomber contract over Lockheed-Boeing

By Anthony Capaccio

June 17, 2022, 15:00 GMT+3

Northrop Grumman Corp.’s cost estimate for developing the new B-21 stealth bomber has come in lower than the US Air Force’s $25.1 billion projection, according to the service’s chief weapons buyer, a rare early-stage success story among major weapons programs that routinely run billions over budget.

“We had money in the program budget that went beyond the contractually required payments” so that “gave us the opportunity” to target the money for early spending on riskier aspects of the program, Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary for acquisition, said in an interview.

How much Northrop was able to save is classified, as are most details about the Air Force’s next-generation bomber. The service has estimated that the B-21 is likely to cost at least $203 billion to develop, purchase and then operate 100 aircraft over 30 years.

The savings come as Northrop tests the bomber’s systems on the ground, assembles the first six test aircraft and prepares for a first flight in 2023.

Northrop was awarded the development contract in 2015 in a surprise win over a joint bid from the top two U.S. defense contractors, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co.

Past Mistakes
The Air Force is trying to avoid the mistakes of its rollout of its current bomber, the B-2, in the 1980s. Its development program was started in 1981, and in 1987 the Pentagon approved procuring planes even as it was still in development and testing. Yet, it was only in April 1989 that the Air Force disclosed in public testimony that it had spent $22.4 billion on B-2 development, a revelation that surprised lawmakers.

The sticker shock resulted in some unlikely congressional alliances to curtail the program, with Representative John Kasich, a Republican from Ohio, joining Representative Ron Dellums, a Democrat and self-described socialist from California.

Northrop, which depended on the US government for 85% of its revenue last year, has made the bomber “a huge corporate priority so they’ve assembled a good team” and invested a “pretty substantial” amount of corporate dollars upfront to reduce program risk, Hunter said. “What stands out is the corporate commitment they have made to success.”

Kathy Warden, chief executive officer of Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop, told analysts in an earnings call in April that progress on the bomber has been “partly enabled by our digital design capabilities and advanced manufacturing technologies, which reduce risk ahead of the aircraft first flight.”

She also disclosed a $67 million incentive fee that the company expects at the contract’s end. Although this wasn’t the first such fee paid to Northrop or projected internally to be earned, “we separately disclose those that have a significant effect on the company’s financial statements,” the company said in a statement. It said the contract contains incentive fees for beating both cost and performance targets.

None of the difference between the $25.1 billion development estimate and Northrop’s lower number will be added to the already agreed-to fee structure, it said.

Hunter said the Air Force will become more transparent with the public about the B-21 after the aircraft is displayed, or “rolled out,” later this year. Congressional staff with the highest security clearances have received regular program updates for years.

“We will be in a position to be more forthcoming once we are actively out there flying” because “we will be more visible,” Hunter said. The “first flight is a big marker,” as well, he said because “if we can do the ‘power up’ and achieve first flight, that tells us a significant number of our engineering boxes we needed to check” were achieved.
Click to expand...

 

Wow now there is a surprise, the B-21 is under budget which is great news. Let's hope that by the time of the unveiling and the first flight it remains under budget.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FighterJock said:

Wow now there is a surprise, the B-21 is under budget which is great news. Let's hope that by the time of the unveiling and the first flight it remains under budget.
Click to expand...
when the requirements are both realistic and solidified with few or no modifications, private companies are more likely to invest corporate dollars upfront and map out realistic time frame and challenges, leading to less bad surprises. if b-21 continues to be on time, within budget it will provide a lot of good insights for future programs.
 
bobbymike said:
donnage99 said:
Josh_TN said:
The project also stipulated only using developed technologies, which is a far cry from a lot of programs in the 80’s.
Click to expand...
that's what i meant by realistic requirements
Click to expand...
Wonder how much they benefited (meaning not counted as B-21 programatic expense) from the myriad of black budget spending?
Click to expand...
There was a lot of R&D in other programs that matured LRS but isn’t accounted for in the LRS numbers. Remember all those other bobber programs like NGB? NGB R&D isn’t being counted as LRS R&D.
 
Well, yes. But. You have to cut it off somewhere.

Otherwise you'd have to defend rolling up the Wright brothers R&D and subsequent efforts (B-35, B-49, B-2 in inflated CY 2015 dollars) as a LRS cost - a ridiculous proposition. (Me? I'd rather bury that in the 787 cost accounting block. Much tighter security there.)
 
aim9xray said:
Well, yes. But. You have to cut it off somewhere.

Otherwise you'd have to defend rolling up the Wright brothers R&D and subsequent efforts (B-35, B-49, B-2 in inflated CY 2015 dollars) as a LRS cost - a ridiculous proposition. (Me? I'd rather bury that in the 787 cost accounting block. Much tighter security there.)
Click to expand...
Don’t think anybody is saying “it must be counted” just asking a question
 
Adoption of an engine off the shelf probably saved a lot. I suspect a lot of the avionics will owe something to the F-35s systems as well. Probably some “RQ-180” related tech as well. I don’t think it’s a thing that could be easily quantified though.
 
Apologies if this has been brought up previously.

Has anyone connected any dots from QUARTZ/AARS/SensorCraft to LRS-B and specifically the B-21?

There seems to be a lot of crossover with existing R&D from QUARTZ which was transferred eventually USAF I believe under AARS. I’m starting to wonder if the B-21 was a bit more recycled than previously thought or possibly much of the tech behind it incorporated.

Though rumored that QUARTZ has a manned version. Are we really looking at more of a really advanced UCAV with a large amount of R&D previously done, pulled off a shelf to a degree and put a pilot into? Considering just how much time, budget and how many private contractors and agencies were involved ultimately to all land in the lap of USAF.
 
Last edited:
Hansblix said:
Apologies if this has been brought up previously.

Has anyone connected any dots from QUARTZ/AARS/SensorCraft to LRS-B and specifically the B-21?

There seems to be a lot of crossover with existing R&D from QUARTZ which was transferred eventually USAF I believe under AARS. I’m starting to wonder if the B-21 was a bit more recycled than previously thought or possibly much of the tech behind it incorporated.

Though rumored that QUARTZ has a manned version. Are we really looking at more of a really advanced UCAV with a large amount of R&D previously done, pulled off a shelf to a degree and put a pilot into? Considering just how much time, budget and how many private contractors and agencies were involved ultimately to all land in the lap of USAF.
Click to expand...
My question exactly. A trade show model of the Quartz floating around the net looks a lot like the B-21 so I'm finding it hard to imagine that they didn't reuse a fair bit of aerodynamic information gathered from Quartz.
 
Why should we connect dots with Lockheed / Boeing AARS and not with Northrop's own Senior Ice/Senior CJ?
How easily R&D were "transferred to USAF" by contractors for use by potentional contenders you can read in The $5 Billion Misunderstanding
 
There are six airframes in various states of production; it seems likely the design is relatively finalized. If there was a reduction in capability it occurred years ago. I read it as just simply being a case of a bomber capability level UAV not really being any cheaper than the full bomber. As the article notes, the pilots and associated equipment just don’t occupy enough weight and volume for a separate design to be cost effective.
 
Last edited:
I think the point is for B-21 capability and size airframe the savings from not being manned aren't enough to justify building a separate airframe. So yes, unmanned B-21 for those missions.
 
It's possible that even unmanned has been canned. Reading the interview, one way of reading b/w the lines is that affordability prevents exposing the Raider to a mission were the risks will be so high that a crew couldn't be exposed. Money related to the so called unmanned concept could probably be better funneled down to an increase in defensive capabilities or other systems external to the program. (for example why would you need so much range if it's a one way mission!)
 

So the B-21 Raider will only come with a manned variant. That will save on costs of having to install all the necessary equipment for the B-21 to be unmanned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomcatViP said:
It's possible that even unmanned has been canned. Reading the interview, one way of reading b/w the lines is that affordability prevents exposing the Raider to a mission were the risks will be so high that a crew couldn't be exposed. Money related to the so called unmanned concept could probably be better funneled down to an increase in defensive capabilities or other systems external to the program. (for example why would you need so much range if it's a one way mission!)
Click to expand...

Or long range munitions are expected to reduce risk.
 
.
 

Attachments

  • 1658082366199.png
    1658082366199.png
    13.5 KB · Views: 293
  • 1658082398911.png
    1658082398911.png
    37.8 KB · Views: 257
  • 1658082435203.png
    1658082435203.png
    29 KB · Views: 211
  • 1658082491857.png
    1658082491857.png
    105.6 KB · Views: 346
Unmanned, in the context, refers to a normally inhabited bomber flown without a crew, for allegedly, at the onset of the discussion, more risky mission.

My own remark was that it doesn't make more sense. Extra cost could be rerouted to better systems or another platform, leaned for a one way mission.

I do reckon that confusion is expected given the lack of an appropriate terminology.
 
Cancellation of the 'unmanned B-21 sized escort (idea)' might perhaps increase the total number of B-21s purchased, or of the number of NGAD manned platforms required/purchased as escorts with long legs to accompany the B-21 will probably still be needed (sometimes)...
 
TomcatViP said:
Unmanned, in the context, refers to a normally inhabited bomber flown without a crew, for allegedly, at the onset of the discussion, more risky mission.
Click to expand...
To be fair, in context of strategic bombers, it probably isn't really as much about risk (if strategic bombers take risks - the shit is very real, crew is no issue then - plus B-21 won't be expendable anyways), but about patrol/standby time.
Humans can be effective only for so long, and making more proper accommodations for them is a serious trouble.
 
rooster said:
Well if they canned unmanned, many including me won't lose any sleep. Were they going to fly unmanned bombers out of (and over) conus with weapons on board?

The only thing unmanned would allow for are ungodly long missions by removing the biology barrier.
Click to expand...

I hope they keep an ability for optionally manned. This sounds like a political decision. Kind of hard to explain the loss of 1/2 billion dollar drone. Some pilots need escape to have a bright side to the loss.

With 100 plus B-21s people need to get used to seeing them forward deployed. In many (future) cases it wouldn't make sense to fly out of CONUS with a bomb load. But I could imagine a ferry flight to Australia, Diego Garcia, or the UK with the B-21 crews riding alongside in a C-37A.
 
From a Russian modeling firm:
 

Attachments

  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-23.jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-23.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 303
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24.jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 282
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-23 (2).jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-23 (2).jpg
    104.3 KB · Views: 252
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24 (2).jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24 (2).jpg
    110.5 KB · Views: 224
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-25.jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-25.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 240
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24 (3).jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-24 (3).jpg
    148.4 KB · Views: 249
  • photo_2022-07-24_20-42-25 (2).jpg
    photo_2022-07-24_20-42-25 (2).jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 255

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom