Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[bobbymike]

How about Columbia then?

Ps partially kidding

 

[In_A_Dream]

Purchasing B-21s would incur the economic wrath of China, I don't think it's off the table though.

 

[NeilChapman]

So Australia did look at B-21 but they decided to purchase long range air to surface instead.

Australia Held Talks About Buying B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers

The Australian government looked at the B-21 Raider before deciding to buy new air-launched standoff missiles for its existing fighter jets.

www.thedrive.com

Indeed - specific words from DSR:

The Review has undertaken detailed discussions in Australia and the United States in relation to the B-21 Raider as a potential capability option for Australia. In light of our strategic circumstances and the approach to Defence strategy and capability development outlined in this Review, we do not consider the B-21 to be a suitable option for consideration for acquisition.

It makes no sense for Australia to purchase B-21. All the support infrastructure is built or is being added to support US bombers at specified Australian bases. Scores of B-21's will be rotated through these bases in future. I suspect they will be rotated in on such a regular basis they may as well be based there.

Why buy the cow...

 

[NeilChapman]

Purchasing B-21s would incur the economic wrath of China, I don't think it's off the table though.

Any state that is in the position of being economically threatened by the PRC would be advised to change that dynamic.

Personally, I believe the PRC has been over reporting their population for a decade and their population drop is much higher than reported. If true, they will face extreme challenges with population aging and collapse over the next 20 years. Not a good economy to count on.

 

[mkellytx]

Purchasing B-21s would incur the economic wrath of China, I don't think it's off the table though.

Any state that is in the position of being economically threatened by the PRC would be advised to change that dynamic.

Personally, I believe the PRC has been over reporting their population for a decade and their population drop is much higher than reported. If true, they will face extreme challenges with population aging and collapse over the next 20 years. Not a good economy to count on.

Indeed it has, when I visited in 2012 got to talk with a European CEO who mentioned the size of work force had started to decline. Over the last decade it’s only gotten worse.

As for the topic at hand, Oz has plenty of time to decide. Near term air power IMHO should focus on getting the F-35 buy up to 100. When the Raider is at full production in the 2030’s and the price is know/stable is the time to make that decision after several years of USAF visits to Oz makes B-21 a well known quantity.

 

[X-39]

USAF Analysis: China Hopes The US Can’t Afford Enough B-21s to Make A Difference

Chinese publications are trying to argue the U.S. Air Force cannot afford enough B-21 bombers to pose a threat to China.

www.airandspaceforces.com

... LOL!

In the months following the reveal of Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider in December, several publications affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party or its People’s Liberation Army published articles saying the U.S. cannot afford enough of the bombers to make a difference in a possible conflict with China.

The Liberation Army News writers predicted the B-21 program would not achieve economies of scale, due to its “astonishing” total cost—and therefore it would be difficult to achieve any “strategic effect.”

An article published in the military weekly section of China Youth Daily said the U.S. Air Force may not have the budget to afford many B-21s and would ultimately “walk in the trail of the B-2.”

A third publication, Chinese National Defense News, wrote that the B-21’s stealth capabilities are not advanced enough to infiltrate modern radar systems and the U.S. Air Force would not be able to afford enough of them.

A fourth publication did differ from the other three in taking a more cautious position. The science and technology section of Chinese National Defense News tends to eschew “political messages in order to introduce foreign technological advances,”

The main difference between the late 80s, when the B-2 was introduced to the public around the same time THE main geopolitical rival was on it's last legs, and a generation later, is that the Second Cold War is only brewing up. This is akin the USSR in the early 60s hoping to see the B-52 becoming a total failure. See how that panned out. And, unlike the XB-70, the Raider is not intended to be a Super Duper, Uber expensive Mach 3 bomber, which the (thankfully) cancelled NGB would've been analogue of.

 

[Fluff]

That‘s mitigated to a large degree by a combat departure where you crank it into a turning climb over the base. So long as the base perimeter is secure it’s a bit harder to use manpads during this vulnerable phase of flight.

How aggressive of a climb do you think the B-21 could execute?

What would stop a swarm of UAVs from loitering just outside the runway perimeter and distributing clouds of chaff to target its intakes?
Cheap and unconventional.

Yup, then they backtrack you, or your bitcoin, and drop 4 hellfire with sword blades, and it’s steak tartare.

War is not a game.

 

[Josh_TN]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

The above quotes give me the impression we aren’t seeing an H-20 anytime soon.

 

[FighterJock]

You are also forgetting the Tupolev PAK-DA Josh_TN. First flight according to recent reports won’t take place until mid decade at the earliest with first deliveries in the 2030 time period.

 

[Conspirator]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

 

[Josh_TN]

You are also forgetting the Tupolev PAK-DA Josh_TN. First flight according to recent reports won’t take place until mid decade at the earliest with first deliveries in the 2030 time period.

I didn't think it relevant in the context of the PRC sources and quite frankly I have no faith it will ever enter production in any case. The B-21 is quite explicitly designed around countering China.

 

[Josh_TN]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

B-2 production was cancelled after the cold war ended because it was felt a nuclear only stealth bomber wasn't needed. There was nothing preventing the US from making more other than the fact that it seemed superfluous at the time. There are already six different B-21 airframes in production including I believe four EMD aircraft. If those end up entering service as fully capable machines, as was the case with the B-2 aircraft, then we're already 20% of the way to the twenty aircraft B-2 fleet right there. LRIP contracts I believe have already been signed; a hundred aircraft is probably the production floor of the B-21 program not the upper limit.

 

[bobbymike]

And there’s a huge difference between can’t make them and not paying for them, obviously.

 

[Conspirator]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

B-2 production was cancelled after the cold war ended because it was felt a nuclear only stealth bomber wasn't needed. There was nothing preventing the US from making more other than the fact that it seemed superfluous at the time. There are already six different B-21 airframes in production including I believe four EMD aircraft. If those end up entering service as fully capable machines, as was the case with the B-2 aircraft, then we're already 20% of the way to the twenty aircraft B-2 fleet right there. LRIP contracts I believe have already been signed; a hundred aircraft is probably the production floor of the B-21 program not the upper limit.

Understandable.
these are planned to be nuclear capable.
not sure how to word this properly but it seems crazy to me to have a hundred or more of these things operational at one time.
could fly over China or Russia completely undetected. and do regular surveillance.

 

[Josh_TN]

The B-21 will ultimately replace the entire B-1 and B-2 fleets, which is currently 60+ aircraft. Just a couple years ago there used to be 17 more B-1s in active service as well. Also the B-21 will have a smaller payload than the B-1/2, so it makes sense that a larger force would be needed to have roughly the same payload capability.

It seems very unlikely they would be used for ISR (other aircraft do that job) or overfly other countries' airspace except in time of war.

 

[Desertfox]

You DO NOT use nuclear capable bombers for ISR overflights in peacetime.

 

[Hydroman]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

For NGC to make it cost effective:
1. NGC has no active prime teammate (i.e. Boeing), only a single prime, NGC. Boeing was a pain in the butt when I was on B-2.
2. B-2 lessons learned of course, there are no perfect programs.
3. Having Scaled Composites onboard from the start along their expertise with composites and other non-metallic materials.
4. Working closely with their USAF customer, that is how you get things done properly.

 

[bobbymike]

That’s an interesting line of logic, considering the cost isn’t that great. Basically you can have a B-21 for a half dozen F-35s. Certainly the initial goal of 100 is quite achievable.

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

For NGC to make it cost effective:
1. NGC has no active prime teammate (i.e. Boeing), only a single prime, NGC. Boeing was a pain in the butt when I was on B-2.
2. B-2 lessons learned of course, there are no perfect programs.
3. Having Scaled Composites onboard from the start along their expertise with composites and other non-metallic materials.
4. Working closely with their USAF customer, that is how you get things done properly.

5. Significant black budget funding for NGB, LRSB, etc.
6. General knowledge about stealth has grown massively since B-2 with F-22, F-35 and many, many prototypes.

 

[Josh_TN]

7. Have all technology used in the aircraft around level 6 to minimize R&D and program risk.

 

[NeilChapman]

7. Have all technology used in the aircraft around level 6 to minimize R&D and program risk.

Yeah, this is one of the most significant issues of course.

No new shit

Fixed configuration

Integration only

Customer commitment to the above

---

I have to think that digital design and NG's manufacturing prowess also play a roll in managing costs as well.

 

[BlackBat242]

A lot of the materials and structure design of the B-21 is strongly based on that of the B-2, suitably updated... it is almost like the B-21 is an improved B-2 in those areas, so R&D costs and manufacturing plant upgrades were much less than for the "start from almost 0" B-2.

 

[Josh_TN]

Do you have a source for that? I think composite construction technology even in the civil aviation industry is far beyond the B2. And we know stealth coatings have evolved at least a couple generations since then. The general layout of the aircraft and the design and maintenance concerns are similar but I would think the technology has moved on.

 

[flateric]

www.voxelmatters.com/how-am-helps-northrop-grumman-build-the-new-b-21-raider/

 

[NeilChapman]

A lot of the materials and structure design of the B-21 is strongly based on that of the B-2, suitably updated... it is almost like the B-21 is an improved B-2 in those areas, so R&D costs and manufacturing plant upgrades were much less than for the "start from almost 0" B-2.

I agree with you if your point is that they're both flying wings. But that's the extent of it.

If I had to make a comparison between B-2 and B-21, B-21 would be B-2 gen 12.

NG has revolutionized their manufacturing floor since B-2 with the F-35 center section build. B-21 is not being hand built as was B-2. In fact, initial builds are using production tooling.

There have been other airframes between B-2 and B-21 with which to optimize flight efficiency and sensor technology. I would conclude there has been significant R&D.

Engine tech. If B-21 does include an F135 engine it is possible that the AETP engine will fit if they choose to upgrade. Granted, it will be core improvements, but they will not be insignificant.

IMO B-2 was an EV-1 while B-21 is a Tesla Model Y. They're both EV's, but that's about it.

 

[Josh_TN]

www.voxelmatters.com/how-am-helps-northrop-grumman-build-the-new-b-21-raider/

Wow...

"“We are now using five different additive manufacturing materials in our products – more when considering tooling,” says Barnes. He added that they are investigating additional materials that can’t yet be announced. These materials include ESD PEKK, 3D printed via HexAM, a modified SLS technology on EOS machines, made available by Hexcel. ESD PEKK enables the production of electrically dissipative parts with discontinuous carbon fibers, something that is particularly useful in aircraft that cannot dissipate electrostatics into the ground."

That does seem incredibly useful for this project.

 

[bobbymike]

Might be some duplicates given the dates but thought the link useful

B-21 News

Read these recent news articles about the B-21 Raider, which will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes worldwide.

www.northropgrumman.com

 

[Tuna]

there are only 18 operational B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service 20 in total. (to be fair it will take ten million dollars to repair the one that crashed and more to fully restore the other)
seems to me that 100 units of this US cratermaker is absolutely absurd.
if they actually produce that many i would be surprised.
Northrop Grumman has the manpower and the customers then i'm sure its possible.

how did they make this so cost effective? i'm quite curious...

What others said, but also:

The single biggest reason the B-2 was as expensive as it was is because they made so few of them. There are fixed (don't depend on unit count) and variable (linearly depends on unit count) costs in a program. The Air Force elected to purchase both the B-2 and now the B-21 on a model where they pay high fixed costs upfront in exchange for lower variable costs as the line ramps up. Then, just as the B-2 was about to move to full rate production, the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no longer any perceived need for them. This resulted in astronomical per-unit costs because the massive initial investment had to be amortized over just 20 units. For B-21, the picture at this point looks exactly the same: The Air Force is paying high fixed costs in exchange for lower variable costs. If the production ends at 20 units produced, the B-21 will have staggeringly high per-unit cost.

The difference is that in this environment, no-one thinks that there will only be 20 of them. Every one built is in effect making the planes cheaper, and if they just keep cranking them out they will be very economical for the capability they provide.

 

[flateric]

Kendall: Ratio of Fighters to Bombers May Shift Toward Bombers in the Future

The Air Force may favor bombers over fighters in the future, due to the need for longer range, Secretary Frank Kendall told Congress.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[NeilChapman]

Kendall: Ratio of Fighters to Bombers May Shift Toward Bombers in the Future

The Air Force may favor bombers over fighters in the future, due to the need for longer range, Secretary Frank Kendall told Congress.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Ta da...

Someone figured out that there is a cost to carrying the fuel required to get the range you want. And when you bundle that with software, sensors, and CCAs perhaps it has greater value than was anticipated.

If this range and quantity is required, perhaps you engineer the product to speed up production and build more, faster. Production rate and quantity inherently reduce costs. But you have to incentivize the building of the machine to build the machine.

I would like to see NG offered some plan similar to the following.

1. DoD will buy all the B-21's NG can produce over the next 10 years. For this guarantee...

2. Minimum production increase will average 30% yoy for years 1-5 and 20% for years 6-10. Failure may incur performance penalties. Initial production number is 8 per year. 8, 10, 13, 17, 22, 26, 31, etc

3. NG may engineer ways to increase production which will be rapidly assessed for approval by DoD as block changes with the following caveats.

- DoD will want 1/2 the efficiency $ back in lower pricing starting in year 6 and you can only improve or maintain the design specifications with engineering changes. You engineer 15% in savings, you keep 7.5%.

- NG will be responsible for capital costs for design changes and tooling. NG will coordinate the appropriate time for testing changes and approval prior to production.

- DoD specified changes will be paid by DoD and will not impact NG production ramp plans.

IMO, B-21 should also be offered for FMS after year 10.

TBH, this may be too expensive for the USAF but I would sure like to see a significant B-21 fleet flying deterrence as soon as possible. Eight per year isn't going to cut it. And if there is Pacific war, you must plan production for attrition and that requires planned yoy production increases.

Virginia-class is another great example of cost and build time reduction through production efficiencies btw.

 

[jeffb]

Saw an interesting suggestion to use B-21 to provide a 'silver bullet' stealth tanker capability with the addition of bomb bay modules and tankage pumping mods.

I don't think we've seen payload or bay volume figures though, so purely blue sky idea.

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[In_A_Dream]

TBH, this may be too expensive for the USAF but I would sure like to see a significant B-21 fleet flying deterrence as soon as possible. Eight per year isn't going to cut it. And if there is Pacific war, you must plan production for attrition and that requires planned yoy production increases.

Virginia-class is another great example of cost and build time reduction through production efficiencies btw.

You raise deep, notable concerns.

How vulnerable is the B-21's supply chain to China? And the Virginia class? A rapid increase in production of a strategic asset aimed at China may incur some economic wrath with the rising geopolitical tensions. I am assuming that's partially the reason why the United States isn't engaging in a strong build up to meet China's stated political/military objectives.

 

[NeilChapman]

I am assuming that's partially the reason why the United States isn't engaging in a strong build up to meet China's stated political/military objectives.

Ahh... I'm not so sure.

During WW2 the build up started with weapons sales to Europe. Todays weapons production is increasing with the Russian war on Ukraine. You can argue chicken / egg but the results are the same. If you look at which weapons are increasing, its interesting.

I believe the emphasis on B-21 production was just raised in the article. You can argue he's talking airframe mix but increased production is required to meet the requirement.

I expect NG has a thought re increased production but I'm sure right now they're just focused on first flight.

 

[X-39]

U.S. Shields B-21 Bomber Bases From China Or Other Foreign Encroachments

By protecting key B-21 Raider strategic bomber infrastructures, the U.S. is starting to get real in addressing modern foreign intelligence threats on U.S. soil. Here's what America is doing:

www.forbes.com

 

[sferrin]

U.S. Shields B-21 Bomber Bases From China Or Other Foreign Encroachments

By protecting key B-21 Raider strategic bomber infrastructures, the U.S. is starting to get real in addressing modern foreign intelligence threats on U.S. soil. Here's what America is doing:

www.forbes.com

How sad is it that we consider not letting our enemy setup shop next to a military base as newsworthy?

 

[mkellytx]

U.S. Shields B-21 Bomber Bases From China Or Other Foreign Encroachments

By protecting key B-21 Raider strategic bomber infrastructures, the U.S. is starting to get real in addressing modern foreign intelligence threats on U.S. soil. Here's what America is doing:

www.forbes.com

How sad is it that we consider not letting our enemy setup shop next to a military base as newsworthy?

ISTR when OSI raided a trailer just outside of the base chocked full of electronic surveillance gear back in the days I was based at ED. Also, guys on sensitive programs got warned about if they were hit on by women “hotter” than would normally talk to them that they were more likely than not honey traps… The only difference is that it makes national news now.

 

[sferrin]

U.S. Shields B-21 Bomber Bases From China Or Other Foreign Encroachments

By protecting key B-21 Raider strategic bomber infrastructures, the U.S. is starting to get real in addressing modern foreign intelligence threats on U.S. soil. Here's what America is doing:

www.forbes.com

How sad is it that we consider not letting our enemy setup shop next to a military base as newsworthy?

ISTR when OSI raided a trailer just outside of the base chocked full of electronic surveillance gear back in the days I was based at ED. Also, guys on sensitive programs got warned about if they were hit on by women “hotter” than would normally talk to them that they were more likely than not honey traps… The only difference is that it makes national news now.

At least we made them WORK back then. They couldn't just roll in and buy land around the base and set up shop.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Since the B-21 won't have the same sort of low altitude requirements that drove some of the modifications to the B-2 airframe what does that mean in terms of flight characteristics down low? I know digital flight control systems can work wonders but will it be a bit of a pig until it gets to altitude?

ISTR when OSI raided a trailer just outside of the base chocked full of electronic surveillance gear back in the days I was based at ED. Also, guys on sensitive programs got warned about if they were hit on by women “hotter” than would normally talk to them that they were more likely than not honey traps… The only difference is that it makes national news now.

They should be recruiting more ugly bastards like myself. I'd know something was up if any women hit on me.

 

[mkellytx]

ISTR when OSI raided a trailer just outside of the base chocked full of electronic surveillance gear back in the days I was based at ED. Also, guys on sensitive programs got warned about if they were hit on by women “hotter” than would normally talk to them that they were more likely than not honey traps… The only difference is that it makes national news now.

They should be recruiting more ugly bastards like myself. I'd know something was up if any women hit on me.

LOL, the flight suit tended to be a chick magnet so I wouldn’t know

 

[Orionblamblam]

They should be recruiting more ugly bastards like myself. I'd know something was up if any women hit on me.

This would make a good movie... and a better reality: hire ugly fellers to be the public face of some secret program. Hot spies start hitting on them. The ugly guys... they go for it. They score just as much as they possibly can, which makes them happy... and they feed the spies nonsense and false info, which makes the spies - and the CIA - happy.

 

[Josh_TN]

Since the B-21 won't have the same sort of low altitude requirements that drove some of the modifications to the B-2 airframe what does that mean in terms of flight characteristics down low? I know digital flight control systems can work wonders but will it be a bit of a pig until it gets to altitude?

ISTR when OSI raided a trailer just outside of the base chocked full of electronic surveillance gear back in the days I was based at ED. Also, guys on sensitive programs got warned about if they were hit on by women “hotter” than would normally talk to them that they were more likely than not honey traps… The only difference is that it makes national news now.

They should be recruiting more ugly bastards like myself. I'd know something was up if any women hit on me.

The B-21 won’t operate at low altitude. That is a design decision.