Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

[Ian33]

5 per year. 7 per year. Pathetic. Needs to be 20 per year. Inventory will never reach 100 because in another 10 years the threats will change, and then congress will start asking why we are throwing away money on old technology, or on a platform to defeat an enemy that doesn't exist anymore.

^^^^^ This.

Absolutely, this. It is as if the last 35 years has been spent in la la land, every one smiling with a rictus grin, "we all can have a capability holiday!!! All of us! Every man and woman, free! Free capability holiday!!"

And now? The pitiful state of the west's deterrent and defences are laid bare.

 

[NeilChapman]

5 per year. 7 per year. Pathetic. Needs to be 20 per year. Inventory will never reach 100 because in another 10 years the threats will change, and then congress will start asking why we are throwing away money on old technology, or on a platform to defeat an enemy that doesn't exist anymore.

^^^^^ This.

Absolutely, this. It is as if the last 35 years has been spent in la la land, every one smiling with a rictus grin, "we all can have a capability holiday!!! All of us! Every man and woman, free! Free capability holiday!!"

And now? The pitiful state of the west's deterrent and defences are laid bare.

Perhaps sequestration will be repealed and the top-line defense budget will change. Have to get a jet before the purchase rate can even start let alone increase.

 

[Triton]

Republicans aren't afraid of deficit spending if they are in the majority.

 

[bobbymike]

Republicans aren't afraid of deficit spending if they are in the majority.

Not to stray off topic but I would argue that providing for the common defense as a primary function of government that defense spending by Democrats or Republicans cannot, by definition, cause deficits unless the budget exceeds total government revenues. In FY18 proposed maximum $640B budget offset by expected government revenues of $3,600B.

 

[bring_it_on]

B-21 passes PDR

The Air Force confirmed Wednesday it "recently" completed a preliminary design review of the largely classified B-21 bomber program.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee during a March 8 hearing the Northrop Grumman-led program is "making real great progress" and he and the service chief and secretary receive regular updates.

"We're pleased with where it's headed," he said, noting that the program is meeting cost and schedule goals.

 

[Airplane]

B-21 passes PDR

The Air Force confirmed Wednesday it "recently" completed a preliminary design review of the largely classified B-21 bomber program.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee during a March 8 hearing the Northrop Grumman-led program is "making real great progress" and he and the service chief and secretary receive regular updates.

"We're pleased with where it's headed," he said, noting that the program is meeting cost and schedule goals.

Is there anything info about expected rollout or first flight?

 

[NeilChapman]

B-21 passes PDR

The Air Force confirmed Wednesday it "recently" completed a preliminary design review of the largely classified B-21 bomber program.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee during a March 8 hearing the Northrop Grumman-led program is "making real great progress" and he and the service chief and secretary receive regular updates.

"We're pleased with where it's headed," he said, noting that the program is meeting cost and schedule goals.

WT?.......

PDR? Were we not told that the program maturity was such that they were 'essentially' at 'Milestone B'?

From https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44463.pdf
"
The development program began on Friday, October 23, 2015, when Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall selected Northrop Grumman as the prime contractor. According to program officials, selection of a contractor constituted “Milestone B” in this acquisition, although it is not clear whether all of the required steps for a formal Milestone B review were carried out under the B-21’s rapid acquisition construct.
"

According to the DoD Acquisition Process PDR happens at the end of Milestone B. Now we're a year into the program and we're just at the PDR? So that was Frank Kendall 'BS'.

"
The Program Manager (PM) should conduct the PDR when all major design issues have been resolved and work can begin on detailed design. The PDR should address and resolve critical, system-wide issues.

The PDR should be conducted when the allocated baseline has been achieved, allowing detailed design of hardware and software configuration items to proceed. A rule of thumb is that 10 percent to 25 percent of product drawings and associated instructions should be complete, and that 100 percent of all safety-critical component (Critical Safety Items and Critical Application Items) drawings are complete.
"

So now they "can begin" detailed design?

Let's hope that this is a very advanced PDR and that maturation is such that EMD goes very, very quickly and smoothly.

 

[NeilChapman]

B-21 passes PDR

The Air Force confirmed Wednesday it "recently" completed a preliminary design review of the largely classified B-21 bomber program.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee during a March 8 hearing the Northrop Grumman-led program is "making real great progress" and he and the service chief and secretary receive regular updates.

"We're pleased with where it's headed," he said, noting that the program is meeting cost and schedule goals.

Is there anything info about expected rollout or first flight?

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March%202017/March%2003%202017/B-21-Update.aspx

And, so far, it looks like “in the mid-2020s, we’ll have the first one at one of our bases,” with initial operating capability “in the late ‘20s,” said Rand.

 

[bring_it_on]

Completing a PDR essentially a year or so after protest decision on a program of this size, scale is actually quite fast and goes to show that a fair bit of Milestone B work was performed in the pre down-select phase.

 

[NeilChapman]

Completing a PDR essentially a year or so after protest decision on a program of this size, scale is actually quite fast and goes to show that a fair bit of Milestone B work was performed in the pre down-select phase.

I'm not disputing that.

But, would you not agree that
1. 'Selection of a contractor constituted "Milestone B" in this acquisition'
and
2. Over a year later we're now completing PDR
are qualitatively different scenarios?

Give me some time to be pissed off. I've been under the impression that they were working on EMD this whole year.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force to potentially grow B-21 program, sets 100 bomber 'minimum' requirement

The Air Force, which once argued a need for a maximum of 100 new bombers, has formally inverted its B-21 requirement, adopting 100 aircraft as the “minimum” number of state-of-the-art, long-range strike bombers the service now needs -- a move that could set the stage to grow the $80 billion, Northrop Grumman-led project.
-------------------------------------------------------
Would 500 be too many to ask for

 

[Flyaway]

B-21 passes PDR

The Air Force confirmed Wednesday it "recently" completed a preliminary design review of the largely classified B-21 bomber program.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee during a March 8 hearing the Northrop Grumman-led program is "making real great progress" and he and the service chief and secretary receive regular updates.

"We're pleased with where it's headed," he said, noting that the program is meeting cost and schedule goals.

Is there anything info about expected rollout or first flight?

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March%202017/March%2003%202017/B-21-Update.aspx

And, so far, it looks like “in the mid-2020s, we’ll have the first one at one of our bases,” with initial operating capability “in the late ‘20s,” said Rand.

But you'd think it would begin flight testing before the end of this decade.

 

[dark sidius]

Don't you think there is a flyng demonstrator somewhere ? If not I don't understand how it will be operational in the middle of 2020 s.

 

[Airplane]

Don't you think there is a flyng demonstrator somewhere ? If not I don't understand how it will be operational in the middle of 2020 s.

I think there are black programs out there that serve as technology demonstrators. Remember the jets over Texas and the 1 triangular jet over Kansas?

 

[FighterJock]

Overall I think that these jets that were flying over Texas and Kansas were part of the LRS-B program, perhaps as flying experimental prototypes to check out aerodynamic properties before the main program began.

 

[sferrin]

Overall I think that these jets that were flying over Texas and Kansas were part of the LRS-B program, perhaps as flying experimental prototypes to check out aerodynamic properties before the main program began.

I still think those kind of odd places for experimental one-offs to be flying.

 

[Airplane]

Overall I think that these jets that were flying over Texas and Kansas were part of the LRS-B program, perhaps as flying experimental prototypes to check out aerodynamic properties before the main program began.

Off topic......

But don't you think the USAF replaced the F-117 with something other than the F-22? the F-22 was a nice cover story, but with 183 copies you're not going to devote 1/3 of them the replacing the F-117. You think all those hangars in the Nevada test site that were once filled with F-117s before they were publicly moved out are now sitting empty or they are all full of one-off-demonstrators? There were what, 4 aircraft spotted over Texas? That's more than a technology demonstrator; that is something operational. Before he died Tom Clancy was on camera talking about 3 operational black aircraft that were based out of Nevada. I can't locate the video anymore... One was supersonic and fighter sized, one was subsonic, and one was unmanned. The idea that the F-117 was the last operational black aircraft is laughable.

 

[sferrin]

Overall I think that these jets that were flying over Texas and Kansas were part of the LRS-B program, perhaps as flying experimental prototypes to check out aerodynamic properties before the main program began.

Off topic......

But don't you think the USAF replaced the F-117 with something other than the F-22? the F-22 was a nice cover story, but with 183 copies you're not going to devote 1/3 of them the replacing the F-117. You think all those hangars in the Nevada test site that were once filled with F-117s before they were publicly moved out are now sitting empty or they are all full of one-off-demonstrators? There were what, 4 aircraft spotted over Texas? That's more than a technology demonstrator; that is something operational. Before he died Tom Clancy was on camera talking about 3 operational black aircraft that were based out of Nevada. I can't locate the video anymore... One was supersonic and fighter sized, one was subsonic, and one was unmanned. The idea that the F-117 was the last operational black aircraft is laughable.

The hangars they built for the A-12 Blackbird back in the 60s are still there. Just because they didn't tear them down doesn't mean they're filled.

 

[GeorgeA]

But don't you think the USAF replaced the F-117 with something other than the F-22? the F-22 was a nice cover story, but with 183 copies you're not going to devote 1/3 of them the replacing the F-117.

During the early 1980s the USAF envisioned replacing the F-111 with the Enhanced Tactical Fighter (F-15E) purchased as an interim step, eventually to be supplemented by a dedicated strike aircraft to be purchased in significant numbers. That program was superseded by the 1986 agreement for the Air Force to buy ATAs (A-12s) and the Navy to buy NATFs.

At the peak of the black airplane craze in the 1990s, there was speculation that one or more prototypes of the USAF strike aircraft had been built and tested.

 

[Dynoman]

I think it would appear strange that a prototype or demonstrator aircraft would be flying cross country with a number of B-2's. Typically an experimental aircraft is flown along side flight test support aircraft used to pace or provide in-flight measurements, i.e. radar signature, IR signature, etc.
Knowing that the B-2 is vulnerable in today's threat environment it would make sense to have a dedicated EW aircraft, similar to an EF-111 or EA-6B flying as part of a strike package. Maybe a derivative or competitor to the A-12 Avenger II (maybe an EA-12) is flying around out there.

 

[Sundog]

Well, we know LM/Boeing were funded to fly a bomber demonstrator for the B-21 program. But I don't know that Northrop would need to fly a prototype for the B-21, because they already have a lot of experience with the B-2. Also,reportedly, the RQ-180 and B-21 share similar technologies, so the RQ-180, provided it exists and has flown, could be considered a demonstrator. It's also been stated that many of the technologies have been demonstrated on other air frames. While they did perform a lot of risk reduction for the B-21 program, I don't think they (Northrop) would need a full size demonstrator. Anything they required aerodynamically could probably be proven with sub-scale unmanned aircraft if it's that risky, but I don't really see anything they would need to do there that hasn't been proven on other test programs.

 

[marauder2048]

Well, we know LM/Boeing were funded to fly a bomber demonstrator for the B-21 program. But I don't know that Northrop would need to fly a prototype for the B-21, because they already have a lot of experience with the B-2. Also,reportedly, the RQ-180 and B-21 share similar technologies, so the RQ-180, provided it exists and has flown, could be considered a demonstrator. It's also been stated that many of the technologies have been demonstrated on other air frames. While they did perform a lot of risk reduction for the B-21 program, I don't think they (Northrop) would need a full size demonstrator. Anything they required aerodynamically could probably be proven with sub-scale unmanned aircraft if it's that risky, but I don't really see anything they would need to do there that hasn't been proven on other test programs.

FWIW, The Air Force, in their pre-contract award briefing in 2015, stated explicitly that there was no flying demonstrator for LRS-B.

 

[Flyaway]

Well, we know LM/Boeing were funded to fly a bomber demonstrator for the B-21 program. But I don't know that Northrop would need to fly a prototype for the B-21, because they already have a lot of experience with the B-2. Also,reportedly, the RQ-180 and B-21 share similar technologies, so the RQ-180, provided it exists and has flown, could be considered a demonstrator. It's also been stated that many of the technologies have been demonstrated on other air frames. While they did perform a lot of risk reduction for the B-21 program, I don't think they (Northrop) would need a full size demonstrator. Anything they required aerodynamically could probably be proven with sub-scale unmanned aircraft if it's that risky, but I don't really see anything they would need to do there that hasn't been proven on other test programs.

FWIW, The Air Force, in their pre-contract award briefing in 2015, stated explicitly that there was no flying demonstrator for LRS-B.

I am not sure that means much as it's not particularly incumbent on them to discuss with the public every aspect of such a program.

 

[sferrin]

Knowing that the B-2 is vulnerable in today's threat environment

It is? Says who?

 

[Dynoman]

My understanding is that the B-2 uses a Defense Management System that does not counter enemy air defense threats, but identifies them and locates their positions so that the pilots can avoid flying into lethal ranges. Mission planners use auto-routing software to determine the optimal flight path, incorporating the B-2's aspect angles, ranges, and other B-2 signatures to avoid threats.
Highly mobile threats, whose locations are not known, or who have moved since the B-2 launched 10 or 12 hours earlier could pose a threat. The B-2 'System,' IMO, is what keeps the aircraft 'relatively invulnerable.' There are many components to the game of avoiding detection and countering IAD systems. The B-2 aircraft is just one component. From what I understand the specifics to its vulnerability today are certain radar wavelengths associated with long range Early Warning radars, two channel IRST systems, bi-static radar, visual detection, and the brief time the payload bay doors are open.

 

[flateric]

DMS has no emitter antennas. B-2 has no chaffs or flares.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, we know LM/Boeing were funded to fly a bomber demonstrator for the B-21 program. But I don't know that Northrop would need to fly a prototype for the B-21, because they already have a lot of experience with the B-2. Also,reportedly, the RQ-180 and B-21 share similar technologies, so the RQ-180, provided it exists and has flown, could be considered a demonstrator. It's also been stated that many of the technologies have been demonstrated on other air frames. While they did perform a lot of risk reduction for the B-21 program, I don't think they (Northrop) would need a full size demonstrator. Anything they required aerodynamically could probably be proven with sub-scale unmanned aircraft if it's that risky, but I don't really see anything they would need to do there that hasn't been proven on other test programs.

FWIW, The Air Force, in their pre-contract award briefing in 2015, stated explicitly that there was no flying demonstrator for LRS-B.

I am not sure that means much as it's not particularly incumbent on them to discuss with the public every aspect of such a program.

However, they don't usually outright lie.

Without knowing the wording its possible they said their was no flying demonstrator for the chosen LRS-B submission, leaving open the possibly that the losers had a flying demonstrator.

 

[_Del_]

I thought the public line was that there were no actual prototypes built, but there were multiple technology demonstrators and programs with overlap giving them high-confidence regarding risk reduction. It was a while ago so maybe I'm off?

 

[bobbymike]

It’s Official: Minimum of 100 B-21s

—John A. Tirpak3/15/2017

Air Force illustration of the B-21 Raider long-range strike bomber.​

​The Air Force’s requirement for the B-21 Raider bomber, initially stated as “80-100” airplanes, is now officially at least 100 aircraft, the Air Force said in clarifying recent senior leader remarks. Written testimony presented to the House Armed Services Committee last week by Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand and vice chief of staff Gen. Stephen Wilson indicated that 100 is now the minimum number of B-21s required. Through a spokesman, the Air Force confirmed the number, saying the change happened “in Spring 2016” at the request of AFGSC. At that time, USAF established 100 “as the floor—not the ceiling” for the B-21 fleet size, he said. AFGSC “requires a minimum of 100 B-21 Raider aircraft, with a mix of legacy bombers, to meet future COCOM [combatant commander] requirements,” the spokesman said. He noted that Rand told AFA’s Mitchell Institute in July last year that 100 aircraft and “not one single one below that” was his “best military advice” on the B-21 fleet size. “I can’t imagine how I would deal with the missions I have, with fewer bombers than we have in today’s inventory,” Rand said in his Mitchell remarks. It was not explained at the time that Rand’s advice had become official policy because of the B-21’s secrecy.

 

[Ian33]

I'm leaving this here: Tandem seating, cranked X47B planform albeit stretched' span wise, keeping the X47B air intake design, just shifted slightly on its axis to accommodate the cockpit.

That is what I see rolling out when the Raider is revealed, not a 'mini B2B.

 

[Airplane]

I'm leaving this here: Tandem seating, cranked X47B planform albeit stretched' span wise, keeping the X47B air intake design, just shifted slightly on its axis to accommodate the cockpit.

That is what I see rolling out when the Raider is revealed, not a 'mini B2B.

The x47b is what it's because it is designed for carrier operations. There is no reason for the B-21to be a crank-winged design.

 

[Ian33]

I'm leaving this here: Tandem seating, cranked X47B planform albeit stretched' span wise, keeping the X47B air intake design, just shifted slightly on its axis to accommodate the cockpit.

That is what I see rolling out when the Raider is revealed, not a 'mini B2B.

The x47b is what it's because it is designed for carrier operations. There is no reason for the B-21to be a crank-winged design.

Oh I've read all about the Boeing 45c / DICE and 47A/B/C debacle, many timez (and thus the initial reason for the wingsame added to the basic diamond of the 47A Pegasus.

All that aside, I'm sticking to tandem, cranked leading edge, with far better handling at steep bank than the B2B. Yes, I know, it sounds counterintuitive, but, with air to air capability, this is where it's going.

 

[Mark S.]

My thoughts are that it will have a traditional cockpit with side by side seating for better crew coordination, a chem toilet and a space for crew rest. If it has a 5,000 miles unrefueled range they will need those amenities and especially since they practice 48 hour long missions in the B-2, B-1 and B-52. Don't think they will want to give up that capability.

 

[TomS]

What makes you think it has a maneuvering air to air mission? It may (but probably won't) carry AAMs but hose will be for shooting from long range as a self-defense deterrent or possibly for lobbing new really long range missiles for offboard guidance ( a missileer or arsenal plane). But there is no reason at all to suspect it of needing to fly like a fighter.

If the USAF had felt that there was a reason to hide the overall planform of the B-21, they would not have released that preliminary rendering at all. Releasing a highly misleading illustration won't help in any meaningful way. Yes, the rendering conceals and probably distorts details like the inlets and exhausts, but I'll bet money that the basic planform matches what has been shown — a straight leading edge and a simple w-shaped trailing edge.

 

[Sundog]

I'm leaving this here: Tandem seating, cranked X47B planform albeit stretched' span wise, keeping the X47B air intake design, just shifted slightly on its axis to accommodate the cockpit.

That is what I see rolling out when the Raider is revealed, not a 'mini B2B.

The x47b is what it's because it is designed for carrier operations. There is no reason for the B-21to be a crank-winged design.

Oh I've read all about the Boeing 45c / DICE and 47A/B/C debacle, many timez (and thus the initial reason for the wingsame added to the basic diamond of the 47A Pegasus.

All that aside, I'm sticking to tandem, cranked leading edge, with far better handling at steep bank than the B2B. Yes, I know, it sounds counterintuitive, but, with air to air capability, this is where it's going.

It will look like the painting shown, because it offers a lower radar signature than the cranked kite configuration. It may have an A2A capability, but the missiles will do the maneuvering, not the vehicle.

 

[marauder2048]

General Bunch in his AFA Breakfast talk mentioned that LRSO is in the source selection phase with a
contract award expected in the September timeframe.

http://secure.afa.org/Events/Breakfasts/Breakfast-3-16-17-Bunch.mp3

 

[bobbymike]

What makes you think it has a maneuvering air to air mission? It may (but probably won't) carry AAMs but hose will be for shooting from long range as a self-defense deterrent or possibly for lobbing new really long range missiles for offboard guidance ( a missileer or arsenal plane). But there is no reason at all to suspect it of needing to fly like a fighter.

If the USAF had felt that there was a reason to hide the overall planform of the B-21, they would not have released that preliminary rendering at all. Releasing a highly misleading illustration won't help in any meaningful way. Yes, the rendering conceals and probably distorts details like the inlets and exhausts, but I'll bet money that the basic planform matches what has been shown — a straight leading edge and a simple w-shaped trailing edge.

So is the 'secret sauce' new 'meta-materials' able to absorb and dissipate a very broad [or much broader] range of the electro-magnetic spectrum? Can shape only be tweaked at this point given the state of required aerodynamic performance needed?

 

[ubiquitous08]

"The B2 Spirit of Innovation" pdf referred to early stealth studies that postulated the perfect shape was a plate because the RF energy would flow over it into the background. This ignores creeping wave BUT with meta-materials could RF energy be guided backwards and into the background avoiding the limitations of faceting and creeping wave entirely? Studies with meta-materials to create cloaks have proven its possible on select wavelengths. Likewise meta-materials would seemingly allow for vastly better vhf absorption. If this were the case planform would be less important but still of value.

 

[Dragon029]

I'm not sure if they count as metamaterials, but Lockheed's work with variably-doped carbon nanotubes has supposedly yielded broadband blackbody composites. Northrop could have something similar, though I'm not confident that they'd be used due to the probable higher costs involved.

 

[bring_it_on]

I'm not sure if they count as metamaterials, but Lockheed's work with variably-doped carbon nanotubes has supposedly yielded broadband blackbody composites. Northrop could have something similar, though I'm not confident that they'd be used due to the probable higher costs involved.

Yup..lots of interesting work over the last 5-6 years. It would be surprising to find it absent from a program such as the LRS-B.

CNT-based signature control material -

CNT-based Signature Control Material | PDF | Carbon Nanotube | Nanocomposite

s

www.scribd.com