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

TomS said:
sferrin said:
Those "easier" ways don't exist. MAYBE a cruise missile could be made to do the job but is there a program to even develop one that can? An F-35 could probably do it but they don't plan on clearing it with the B83 so that option's out.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what LRSO is about, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Given the development and production timelines, I tend to think that B-21 would be last in line for LRSO as well as B61-12 the latter mostly being allocated to dual capable tactical aircraft.

There's likely a great deal of uncertainty surrounding nuclear earth penetrators since AFAIK the US never conducted any NEP weapons effects tests.
And maybe there's concern about older physics packages surviving the setback forces.
 
sferrin said:
gtg947h said:
Flyaway said:
Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.
Click to expand...

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.
Click to expand...

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
gtg947h said:
Flyaway said:
Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.
Click to expand...

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.
Click to expand...

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?
Click to expand...

I believe I just indicated the opposite. If a politician has nothing to gain (because if a thing is classified he can't roll out his soapbox and feign outrage in the name of votes) then possibly. Make it public then no way.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
gtg947h said:
Flyaway said:
Maybe people like yourself who seem keen to cover up everything including the costs are probably the same people that thought programs like the F-35 should have a blank cheque with taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

But you know what happens when the public gets too much development information? You wind up with people freaking out over routine development issues and declaring the program to be a "miserable failure" because a crack was discovered on the fatigue test article or a bug was found in the software.
Click to expand...

This. Monday-morning quarterbacking by hoards of imbeciles, and then the politicians freak out / try to make a name on killing the program.
Click to expand...

But do you trust the modern politician to effectively oversee the costs of such a program whatever arrangements the Air Force makes?
Click to expand...

I believe I just indicated the opposite. If a politician has nothing to gain (because if a thing is classified he can't roll out his soapbox and feign outrage in the name of votes) then possibly. Make it public then no way.
Click to expand...

I was including the politicians read into the program?
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/air-force-pushes-b-21-advanced-stealth-bomber-with-more-flexible-tech-approach.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting bobbymike. In the article it states that the B-21 will be expected to cost $500 million, but that is still way cheaper than the B-2's final cost of $1 billion dollars per plane.
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/air-force-pushes-b-21-advanced-stealth-bomber-with-more-flexible-tech-approach.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting bobbymike. In the article it states that the B-21 will be expected to cost $500 million, but that is still way cheaper than the B-2's final cost of $1 billion dollars per plane.
Click to expand...

Let's see how much the B-21 costs if we only build 20 of them.
 
Let's hope that the USAF sticks to the 100 B-21's that they promised, and don't start cutting back.
 
FighterJock said:
Let's hope that the USAF sticks to the 100 B-21's that they promised, and don't start cutting back.
Click to expand...

It's not up to the USAF or else more than 21 B-2's would have been manufactured. It's up to who is in the White House (and congress) and how serious they are about maintaining an effective bomber force. It's impossible to say how many Raiders will be needed since we know nothing about it, but ~140 would be nice to replace all the legacy bombers and Spirits with some to spare. Won't happen but it would be nice.
 
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Those "easier" ways don't exist. MAYBE a cruise missile could be made to do the job but is there a program to even develop one that can? An F-35 could probably do it but they don't plan on clearing it with the B83 so that option's out.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what LRSO is about, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Given the development and production timelines, I tend to think that B-21 would be last in line for LRSO as well as B61-12 the latter mostly being allocated to dual capable tactical aircraft.
Click to expand...

B-52 and Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) Cruise Missile (CM) Integration

https://www.fbo.gov/notices/3bf661d8e14c5394105dfa282a35547a
 
STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)
 
Maybe someone can twist the statement to say that 100 B-21s is enough for the strategic bomber role, but that more will be needed to fulfil other responsibilities that the B-21 is going to inevitably wind up with (high-end SEAD / DEAD, CAS, other potential future roles as an armament plane or UCAV command / comms node, etc).
 
bobbymike said:
STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)
Click to expand...

This. No need for Russia to negotiate away our bombers when our own generals will do it for them.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)
Click to expand...

This. No need for Russia to negotiate away our bombers when our own generals will do it for them.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The only way they could think of getting away with this even in the short term would be to restore the B-1 fleet's nuclear capability, vapid treaties notwithstanding. And that's even before you get to such inconvenient things as the USAF's Congressionally mandated sea-control mission. Otherwise I fear that at least some Air Force generals would appear to have been taking advantage of Colorado's recent legalisation of pot...
 
bobbymike said:
STRATCOM: 100 B-21s Will be Sufficient

— Brian Everstine 4/5/2017

​​A USAF artist rendering of the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber.

​While Air Force officials have called for a bigger buy of B-21 Raiders, the current planned number of 100 should be enough for US Strategic Command, the command’s chief said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, said based on requirements in the New START treaty and the need for the bomber’s conventional operational mission, the planned buy of 100 is sufficient from the “top level.” The Air Force has recently finalized a bomber “vector roadmap” detailing its planned need for bombers in the future, a plan that Hyten has not seen. But on current requirements, the 100 number is enough. Air Force officials, including Vice Chief Gen. Stephen Wilson and Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand, have said 100 is the minimum number. Rand, speaking last fall, said service requirements could be more.
_________________________________________________________________________
No say you need 250 and then settle for what you need (although IMHO we need 250 or more)
Click to expand...


If we get to 100, and I hope that is the case, it is likely that on-going techdev will present an alternative platform. I don't see the rate of production getting to a point where a greater quantity is available, sooner.

"Chapman's unsubstantiated opinion"
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/appropriators-cut-20m-from-b-21-program-in-omnibus-spending-bill
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-15/air-force-b-21-bomber-s-secrecy-to-be-reviewed-by-inspector-j2qc0lwh
Click to expand...

The USAF should keep the B-21 secret until Northrop is ready to reveal in in the 2020's.
 
I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-15/air-force-b-21-bomber-s-secrecy-to-be-reviewed-by-inspector-j2qc0lwh
Click to expand...

The USAF should keep the B-21 secret until Northrop is ready to reveal in in the 2020's.
Click to expand...

Even before having a VERY frank conversation (think interview without coffee) from the MoD last week about the 'need to keep ones mouth shut, eyes from prying and picture deleted,' I've always been inclined to agree with this whole heartedly.

It is fine having a little intellectual banter and a dash of speculation, but, at the end of the day it is going to be the very tip of the spear and should remain pitch black until it's rolled out.
 
FighterJock said:
robunos said:
I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?
Click to expand...

I do indeed, but then here's the Catch-22 esque scenario . . .
Pols say "We demand to how much money the B-21 is costing, and where the money's being spent", translation, if the money's not going to benefit our voters, we're going to cancel it, or at the very least, cut the programme back hard.
USAF says "We have to keep everything super secret, this programme is critically important to our future defence plans. So sorry, no can do.", translation, We're not going to give you any information about this programme, that you can use to make a case for cancellation, or cutbacks.
Pols say "In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.", translation, In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.


cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
FighterJock said:
robunos said:
I don't think it's the aircraft directly that the Congresscritters are concerned with, but rather the financial details of the Development Contract . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean Robin, they should keep the B-21 cost Blacker than Black and not reveal how much the B-21 overall cost for the entire program is, until after the B-21 reveal. Remember what happened to the B-2 program?
Click to expand...

I do indeed, but then here's the Catch-22 esque scenario . . .
Pols say "We demand to how much money the B-21 is costing, and where the money's being spent", translation, if the money's not going to benefit our voters, we're going to cancel it, or at the very least, cut the programme back hard.
USAF says "We have to keep everything super secret, this programme is critically important to our future defence plans. So sorry, no can do.", translation, We're not going to give you any information about this programme, that you can use to make a case for cancellation, or cutbacks.
Pols say "In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.", translation, In that case then, we're going to cancel it anyway.


cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

If that worked nothing would be able to be kept secret.
 
breakingdefense.com

B-21 Bomber Boost? KC-46 Still Late - Breaking Defense

CORRECTED: What Gen. Harris Meant To Say Was A Total Bomber Fleet of 165; Still “At Least” 100 B-21s WASHINGTON: How many B-21 bombers will the US need? 80? 100? 165? Bound by the president’s budget on one side and congressional appropriations on the other, the head of Air Force acquisition was...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

165 is a good start............ ;D
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/b-21-bomber-boost-general-touts-165-kc-46-still-late/

165 is a good start............ ;D
Click to expand...

165 of what? A four engined twin weapon bay aircraft similar to a B2? Or a twin engined single weapon bay 1/2 the payload of a B2 type of bomber? Either way 100 is far too few.
 

Home - DODBUZZ

Find The Daily Latest News, Best Product & Online Website Reviews. Define all Products with Features, Ratings, Scam Alerts and Price and Customer's Reviews.
www.dodbuzz.com www.dodbuzz.com

Given the increasingly advanced air defense systems deployed by countries such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, he added, “It seems to me the right number of bombers should be north of 160.”

“And certainly [Lt. Gen. Michael] Moeller agrees and calls for as many as 200 B-21s,” Gallagher noted, referring to an analysis study from the retired Air Force general, also a former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.
Click to expand...

www.bloomberg.com

Air Force Chief Vows to Avoid Excess Secrecy Over U.S. Bomber

The U.S. Air Force’s top general says he’s determined to avoid excessive secrecy during development of the service’s new B-21 bomber, citing its predecessor as a cautionary tale.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/05/air-force-wants-165-bombers-not-b21s/

Given the increasingly advanced air defense systems deployed by countries such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, he added, “It seems to me the right number of bombers should be north of 160.”

“And certainly [Lt. Gen. Michael] Moeller agrees and calls for as many as 200 B-21s,” Gallagher noted, referring to an analysis study from the retired Air Force general, also a former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-06/air-force-chief-vows-to-avoid-excess-secrecy-over-u-s-bomber
Click to expand...


Perhaps the conversation should be...

To meet congressionally mandated US military response requirements; which were lowered for reasons that included cost before the increase in aggressive behavior by Russia, the PRC, North Korea, Iran and other actors; the US determined it needed, at minimum, ~165 combat coded heavy bombers.

At the moment, the US is in a critical situation with ~97 combat coded bombers. The majority of these bombers have gone through life extensions for decades. It's been estimated that a minimum of 60 bombers would be needed to fight a war in North Korea, ~100 for Iran, ~260 for Russia.

Until technology negates the need for heavy bombers, the US must keep a minimum of ~165 combat coded advanced heavy bombers to meet the emergence of new, resurfacing and unrecognized global threats.

~~~~~

Is it feasible to contemplate a "B" version of the KC-46A as a low-op's cost augmentation for the B-21. The building blocks seem to be there; open systems, EMP protected, ~same thrust as 52 but more efficient, ~85% of B-52's max takeoff weight, ~80% of the un-refueled range, field requirement ('8k-'9k). Plus there's the interoperability of engines, avionics, support systems & maintainers in-theater w/the KC.

I wouldn't waste much time or money trying to make it more then it was - a relatively cheap bomb carrier for minimally contested environments - but could it work well as an 80% solution?
 
I see Sen. John McCain was doing his nut about the secrecy around the B-21 as regards its costs.

Sen. John McCain blasted newly confirmed Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson Tuesday during one of her first appearances on Capitol Hill over a $2 billion bomber request.

McCain told Wilson he has "never seen anything like" the secrecy around the service's budget request and spending on the B-21 stealth bomber, to be built by Northrop Grumman.
Click to expand...

Wilson, who had only testified as secretary to Congress once before about space operations, told McCain that the service is "very open" and sharing spending information with the committees on Capitol Hill.

"That is not true, Madame Secretary, that is simply not true," McCain fired back.

Wilson dodged a question from McCain over when the service will release more details on the requested development money.

"There is always a balance between not telling our enemies what we are doing and making sure we are forthcoming with the representatives of the American people," Wilson said.
Click to expand...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

McCain tangles with new Air Force secretary over $2 billion bomber request

Sen. John McCain blasted newly confirmed Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson Tuesday during one of her first appearances on Capitol Hill over a $2 billion bomber request.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
 
sferrin said:
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.
Click to expand...

The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.
 
sferrin said:
The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.
Click to expand...

McCain lost a vote (by a large majority) in the committee that he chairs for his amendment that would have made costs public.

If you can't convince your own colleagues, who by the way depend on staying in your (the SASC chair's) good graces for access to SAPs,
then it strikes me that you have a pretty feeble case.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
The way to tell would be to make him agree to keep his mouth shut regardless of what he finds out. That will tell you what he cares about. Based on his behavior the last ten years or so I think it far more likely he's just looking for a way to grab a spotlight.
Click to expand...

McCain lost a vote (by a large majority) in the committee that he chairs for his amendment that would have made costs public.

If you can't convince your own colleagues, who by the way depend on staying in your (the SASC chair's) good graces for access to SAPs,
then it strikes me that you have a pretty feeble case.
Click to expand...
Taking nothing away from his military career but over the last few years "feeble case" has been his middle name.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?
 
NeilChapman said:
Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?
Click to expand...

Along with any other member of the SASC who has requested access and been given the nod by McCain.
 
NeilChapman said:
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand. McCain sees all the numbers in closed session, no?
Click to expand...

Which would do zip to keep him from scurrying to the nearest mic to wail about "too expensive" aircraft in order to grab a headline. (Whether or not it was actually true wouldn't matter.)
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
McCain is just looking for another soap box to jump on.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is because of the ridiculously low numbers of B2. And I doubt this is totally due to cost of procurement. It had the low level requirement added at the last minute, and its had more stealth skin grafts than Zsa-Zsa Gabor, which could all add up to a bunch of undisclosed weaknesses which made the cost of sustainment potentially catastrophic. I don't think McCain wants to sabotage the program, I think he wants to make sure it actually delivers what we need, in the numbers we need.
Click to expand...

Plus the B-2, despite it's many upgrades has been compromised through at least a couple of high profile technology leaks. An Indian engineer who worked on the program sold technical data on the RAM shim and IR airvonditioner intakes and signature reducing duct technology to a Chinese agent since time ago so unless they made serious upgrades in response to that it's possible that it's no longer a day 1 bird against tier one threats.

That would necessitate a whole new level of signature reduction and ECM platform.

They should have built the FB-22, stick to 100-150 B-21s and retire the old fleet (B-52, B1 etc...) except for a selected heavy lift smart bomb carrier and spooky type COIN support craft. Plus maybe a few specialised EMP and cyber/Intel craft like the B-1 conversion proposal.
 
They should have built the FB-22, stick to 100-150 B-21s and retire the old fleet (B-52, B1 etc...) except for a selected heavy lift smart bomb carrier and spooky type COIN support craft. Plus maybe a few specialised EMP and cyber/Intel craft like the B-1 conversion proposal.


Phrenzy,

do you have nearer info about this proposal, I found nothing elsewhere.

Harry
 
I'd have to dig up something more substantial but episode 18 of season 2 of history channels dogfights stated that a B-1 EMP test had been done. Concepts of a B-1 aim-120 missile carrier launching from forward deployed F-22s and F-35s was detailed as well.

Not exactly meaty stuff but I'm sure their research staff weren't making things up.

I'd actually be curious to know the credentials of the staff on the production.

This actually relates to my ISKANDER research since the B-1 and B-2 were designed to work in tandom with AARS to locate target and destroy road mobile ICBMs. Something I'm sure they have in mind for the B-21. I'm also sure that it's going to be a competition between NRO and prompt global strike systems and B-21 numbers.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom