Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[bobbymike]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

 

[Sferrin]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

 

[FighterJock]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

 

[Flyaway]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

Guess you don't care that it also hides cost bloating as well. Oh well it's only your tax dollars going up in smoke, the shareholders of NG & other contractors thank you for this.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-cost-of-the-b-21-bomber-is-secret-for-security-reas-1781576157

 

[flateric]

talking opposite, we kinda know basic performance figures of F-35 but its final cost...still a floating figure...what then even to think about B-21?
all attempts of direct correlations between cost and performance figures are mostly stupid and useless.
would $650 mln bomber perform worse than $850 mln one? at which scale?
if I will tell you R&D figures, projected unit cost for PAK DA including learning curve - believe me, you will never be able to take anything useful from 'em, except having some laugh of programs' budget comparisons

 

[Sferrin]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

Guess you don't care that it also hides cost bloating as well.

I'll take my chances.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

Guess you don't care that it also hides cost bloating as well. Oh well it's only your tax dollars going up in smoke, the shareholders of NG & other contractors thank you for this.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-cost-of-the-b-21-bomber-is-secret-for-security-reas-1781576157

You think the USAF doesn't know what they're doing with B-21 Flyaway?

 

[GreenBullet]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

Guess you don't care that it also hides cost bloating as well. Oh well it's only your tax dollars going up in smoke, the shareholders of NG & other contractors thank you for this.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-cost-of-the-b-21-bomber-is-secret-for-security-reas-1781576157

Correct. Given what I know about the development and selection process of this airplane, as well the track record of the RCO, I would prefer that whatever percentage of my taxes will be spent on the platform be left a mystery.

On the other hand, I would be pretty upset if my tax money was devalued by providing the enemy with unnecessary information which could compromise the capabilities of the airplane.

I have plenty of quarrels with how my taxes are spent, this is not one of them.

 

[sublight_]

Maybe that is the trick then. If you hide the budget then maybe your adversaries wont know the B-21 is mostly the bomb truck and the RQ-180 has all the real bells and whistles on it.

 

[jsport]

It just gets risky when the Rolls Royce bomb truck is driven by the HAL 9000.

 

[Flyaway]

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/us-senate-votes-to-keep-stealth-bomber-cost-top-secret/

Good.

Quite right too.

Guess you don't care that it also hides cost bloating as well. Oh well it's only your tax dollars going up in smoke, the shareholders of NG & other contractors thank you for this.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-cost-of-the-b-21-bomber-is-secret-for-security-reas-1781576157

Correct. Given what I know about the development and selection process of this airplane, as well the track record of the RCO, I would prefer that whatever percentage of my taxes will be spent on the platform be left a mystery.

On the other hand, I would be pretty upset if my tax money was devalued by providing the enemy with unnecessary information which could compromise the capabilities of the airplane.

I have plenty of quarrels with how my taxes are spent, this is not one of them.

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

 

[Sferrin]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

 

[Flyaway]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Anyway I don't see why the F-35 should get all the years of hassle on this, but the B-21 is suddenly a special case that skates on a similar debate?

 

[NeilChapman]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Anyway I don't see why the F-35 should get all the years of hassle on this, but the B-21 is suddenly a special case that skates on a similar debate?

Well Flayaway, perhaps there are some differences.

F-35 was/is a program where there were three new airframes, new engine and new technology designed in the 1990's
With B-21 there is a new airframe, existing engine (we suppose) and mature tech (we're told) designed 15 years later

F-35 is an airframe that is supposedly going to be purchased by 10 other countries with final assembly in 3 other countries.
B-21 is for the United States.

My thoughts are that the F-35 was purchased the "old way" where

1. global production was calculated to ensure the "business case" for participating countries to purchase the airframe
1a resulting in a unified capability to project power
2. major technological leaps were expected to "leap frog" near peer adversaries
3. and significant project risk was acceptable

With B-21 (and the restart of Arleigh Burke-class destroyer) we've seen a realization that significant project risk is not the interests of the United States. The 2030 flight plan basically states as much.

B-21 is being built for use by the United States exclusively. It's been designed after significant changes in design, prototype and production technology advances. It's also important that those countries that act in an adversarial way toward the United States and its allies are very unsure of it's capabilities.

Congress and the US taxpayer had been told that EMD phase of B-21 would be ~23 billion. That number has already been reduced.

If you're happy with 23 billion - and that number has been reduced - shouldn't the US taxpayer be happier?

I get that the US Congress doesn't want this program to blow up in their face. But the reality is that they are getting all the oversight they want in secret sessions.

My sense is that B-21 is a different program, designed in a fundamentally changed computing era and run a different way than F-35.

 

[Sferrin]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Not sure why you think telling the world about every secret we might have is a wonderful idea. BTW, just because they aren't mailing YOU a report doesn't mean there is no oversight.

 

[Flyaway]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Not sure why you think telling the world about every secret we might have is a wonderful idea. BTW, just because they aren't mailing YOU a report doesn't mean there is no oversight.

Well it seems the USAF has had something of a change of heart on this.

Presumptive Air Force Chief Appears To Shift On B-21 Cost Info

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/air-force-chief-nominee-gen-goldfein-appeases-senate-on-b-21/

 

[marauder2048]

Northrop to Work on B-21 in Florida

​The director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities office confirmed Tuesday Northrop Grumman will perform work on the B-21 bomber at its Melbourne, Fla., facility. The final assembly location of the B-21 has not been announced, but while speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Arlington, Va., Randall Walden said Northrop has the "spin plan ready” and is “hiring folks down at Melbourne." The company designated its Florida plant its “manned aircraft design center of excellence” three years ago and has suggested it might do a significant amount of B-21 work there. The B-2 bomber was built at the company’s Palmdale, Calif., facility, which has been designated its aircraft integration center of excellence. Walden said the B-21 program is “ramping up” and is “full-blown” into the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase. He said his office believes the service will be able to beat the ceiling cost—or average procurement unit cost—of $550 million per aircraft set in 2010.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/June%202016/June%2022%202016/Northrop-to-Work-on-B-21-in-Florida.aspx

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/b-21-costs-must-stay-secret-insists-air-force-rco-head/

 

[NeilChapman]

Northrop to Work on B-21 in Florida

The director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities office confirmed Tuesday Northrop Grumman will perform work on the B-21 bomber at its Melbourne, Fla., facility. The final assembly location of the B-21 has not been announced, but while speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Arlington, Va., Randall Walden said Northrop has the "spin plan ready” and is “hiring folks down at Melbourne." The company designated its Florida plant its “manned aircraft design center of excellence” three years ago and has suggested it might do a significant amount of B-21 work there. The B-2 bomber was built at the company’s Palmdale, Calif., facility, which has been designated its aircraft integration center of excellence. Walden said the B-21 program is “ramping up” and is “full-blown” into the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase. He said his office believes the service will be able to beat the ceiling cost—or average procurement unit cost—of $550 million per aircraft set in 2010.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/June%202016/June%2022%202016/Northrop-to-Work-on-B-21-in-Florida.aspx

Related story with some additional details...

http://about.bgov.com/blog/northrop-hiring-personnel-b-21-melbourne-fla-site/

 

[NeilChapman]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Not sure why you think telling the world about every secret we might have is a wonderful idea. BTW, just because they aren't mailing YOU a report doesn't mean there is no oversight.

Well it seems the USAF has had something of a change of heart on this.

Presumptive Air Force Chief Appears To Shift On B-21 Cost Info

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/air-force-chief-nominee-gen-goldfein-appeases-senate-on-b-21/

No - the AF was very clear. I think you may, as did Sen McCain, have heard what you expected to hear.

I don't understand why you accuse us of being "sanguine". We've carefully weighed the facts and arrived at a different conclusion - yes - but we're not enthusiasts. Perhaps I've not looked at the facts correctly but you haven't provided arguments contrary to mine.

 

[Flyaway]

You may be comfortable with this situation, but don't you think there might be quite a few people who aren't so sanguine?

National Security. Sorry. There's very little on planet Earth for which there is 100% agreement. This is no different.

Not sure that is always the free pass that you might think it is.

Not sure why you think telling the world about every secret we might have is a wonderful idea. BTW, just because they aren't mailing YOU a report doesn't mean there is no oversight.

Well it seems the USAF has had something of a change of heart on this.

Presumptive Air Force Chief Appears To Shift On B-21 Cost Info

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/air-force-chief-nominee-gen-goldfein-appeases-senate-on-b-21/

No - the AF was very clear. I think you may, as did Sen McCain, have heard what you expected to hear.

I don't understand why you accuse us of being "sanguine". We've carefully weighed the facts and arrived at a different conclusion - yes - but we're not enthusiasts. Perhaps I've not looked at the facts correctly but you haven't provided arguments contrary to mine.

Pretty irrelevant being as the RCO has indicated that these figures will be out sooner rather than later.

Maybe it's because once burnt twice shy after the USAF's figures with the F-35 & you just expect people to take them at their word spending wise.

 

[Flyaway]

Information on the classified program remains scarce, but Walden disclosed some new details during the Tuesday event.
Prime contractor Northrop Grumman has completed its spend plan and is hiring personnel for its Melbourne, Fla., location to work on the bomber, he said. The first set of B-21s could roll off the production line as early as 2025.
"We believe that we are going to be able to beat that $550 [million per-unit cost],” he said. “That's been really our theme to date.”
The aircraft already has undergone assessments by an Air Force "red team" in order to ensure the aircraft will be able to meet projected threats, Walden said. More evaluations will occur as development progresses. The military routinely uses so-called red teams, composed of subject-matter experts, to get a devil's advocate view on plans and capabilities.
“In most cases where the threat may change or [is] perceived to be changing, we'll ask the red team to step up and continue to look at the survivability attributes and how it would be able to conduct its mission in a highly contested environment,” he said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...6/22/b-21-bomber-air-force-contract/86248242/

 

[NeilChapman]

Information on the classified program remains scarce, but Walden disclosed some new details during the Tuesday event.
Prime contractor Northrop Grumman has completed its spend plan and is hiring personnel for its Melbourne, Fla., location to work on the bomber, he said. The first set of B-21s could roll off the production line as early as 2025.
"We believe that we are going to be able to beat that $550 [million per-unit cost],” he said. “That's been really our theme to date.”
The aircraft already has undergone assessments by an Air Force "red team" in order to ensure the aircraft will be able to meet projected threats, Walden said. More evaluations will occur as development progresses. The military routinely uses so-called red teams, composed of subject-matter experts, to get a devil's advocate view on plans and capabilities.
“In most cases where the threat may change or [is] perceived to be changing, we'll ask the red team to step up and continue to look at the survivability attributes and how it would be able to conduct its mission in a highly contested environment,” he said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/22/b-21-bomber-air-force-contract/86248242/

2025 - Are those "production" airframes or test airplanes. I was under the impressions that the AF was expecting IOC 10 years from contract award. Anyone have any insight?

Too bad no one thought to clarify with Mr. Walden.

 

[bring_it_on]

They'll be adding it on their youtube page :

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdaa7UL3jXahmZZ3am6uqUA
Or adding the Audio to their website :

http://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/#!mitchell-hour/bqanz

 

[NeilChapman]

I went back and found the IOC 2025 statement. It was Gen Rand (Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command) in his testimony to HASC 9/29/15. He says they're "hopeful" for 2025.

Here is the link.

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=791001
I don't see how you start getting planes in 2025 and you declare IOC in 2025. I also don't see how the Commander for GSC get's this expectation with the access one would expect he has.

I'd like to understand how quickly you can get to IOC once test airframes are available.

Any thoughts?

 

[NeilChapman]

Timeline from the B-2 IOC

Month Year Major Development
Oct 1981 NG selected
1986 B-2 full-scale development began
Jan 1987 First radar test flight (on KC-135 test bed)
1988 Radar production contract
Jul 1989 First B-2 flight
Jun 1990 B-2 Block I flight test completed
1991 First flight of radar-equipped B-2 (AV#3)
1992 Approval of final fleet funded
1992 Integrated avionics test flights began
1996 Flight testing completed
Apr 1997 B-2 IOC (Interim aircraft)
Apr 1998 Two bombers deployed to Anderson AFB, Guam
1999 Planned full B-2 IOC

Link to the info...

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1276

 

[bring_it_on]

I went back and found the IOC 2025 statement. It was Gen Rand (Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command) in his testimony to HASC 9/29/15. He says they're "hopeful" for 2025.

Here is the link.

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=791001
I don't see how you start getting planes in 2025 and you declare IOC in 2025. I also don't see how the Commander for GSC get's this expectation with the access one would expect he has.

I'd like to understand how quickly you can get to IOC once test airframes are available.

Any thoughts?

Start at 17:00 below :

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/4304...ange-strike-bomber-contract-award-no-graphics
Bill Laplante clearly says 'test-aircraft' and shooting for an IOC by 2025.

 

[marauder2048]

Timeline from the B-2 IOC

Month Year Major Development
Oct 1981 NG selected
1986 B-2 full-scale development began
Jan 1987 First radar test flight (on KC-135 test bed)
1988 Radar production contract
Jul 1989 First B-2 flight
Jun 1990 B-2 Block I flight test completed
1991 First flight of radar-equipped B-2 (AV#3)
1992 Approval of final fleet funded
1992 Integrated avionics test flights began
1996 Flight testing completed
Apr 1997 B-2 IOC (Interim aircraft)
Apr 1998 Two bombers deployed to Anderson AFB, Guam
1999 Planned full B-2 IOC

Link to the info...

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1276

IIRC, B-2 IOC declaration had nuclear certification folded into it. B-21 won't have that upfront overhead.

 

[NeilChapman]

Timeline from the B-2 IOC

Month Year Major Development
Oct 1981 NG selected
1986 B-2 full-scale development began
Jan 1987 First radar test flight (on KC-135 test bed)
1988 Radar production contract
Jul 1989 First B-2 flight
Jun 1990 B-2 Block I flight test completed
1991 First flight of radar-equipped B-2 (AV#3)
1992 Approval of final fleet funded
1992 Integrated avionics test flights began
1996 Flight testing completed
Apr 1997 B-2 IOC (Interim aircraft)
Apr 1998 Two bombers deployed to Anderson AFB, Guam
1999 Planned full B-2 IOC

Link to the info...

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1276

IIRC, B-2 IOC declaration had nuclear certification folded into it. B-21 won't have that upfront overhead.

egggselent point...

 

[NeilChapman]

I went back and found the IOC 2025 statement. It was Gen Rand (Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command) in his testimony to HASC 9/29/15. He says they're "hopeful" for 2025.

Here is the link.

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=791001
I don't see how you start getting planes in 2025 and you declare IOC in 2025. I also don't see how the Commander for GSC get's this expectation with the access one would expect he has.

I'd like to understand how quickly you can get to IOC once test airframes are available.

Any thoughts?

Start at 17:00 below :

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/4304...ange-strike-bomber-contract-award-no-graphics
Bill Laplante clearly says 'test-aircraft' and shooting for an IOC by 2025.

Yep - So the Mitchell Aerospace talk that Walden gave isn't at the site yet. I can't confirm what he said myself.

But in the link below, they're reporting that Walden stated a 2030 IOC.

http://www.executivegov.com/2016/06...devt-contract-value-should-remain-classified/
From the article...

"He also said that the service branch expects to achieve initial operational capability for the B-21 aircraft by 2030 and continue fleet deployment operations through 2060."

Which would, technically, be still true if they achieve a 2025 IOC. But with the other report of him stating "the first set of B-21's could roll off the production line as early as 2025"... I'm concerned that something has changed.

If this is a change then they should elucidate this extremely significant change in expectations. You don't testify to the HASC a 2025 IOC, communicate a 2025 IOC during your program rollout then 8 months later change it to 2030. Five years is a long time in technology progression and threat management.

Has anyone heard anything that might clarify this conflict in communications?

 

[bring_it_on]

Good Observation. Someone ought to clarify this pretty soon (hate to wait till the AFA event in September).

The air force will not nominate an exact initial operational capability (IOC) date for the B-21 except "sometime in the mid-2020s" but it says Northrop will be incentivised to hit cost and schedule targets, with schedule performance being more "heavily weighted"

The way I see it (The latest Aviation Week article by clarifies that as well):

The first mission-ready aircraft should begin rolling off the production line, likely at Northrop’s former B-2 Spirit plant in Palmdale, California, by 2025 to form the first combat-coded B-21 squadron.

This looks like they'll roll the first fully mission ready aircraft for the first unit in 2025, and they could probably declare IOC with as little as 2-4 bombers given the rate of production. That would still keep it ' mid 2020's ' Test article (s) could be involved in the EMD phase to compete testing.

 

[NeilChapman]

Good Observation. Someone ought to clarify this pretty soon (hate to wait till the AFA event in September).

The air force will not nominate an exact initial operational capability (IOC) date for the B-21 except "sometime in the mid-2020s" but it says Northrop will be incentivised to hit cost and schedule targets, with schedule performance being more "heavily weighted"

The way I see it (The latest Aviation Week article by clarifies that as well):

The first mission-ready aircraft should begin rolling off the production line, likely at Northrop’s former B-2 Spirit plant in Palmdale, California, by 2025 to form the first combat-coded B-21 squadron.

This looks like they'll roll the first fully mission ready aircraft for the first unit in 2025, and they could probably declare IOC with as little as 2-4 bombers given the rate of production. That would still keep it ' mid 2020's ' Test article (s) could be involved in the EMD phase to compete testing.

Looking at B-2 it seems like 19 were built before interim IOC was declared. I think NG got stung on B-2. They were planning to build a number of additional planes and were purchasing long lead time parts even when the planes hadn't been ordered. I'm guessing they're not going to make that mistake this time which is why the first batch of planes is 21. But my point is that this might impact the production capacity/speed they build into the line.

Supposedly the majority of risk reduction has been done. We're expecting integration of mature tech. I get that it's a new airframe but they made the vendor selection when they were ready for EMD. That's pretty far along.

If I recall correctly I've read that B2's are sent in flights of 3. Don't know if that's true or not. Perhaps B-21 will be similar and only a few will be required to substantiate IOC. Better yet, it would be nice to get test aircraft flying in 2019.

I'd like to think that Walden is bullshitting, er, managing expectations. Better to come in early and under budget. But I'm concerned that he is not.

 

[bring_it_on]

Full Presentation from the RCO Head : https://www.scribd.com/doc/316928032/USAF-Rapid-Capabilities-Office-AFA-06-16

Mid Term (before 2030) Field LRS-B at operational bases and achieve IOC

 

[bring_it_on]

Looking at B-2 it seems like 19 were built before interim IOC was declared. I think NG got stung on B-2. They were planning to build a number of additional planes and were purchasing long lead time parts even when the planes hadn't been ordered. I'm guessing they're not going to make that mistake this time which is why the first batch of planes is 21. But my point is that this might impact the production capacity/speed they build into the line.

The contract for 21 is fixed price iirc and not fixed price plus like the EMD. It would have been tough to get the OEM's to agree to a fixed price production contract without the assured production/acquisition of atleast 20 odd aircraft. It allows some room to take risk and absorb losses on the first few production examples - a smaller LRIP wouldnt have allowed that. I think some indication has been given on the expected annual production rate and I think Bill Sweetman highlighted that in one of his articles at Aviation Week.

BTW, the video of the AFRCO director is up here, he says 2025 is the time when they want to roll out the first production representative versions out to the operator with a pre 2030 in service date at the operational bases. Sounds about right. This is still a 2025-2030 IOC program and they'll nail down a definitive date the more the program matures. Thats still pretty good given the award was in FY16 with a multi month development freeze due to a protest.

 

[marauder2048]

The contract for 21 is fixed price iirc and not fixed price plus like the EMD.

EMD is cost-plus.

It would have been tough to get the OEM's to agree to a fixed price production contract without the assured production/acquisition of atleast 20 odd aircraft. It allows some room to take risk and absorb losses on the first few production examples - a smaller LRIP wouldnt have allowed that. I think some indication has been given on the expected annual production rate and I think Bill Sweetman highlighted that in one of his articles at Aviation Week.

The B-2 LRIP contract (for 5 aircraft) was fixed price as well and included provisions for renegotiation if the government's planned total procurement quantity changed.

21 aircraft in the first five lots sounds a bit like a Virginia class style block buy; the legislation for "block buying" didn't exist for B-2.

 

[bring_it_on]

EMD is cost-plus.

Thanks.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...al-b-21-stealth-bomber-just-mini-me-b-2-16811

 

[dark sidius]

I realy don't think it will be a mini B-2, more something else with new capacity.

 

[NeilChapman]

I realy don't think it will be a mini B-2, more something else with new capacity.

Well...Perhaps it depends on how folks think of the B-2.

The threats are well documented. The response with near peers and regional actors with sophisticated A2AD assets requires the door to be kicked down to neutralize the A2AD threats so sustained sorties can continue until the threat is removed.

Global Strike takes into account the realities of the geopolitical environment;

- concern about casualties (civilian and military)
- necessity of coalitions and allies
- access limitations to airfields (even those of partners) based on politics, length, width, strength or load classification number - including wartime landing performance limitations
- stringent rules of engagement
- A2AD
- need for sustained sorties

Dealing with these issues, it seems like the US Air Force has decided that the global strike requires capabilities that were too expensive to sit in one platform, hence no NGB program. So what capabilities are necessary for global strike to be successful? Wasn't that question answered with the "family of systems" revealed of which B-21 and B-2 are part - and also necessary to leverage and enable the Air-Sea Battle Concept?

The family of systems has been said to include and integrate ISR; survivability techniques - think Electronic Attack and ESM; and C3 assets. "The right ability applied across a family that gives us not only the access we want, the time and choosing we want, but the survivability we also want, and mission execution," according to RCO's Randall Walden.

We've seen the stand-up of the X-37, which is now on it's fourth mission. The US's ability to mitigate threats to space assets is critical to global strike. It's been reported that X-37 is performing a variety of missions including support of the AEHF satellites, HAL thrusters and testing various materials in space and "other space technologies the US want's to buy down risk on" (RW). AEHF is critical for global strike.

We've heard about the RQ-180. Perhaps a likely candidate for the ISR job. Electronic Attack is said to be incorporated into B-21, perhaps it's been matured via RQ-180 for B-21?

Mr Walden stated that B-21 is about "minimizing any invention, maximizing capabilities we've had today. And if you think about it, it's been about three decades since we fielded the B-2 so one can imagine there's been a lot of work behind the scenes over those three decades to improve on that particular flying wing capability of yesteryear."

The RCO is also working on the Common Mission Control Center (CMCC). Perhaps this is the C2 function mentioned in the family of systems.

---

Today, kicking down the door includes F-22's and B-2's. The B-21 is the follow-on for B-2 in that mission set. It might also be the replacement for 80 other bombers in the inventory. The interesting part of the question is how have the capabilities been maximized? What will be necessary to kick down the door? Will a supersonic capability (F-22) be necessary w/B-21 as it's been important for B-2? Will LRSO development meet the need?

Will a hypersonic missile negate the need for supersonic aircraft (PCA - think F-22) as part of the B-21 strike package? Will the tech maturity not be there for hypersonic such that a follow-on manned, supersonic PCA airframe be required for F-22?

My perception is that the Air Force has already determined that a replacement for F-22 is necessary. It's the PCA paragraph in the 2030 Flight Plan published. The 2017 AoA for the PCA capabilities has been set. The US Congress has asked for F-22 restart costs/issues/requirements/risks/etc report with a quick turn around time for the document/hearings set. If they decide they need a supersonic airframe as a PCA replacement for F-22 to compliment B-21 we'll see a B-21 like (minimizing any invention, maximizing capabilities - RCO-led) program for the new PCA - perhaps optionally manned like B-21.

---

So - is the B-21 a mini B-2? Well, it's a unique flying wing configuration that serves as a multi-role bomber that flies long missions for which stealth is important. Perhaps, to your point, with a host of enabling technologies including 30 years of advancement in stealth, flying wing tech, EA, ESM, sensor fusion and C2 integration to leverage all US Military assets. Is that a different airplane? It's certainly a different asset - it just looks pretty darn similar.

Hopefully folks will look past the similar "look" to the transformational capabilities that come with the "family of systems."

 

[dark sidius]

Yes you are right. We must wait and see what type of airframe will be in the family of ssystem, may be the rumoured RQ-180 will have a role in it , and the futur PCA surely too.