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

NeilChapman said:
Could they use large portions of F-35 code for B-21 since they are working on Block 4 already? Perhaps someone here knows?
Click to expand...
Lockheed writes and owns the F-35's core mission systems software; ie the sensor fusion engine, etc. Also I doubt the US government owns any IP of the F-35's EOTS; integrating a TFLIR shouldn't be difficult though.

NeilChapman said:
Let's hope they fixed the lens problem or perhaps the USAF will specify the change to Raytheon?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any lens issue with DAS; for the F-35 they went from Northrop to Raytheon for Block 4 because the latter was offering a newer and better (in AFAIK every way) system; Northrop chose not to contest it, possibly for internal politics reasons or possibly because they just didn't have a decent offering ready for those SWaP + capability requirements.

Forest Green said:
[Tweet]
Click to expand...
While I obviously can't be 100% certain, my bet would be that it's unrelated to the B-21.
 
Dragon029 said:
Lockheed writes and owns the F-35's core mission systems software; ie the sensor fusion engine, etc. Also I doubt the US government owns any IP of the F-35's EOTS;
Click to expand...

Wow, that blows me away that the customer wouldn't own the code after paying for custom integration - ridiculous actually. It's not like LM had a product sitting on the proverbial shelf. The US taxpayer underwrote all the development work did they not?

Surely this is not the case. Is there somewhere I can read up on this?
 
NeilChapman said:
Dragon029 said:
Lockheed writes and owns the F-35's core mission systems software; ie the sensor fusion engine, etc. Also I doubt the US government owns any IP of the F-35's EOTS;
Click to expand...

Wow, that blows me away that the customer wouldn't own the code after paying for custom integration - ridiculous actually. It's not like LM had a product sitting on the proverbial shelf. The US taxpayer underwrote all the development work did they not?

Surely this is not the case. Is there somewhere I can read up on this?
Click to expand...
If LM funded it on their own dime it's theirs.
 
Why would you want to reuse the code, an EOTS or even the radar from the F-35? Would the B-21 even have an X band radar?
 
sferrin said:
If LM funded it on their own dime it's theirs.
Click to expand...

I guess that's my question. Is there a program report that states LM owns the code. If that's the deal the Program office made with them then God love 'em. I've seen a media report stating LM owned the logistics system ALIS but that was being transitioned to a jointly owned product called ODIN. All I see re software block development is $B's paid to LM. Nothing re LM developing code on their own dime.
 
NeilChapman said:
Surely this is not the case. Is there somewhere I can read up on this?
Click to expand...
It's been reported on at various points over the years; the logic back in the 90s / early 2000s was that private industry would handle everything more efficiently, so if we allow Lockheed (and NG, BAE Systems, etc) to own the intellectual property and handle things like deep level maintenance, etc, we'll save money. So while the US government did pay tens of billions for the F-35 to be developed, they essentially paid for a service (designing and testing), not a product (instead the physical aircraft is the product).
In some respects they were, but it also meant that if a contractor isn't delivering as promised (as has happened plenty of times during the F-35 program), you have limited ability to re-compete contracts or aspects of the program; you can't bring in (eg) Raytheon to write sensor fusion software for the F-35 because Lockheed has the legal right to refuse to cooperate / give them access to the rest of the software. There are 'nuclear' options that could be used to obtain the IP, but you risk having the program implode or temporarily grind to a halt.
 
A windshield rendering is not often a window into the design philosophy behind a new aircraft, but that is not the case in the ultrasecretive world of the Northrop Grumman B-21 program. In fact, the oddly upward-sloping side cockpit window revealed in the latest of three official B-21 renderings is...
Click to expand...

How A B-21 Windscreen Change Hints At Larger Design Shift | Aviation Week Network

Stealth aircraft have struggled to meet cost and schedule targets, but Northrop Grumman shows how B-21 can break the cycle.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
It hasn't been flying, can we just stop with the mindless nonsense? You can't fly what isn't built and if it was built they would be bragging about it already. The surprise is going to be how close to being operationally ready the systems are at roll out. You'll basically be looking at a production ready aircraft before it has even flown, as opposed to an airplane prototype waiting for systems.
 
Sundog said:
It hasn't been flying, can we just stop with the mindless nonsense? You can't fly what isn't built and if it was built they would be bragging about it already. The surprise is going to be how close to being operationally ready the systems are at roll out. You'll basically be looking at a production ready aircraft before it has even flown, as opposed to an airplane prototype waiting for systems.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if Shikaka (RQ-180) has been flying around and B-21 is a genetically close fraternal twin, then getting to that first flight is a lot less difficult then it might otherwise be.
 
Those two platforms probably have nothing more than a passing resemblance to each other. From what we know, size, engine layout, etc have nothing in common. The just both use very roughly the same geometry.

There are five B-21sin various states of assembly; it shouldn’t be long til we see one.
 
Believe what you want about the two programs. I’m confident that if the B-21 had flown the USAF would be singing it from the rooftops.
 
Josh_TN said:
Believe what you want about the two programs. I’m confident that if the B-21 had flown the USAF would be singing it from the rooftops.
Click to expand...
I did not say that. This is a picture of Shikaka (RQ-180) flying. Please describe to me the advantages the Air Force and Northrop would gain by deliberately not seeking cost savings through close commonalities in the programs.

0qyctrp22qw51.jpg
 
You’d have to ask them, but I’d assume that the two platforms have very different size and weights driven by the fact one is a unmanned recon platform and one is a manned intercontinental bomber.

If that is the ‘RQ-180’, and I honestly think it is, you realize the engine placement is radically different from all B-21 artwork we’ve seen, right?
 
sublight is back said:
I did not say that. This is a picture of Shikaka (RQ-180) flying. Please describe to me the advantages the Air Force and Northrop would gain by deliberately not seeking cost savings through close commonalities in the programs
Click to expand...

I thought the cost savings was due to the "RQ-180" fulfilling part of the role of the LRS-B, thus allowing a less complex bomber aircraft needing to be developed. The planform commonality being an added bonus and convenience.
 
The so-called "RQ-180" I'm pretty sure is what allowed NGC to win LSR-B, capitalize on re-use and don't re-invent wheel not unless absolutely necessary. Also, NGC has changed internally and over the years with having Scaled Composites as an integral part of the company, NGC has learned a lot from Scaled in regards to lower-cost composites fabrication and rapid prototyping as an example.
 
sferrin said:
That could mean anything. Technically, the moment they started producing the forgings for long-lead parts they started "building". Now five in final assembly would be something, but I'd bet everything I own that is not the case. Not even close.

Looks like I may have been incorrect. It would be nice if things are moving this smoothly.
Click to expand...

Should've taken you up on that bet ;)

Still, it is nice to see someone being able to admit they might've been mistaken (and I agreed with you anyway)
 
exactly. that's why some old stuff hidden there for 25+ years finally saw light of day again
 
Q-nimbus said:
flateric said:
exactly. that's why some old stuff hidden there for 25+ years finally saw light of day again
Click to expand...
Like what…?
Click to expand...
The code for the bathroom at Northrop Palmdale. Hint: it’s the same as my luggage!

www.thedrive.com

Check Out This Super Grimy B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber Test Article

B-2 Spirits usually look otherworldly, but every nine years they head to their birthplace for some much-needed TLC. It turns out that this unique test airframe's job is to look this way.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Oh, they finally have read the comments.
Anyway, it's always good to have an official confirmation.
 
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:

Five Next-Gen US Test Bombers Currently in Production

Five Next-Gen U.S. Test Bombers Currently in Production
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...


I like the way FK stresses USAF and USSF as key to winning the fight.

Below is an excercise I went through almost exactly two years ago guesstimating at production. I was figuring five completed by 12/21. Five may not be completed but perhaps I'm less than a year out? Certainly closer than it looked six months ago.

---

Here's a hypothetical exercise to see what B-21 procurement might look like based on the info available today.

Since we're talking integration and production of existing tech we'll assume there are mostly F-35 systems
and sensors on the new bomber. My point being that flight testing will be just that - flight and integration
testing. Not so much testing of new systems. The decade of F-35 testing will transfer to B-21.

Here are some examples of possible B-21 systems that might be reused from F-35


Dry version of F135 engineP&W listed as Sub for B-21
CNI Avionics on F-35NG - This includes MADL and sensor fusion. B-21 talks cleanly w/F-35.
AESA Radar on F-35NG
DAS on F-35Originally NG but dropped for Raytheon starting in 2023. Let's hope they fixed the lens problem or perhaps the USAF will specify the change to Raytheon?
EOTS from F-35LM - not listed as a supplier but doesn't the USAF own the technology?


Could they use large portions of F-35 code for B-21 since they are working on Block 4 already? Perhaps someone here knows?

If the stars align, maybe flight testing will go "head-spinning-ly" quickly and they move to building operational
air vehicles within two years. With the recent news concerning production funding in '22 it leads me to believe
the USAF wants to accelerate the completion of the EMD program.

With all those caveats, maybe the next few years looks something like this.



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
~6.13B spent
through 2018
$2.3B2019AV-1Test
$3.0B2020AV-2 and AV-3Test


In Q1 2021, by historical reference, we expect roll-out and ground testing to begin since 1st flight is Dec '21.
This would mean that NG keeps all AV's under wraps throughout 2020.



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
$3.1B FYDP2021AV-4 and AV-5Pre-First Flight - Upgrade later


AV-1 or AV-2 first flight in December 2021. AV-2 through AV-5 leave for Edwards throughout 2022 as they are finished.
Block 10 build is locked down in 2021. I believe I recall seeing that the first lot is development and consists of 5 air
vehicles so the math works. USAF projecting procurement funding to begin in '22.

Production increase from 2 to 3 air vehicles for 2022



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
$0.2B FYDP$3.1B FYDP2022AV-6 through AV-810LRIP-1


During 2022, B-21 begins operational training as Block 10 air vehicles become available and are
flown to Edwards throughout the year.

It's a very interesting that procurement spending is projected for '22 - '24. These are most likely
long lead time purchases but the big $$ makes me think they are planning for early completion
of the EMD contract. This $$ allows them to finish the EMD contract in FY2024 w/all 20 bombers
completed and begin production of 8 bombers per year starting in 2025.

Production increase from 3 to 5 for 2023



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
$2.4B FYDP$2.7B FYDP2023AV-9 through AV-1310LRIP-2/3


It's been mentioned that FRP target is 8 bombers per year. At ~$700M each that's $5.6B per year. If you
add the '22-'24 procurement $$ you get $5.9B. That provides the budget for qty 8 bombers to be
purchased in 2025 w/a budget of ~$5.9 each year after. A squadron per year.

Production increases from 5 to 7 for 2024.



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
$3.3B FYDP$2.3B FYDP2024AV-14 through AV-2010LRIP-3/4/5


IOC sometime in 2025 with at least 8 bombers and one trainer. With this accelerated EMD contract
completion there could be almost twice that number. This ends the EMD contract.

Production increases from 7 to 8 for 2025.



Procurement $ in BudgetDev $ in BudgetBy DecemberAir Vehicles CompletedBlock No.Production Lot
$5.9B2025AV-21 through AV-2810FRP-1
$5.9B2026AV-29 through AV-3610FRP-2
$5.9BNUC in 20272027AV-37 through AV-4420FRP-3
$5.9B2028AV-45 through AV-5220FRP-4
$5.9B2029AV-53 through AV-6020FRP-5


In my exercise, best case scenario is 57 bombers by 2030. Six operational squadrons and a training
squadron. These are huge procurement numbers. No wonder the USAF wants to stop funding the
B-1 asap. Maybe they're speculating that the external threats will grow significantly between 2030
and 2040. In the mean time, they can save the B-1 upgrade $$ for B-21.
Click to expand...
We will not have until 2030-2040. Other faster options need to be considered. ASAP.
 
With the closer alignment of Australia and the US along with things such as AUKUS and the surprise (though with hindsight maybe not) of the SSN decision, maybe the idea of RAAF B-21s as mentioned numerous times over the last year or so (example below) isn't so far fetched...:rolleyes:;)

australianaviation.com.au

Comment: The game-changing potential of the B-21

The B-21 is expected to be the world’s most advanced, cost-effective long-range strike capability, writes Liam Garman, editor of Australian Aviation's sister title Defence Connect.
australianaviation.com.au australianaviation.com.au
 
sublight is back said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

The Air Force's top civilian wants a drone wingman for the B-21 bomber - Breaking Defense

"What we want is something that can go operate with [the B-21]," said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Well lucky for them, whatever "Shikaka" is should be ready to slide right into that role.
Click to expand...

That seems very unlikely; I doubt the base platform is priced to be expendable, I doubt it is remotely maneuverable, and its extreme endurance would be completely unnecessary in an escort role.
 
GTX said:
With the closer alignment of Australia and the US along with things such as AUKUS and the surprise (though with hindsight maybe not) of the SSN decision, maybe the idea of RAAF B-21s as mentioned numerous times over the last year or so (example below) isn't so far fetched...:rolleyes:;)

australianaviation.com.au

Comment: The game-changing potential of the B-21

The B-21 is expected to be the world’s most advanced, cost-effective long-range strike capability, writes Liam Garman, editor of Australian Aviation's sister title Defence Connect.
australianaviation.com.au australianaviation.com.au
Click to expand...
I think it would be very much on the table, if the US is willing to share nuclear technology. The B-21 is supposed to use almost exclusively 'mature' technology that likely isn't much beyond the widely exported F-35 anyway. I suspect a lot of the avionics and composite structures are at a similar level of technology and the engines are being directly brought over. Though I think the RAAF would have to wait for the USAF to replace all of its B-1s and B-2s first.

Regarding the air force keeping B-1s until replaced by B-21: I thought that was always the plan after the retirement of the 17 hardest to maintain examples?
 
Josh_TN said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

The Air Force's top civilian wants a drone wingman for the B-21 bomber - Breaking Defense

"What we want is something that can go operate with [the B-21]," said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I wonder if they are looking at a larger aircraft that would take off and land with B-21s or if they are contemplating a smaller air launched UAV that would be launched by escorting B-52s outside hostile airspace?
Click to expand...
Why would they even need to be based together let alone take off and land together. There's no way in hell it will be air launched from the bomber. It clearly has a mission of readying the battlefield ready for the bomber in an EW sense and may even serve as a decoy playing peekaboo and spoofing the enemy away from the bomber

Hell it could even be the same airframe albeit gutted and with unique EW components. With fuel instead of weapon bays it could have tremendous persistence
 
Last edited:
I’m guessing that USAF is going to continue in the direction of ‘attritable’ and thus full sized airframes like another B-21 or even RQ-180 are off the table for cost reasons, but it’s possible they go in that direction.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom