11bee Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Anyone want to bet on the outcome of this project? I'm going with 4 years late and 200% over the initial budget forecast. Total airframes cut to 30. By the way, maybe I missed it but which bomber(s) is the B-21 supposed to replace? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Anyone want to bet on the outcome of this project? I'm going with 4 years late and 200% over the initial budget forecast. Total airframes cut to 30. By the way, maybe I missed it but which bomber(s) is the B-21 supposed to replace? Overbudget, but not by that much delays but only a few years at most, 85 percent of the airframes desired, with a longer production span Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Every time you recycle something Dave Majumdar writes, God kills a child's puppy. :o Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 This will be another program that will end up being grossly over-budget. Unless a certain Senator has his way. http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/mccain-pledges-to-stop-lrsb-which-bomber-will-be-retired/ Man involved in the Senate for decades and now head of the armed service committee is mad at the status quo he created. If only the Senate had an armed services committee that could stop this madness!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wardog Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Sorry, this was Triggers post originally. Edited February 27, 2016 by wardog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wardog Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Trigger, those are all excellent points you cited and most likely why NGC pulled off a win. However, if that is the case, then Boeing/LM were truly never contenders as anything they brought to the table would have been dismissed due to the "Risk" factor. In essence, they played in a game with no chance of winning and were only there because they could be. Don't get me wrong, NGC is very capable in the areas you mentioned but Boeing/LM aren't exactly inexperienced either. Last I checked, at least with respect to stealth knowledge, LM is the prime on the F-22 and F-35, not NGC. From a manufacturing perspective, NGC has a state of the art facility in Palmdale, CA for the F-35, It's very nice! However, LM has just as nice a facility if not nicer for the same program in Ft. Worth....I've been to both as I worked for NGC on the F-35 program. I'm not sure if LM has the space to grow in Ft. Worth to accommodate the LRSB but my point is I can't see LM's manufacturing capabilities being outdone by NGC's. Anyway, I don't really care who won, I was just surprised the winning design was essentially a re-vamped B-2! E. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Trigger, those are all excellent points you cited and most likely why NGC pulled off a win. However, if that is the case, then Boeing/LM were truly never contenders as anything they brought to the table would have been dismissed due to the "Risk" factor. In essence, they played in a game with no chance of winning and were only there because they could be. What happens is, the USAF determines what they want out of the program (ATF, JSF, LRB-S, etc) - "these are the performance targets, these are what we need for it to do, we need it to have X range, this is a target RCS, this is what we need it carry, we need it to have X, Y, Z, etc." and they submit the RFP. Since this is the federal government, they have to open it to more then one bidder (unless that bidder is Halliburton, but that's another matter altogether). Thus, Northrop-Grumman and Boeing (who brought in Lockheed for their expertise with manufacturing LO aircraft, something Boeing doesn't have. - Who can deliver on those specifications? Not just design, but manufacturing. - Who can do so at the better price point? The deck wasn't stacked against Boeing/Lockheed. Boeing's got experience manufacturing large aircraft, Lockeed's got experience manufacturing LO aircraft, and Northrop hasn't delivered a new aircraft since the 1990s. Yet Lockheed won ATF 26 years ago, despite not having mass produced a fighter since the F-104 (which the USAF never liked). They defeated Northrop/MDD, which had experience working on the F-15, F/A-18 and B-2A programs on account of the success of the F-117. The LRB-S has some similar requirements that the ATB program originally had. When the ATB's requirements changed, so did the design, resulting in the B-2A we know today. So Northrop was SMART with their proposal; they already had a lot of research done. They already had a lot of the math of the RCS already figured out. Don't get me wrong, NGC is very capable in the areas you mentioned but Boeing/LM aren't exactly inexperienced either. Boeing has never manufactured an LO aircraft. They built components for the F-22, but that line shut down years ago. Last I checked, at least with respect to stealth knowledge, LM is the prime on the F-22 and F-35, not NGC. Says LM's PR team. The B-2's RCS is the same today as it was in 1989. Northrop has a history of developing LO designs; they submitted proposals for the XST, ATF, ATB, the Navy's X-47B and now LRB-S. They've had more experience in LO technology than Boeing has. NGC has a state of the art facility in Palmdale, CA for the F-35, It's very nice! However, LM has just as nice a facility if not nicer for the same program in Ft. Worth....I've been to both as I worked for NGC on the F-35 program. I'm not sure if LM has the space to grow in Ft. Worth to accommodate the LRSB but my point is I can't see LM's manufacturing capabilities being outdone by NGC's. You just answered your own question. Ft. Worth is dedicated to the F-35 and whatever is left of the F-16. Lockheed's got the plant in Marietta, but it's being used for the C-5M modernization program, manufacturing of the center wing assembly for the F-35 Lightning II, and C-130J production. LM's plate might have been too full. Besides, LM's not the primary on this. Boeing was. LM would build components, with final assembly taken place by Boeing. I was just surprised the winning design was essentially a re-vamped B-2! Why? The F-35 design is very much that of a a smaller, single-engine F-22. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Man involved in the Senate for decades and now head of the armed service committee is mad at the status quo he created. If only the Senate had an armed services committee that could stop this madness!! Sen. MeVain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Did we not learn anything from the F-35? Now every aircraft will have some random number? My first thought was that it looks like the Texas photos, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a flying prototype. I think the numbers should contain fractions - Like B-33 & 1/3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Did we not learn anything from the F-35? Now every aircraft will have some random number? "B-21" Oh nos! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Anyone want to bet on the outcome of this project? I'm going with 4 years late and 200% over the initial budget forecast. Total airframes cut to 30. By the way, maybe I missed it but which bomber(s) is the B-21 supposed to replace? That will still leave us with twice as many 'heavy' stealth bombers than Putin has of tu-160s Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) I think the numbers should contain fractions - Like B-33 & 1/3 Some people have suggested the whole letter-number thing shouldnt even matter at this point. Gasp!! The B-21 should be be B/A/ISR/F-1 If we are being honest. in about that order too. Another idea that was floated might be that B-21 is not an airplane but a system. For example a mother plane and a small constellation of sensors and shooters UAVs that accompany it. My point is the lines are blurred. Wait until they turn the B-52 into an arsenal plane, and its covered in AMRAAMs and getting kills F/B-52? No doubt the official name will be terrible. The navy is naming their new UAV stingray after the navy boss. Edited February 28, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 That will still leave us with twice as many 'heavy' stealth bombers than Putin has of tu-160s Tu-160 production will be restarted under a heavy modernization effort + there is PAK-DA project which is supposedly still on track to fly right about when Tu-160M2's will roll off the production line (~2023). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 New Details Emerge On LRS-B Subcontractors Editor’s Note: As we’ve mentioned before, everyone in the industry is anxious to hear more details about the LRS-B and what it brings to the fight that our current strategic bombers simply cannot. While we at FighterSweep are just as curious as anyone else (and speculate amongst ourselves), it’s important to remember secrecy is incredibly important to the success of this program. You all remember what happened with the Chinese stealing important design files from the F-35, right? That said, we wouldn’t be too upset if the Air Force stays as tight-lipped for as long as possible. As the aerospace world anxiously awaits the Government Accountability Office’s verdict on whether to allow Northrop Grumman to begin construction on the Pentagon’s Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B)/>, new details help paint a clearer picture of who will build crucial parts and systems. The GAO’s decision on whether to uphold losing team Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s protest of the Oct. 27 contract award will determine which subcontractors develop the building blocks of the next-generation bomber — contracts worth millions of dollars and years of stable work. The US Air Force has refused to disclose the names of the second and third-tier LRS-B suppliers for security reasons. But emerging details may help observers piece together the subcontractors involved. If Northrop builds LRS-B, GE Aviation will manufacture the primary and secondary power distribution systems, not the plane’s engine, according to a source with knowledge of the program. GE was partnered with the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team on the power plant, the source said.This reflects a departure from history, as GE builds the F118 engine that powers Northrop’s B-2 stealth bomber. The news that GE is not the winning engine maker fuels speculation that Northrop’s bomber will be powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. Although nothing is certain, some have hypothesized that LRS-B will use Pratt’s F135 engines, according to a recent analysis by Jim McAleese. Pratt spokesman Matthew Bates declined to comment. Just minutes after the award was announced, Pratt sent out a statement congratulating Northrop on the win. “Pratt & Whitney congratulates Northrop Grumman for their selection on this very important program,” according to the Oct. 27 statement. “P&W declines to comment on any other questions regarding the Long Range Strike-Bomber program.” A spokesman for engine-maker Rolls Royce also declined to comment on the company’s role in LRS-B. Even if GAO rejects Boeing’s protest [which they have], the opportunities for GE on LRS-B could be very lucrative. Northrop’s win means GE “gained a valuable foothold in everything else aside from the fuselage,” the source said. GE already supplies critical components for the F-35 joint strike fighter that could have applications for LRS-B, the source said. GE builds the weapons control, data management, electrical power management and standby flight display systems for the F-35, which uses Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine. GE also builds the integrated canopy assembly, along with smaller interfaces like the engine rings and remote input/output units, for JSF. Many of these components are built out of Cheltenham and Southampton, both in the UK, as part of GE’s 2007 purchase of UK-based supplier Smiths Aerospace. As for LRS-B’s radar and electronic warfare suites, McAleese suggests the new plane will use Northrop’s systems, because Raytheon is presumed to be on the rival Boeing-Lockheed Martin team. “Northrop is believed to be heavily vertically-integrated from subsystems perspective (e.g., radar, EW, etc.),” McAleese writes. Raytheon spokesman B.J. Boling declined to comment due to the classified nature of the program. In an interview last week at the Dubai Airshow, Textron CEO Ellen Lord told Defense News that the company is not involved in LRS-B. Source Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Tu-160 production will be restarted under a heavy modernization effort + there is PAK-DA project which is supposedly still on track to fly right about when Tu-160M2's will roll off the production line (~2023). Oh no. The US could be faced with a bomber gap! Might have to build even more B-21s On a serious note, what's the road map for the US bomber force? Are they still talking about re-engining the B-52? Will the other types be retired if/when the B-21 actually makes it into service? Edited February 28, 2016 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Global Strike Command has stated their requirement is for 175-200 B-21s Re-engining B-52s has been talk for two decades. There are far bigger recapitalization priorities - B-21, T-X, KC-46, F-35, CSAR helicopter - than putting new motors into the B-52. By the time B-21s begin to arrive on the ramps post-2026, look for them to start replacing B-1s and B-52s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Global Strike Command has stated their requirement is for 175-200 B-21s Re-engining B-52s has been talk for two decades. There are far bigger recapitalization priorities - B-21, T-X, KC-46, F-35, CSAR helicopter - than putting new motors into the B-52. By the time B-21s begin to arrive on the ramps post-2026, look for them to start replacing B-1s and B-52s. My question would be - why then keep a very small (and very expensive) mini-fleet of B-2's? Does the B-2 have some attribute that complements (or is superior to) the B-21? I would have thought this would be an opportunity to eliminate three complete systems, which should yield some pretty hefty savings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 The B-2 force is the smallest and most expensive fleet, but also the most modern and effective. You could talk to a structures guy too and i would bet being one solid wing cuts down on a lot of fatigue. You can't re engine the B-52 without changing the tail, because it wasn't designed to compensate for a failed engine from a 4 or 6 engine design. The current tail couldn't trim it. So you are basically looking at a whole new airplane, unless the plan is 8 different engines. At that point you might as well buy a new airplane, and if that is the plan, it should be a B-21 not a design from the 1950s Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 The B-2 force is the smallest and most expensive fleet, but also the most modern and effective. You could talk to a structures guy too and i would bet being one solid wing cuts down on a lot of fatigue. I get that but today, the B-2 is being kept as a "silver bullet" because nothing else the AF has can do what the B-2 can. Unless there is something the B-2 can do that the B-21 cannot, I don't understand why they would wish to keep it in service. Once the B-21 is online (assuming it is built in the numbers planned), why would you not want to use that opportunity to eliminate the B-2 and thus get rid of an entire weapons system and it's infrastructure (training, logistics, etc, etc)? As the AF has stated multiple times in the past when looking to axe an airframe, that adds up to big $. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) My question would be - why then keep a very small (and very expensive) mini-fleet of B-2's? Does the B-2 have some attribute that complements (or is superior to) the B-21? I would have thought this would be an opportunity to eliminate three complete systems, which should yield some pretty hefty savings. B-2s have fewer airframe hours than B-1s and B-52s. LRS-B places an emphasis on range and ISR, not so much on a massive payload. It'll be big, but don't be surprised if it's not as big of a payload as the B-2 is capable of handling, so the B-2's capacity will still be useful. If GSC gets all 200, then I wouldn't be surprised to see B-21s replace B-2s but the current road map for the B-2A has it's retirement date set at 2058. Edited February 28, 2016 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) I get that but today, the B-2 is being kept as a "silver bullet" because nothing else the AF has can do what the B-2 can. Unless there is something the B-2 can do that the B-21 cannot, I don't understand why they would wish to keep it in service. Once the B-21 is online (assuming it is built in the numbers planned), why would you not want to use that opportunity to eliminate the B-2 and thus get rid of an entire weapons system and it's infrastructure (training, logistics, etc, etc)? As the AF has stated multiple times in the past when looking to axe an airframe, that adds up to big $. The B-2 will be the last to be retired, because 20 B-2 plus 20 B-21 means a doublING of effectiveness. Rather than cranking out 20 B-21s and retiring one for one. And again remaining at 20 for a duration. Also I'm betting the USAF is going be pretty gun shy about retiring Th3 B-2 thanks to the lessons of the B-2 until they really are free and clear of a death spiral on B-21. Evrytime there has been retirement talk it's been B-1s Eventually they will cut all to have only B-21s. Which I think is what you were asking john Edited February 28, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Originally USAF wanted, what, 100 B-2 bombers? Then cut to only 20... I think this "new" B-21 is really the B-2B, essentially an upgraded B-2A (along the lines of the Legacy/Super Hornet) and a step closer to the 100 stealth bombers USAF originally wanted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raptor01 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Definitely going to to be a need to stealthily penetrate mountainous desert terrain to bomb goat shite based explosive shacks and the 7 fingered men making these weapons. :taunt:/> John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Definitely going to to be a need to stealthily penetrate mountainous desert terrain to bomb goat shite based explosive shacks and the 7 fingered men making these weapons. John I'm glad we are starting to see the futility in trying to win these wars by force of arms. Because we been there done that, and "that" ain't workin' Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Originally USAF wanted, what, 100 B-2 bombers? Then cut to only 20... I think this "new" B-21 is really the B-2B, essentially an upgraded B-2A (along the lines of the Legacy/Super Hornet) and a step closer to the 100 stealth bombers USAF originally wanted. Or another 20, it only has a half billion price tag, which inevitably will double to a billion each. Then the number will be cut and the price goes up even more, resulting in another cut and in the end we buy 20 of them for $3-4 billion each. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.