Posted on 02/26/2016 9:06:22 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The US Air Force has revealed its bomber for the 21st century, the Northrop Grumman B-21 long-range strike bomber.
The official designation comes as the air force for the first time releases an artist's rendering of the still-classified bomber — a flying wing design similar to the Northrop B-2 and the company's concept for the previous Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) project.
The air force hasn’t purchased a new bomber in this century and is still dependent on 54-year-old Boeing B-52H and 28-year-old B-1B. Its 21-year-old B-2 Spirit, the only in-service stealth bomber, will be in use through 2060, officials say.
Revealed at the closing of her “state of the air force†address in Orlando, Florida today, USAF secretary Deborah Lee James revealed the official B-21 designation to rapturous applause.
“Our fifth-generation global precision attack platform will give our country a networked sensor-shoot capability that will allow us to hold targets at risk in a way the world and our adversaries have never, ever seen,†says James.
US Air Force
Many bomber experts have been pushing the B-3 tag as a sequential follow-on to the B-1 and B-2. However, Mitchell Institute dean David Deptula believes the new designation reflects that fact that it is the air force’s premier bomber platform for the 21st century.
“It’s not surprising in terms of the shape based on the physics of low observability, but it’s good that we have an artist’s rendering out and the designation is a good one too,†says the former three-star air force officer.
The air force picked Northrop’s design in October and is proceeding with development after the US Government Accountability Office rejected losing team Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s bid protest.
The new stealth bomber will cost $23.5 billion to develop and is worth $564 million per aircraft, according to US government estimates.
USAF wants 100 B-21s, but Deptula believes the true requirement should be 174.
“We need 174 of them,†he tells Flightglobal after the announcement. “We need a minimum of one squadron for 12 air expeditionary forces to establish the rotational base requirement during peace time to be able to shape and maintain peace and stability around the world.
“We need that number to maintain the ability to support our national security strategy to engage in two major regional conflicts if, in fact, it’s necessary to go to war, particularly in the advanced threat environment that has been growing.â€
Northrop’s bomber team was characteristically coy in its response to the unveiling: “Northrop Grumman is proud to serve as the prime contractor for the B-21 Bomber in partnership with the US Air Force, to deliver a capability that is vital to our national security. Any further questions should be directed to the air force.â€
If Boyd and Sprey had their way, the F-16 never would have had a radar.
Chances are it will be manned capable but also have an unmanned mode. There are times when you want people in it. Especially a long range nuclear bomber.
Nice run down. Thanks. Nice to see real analysis instead of just random cynical nonsense.
Kind of useless against Isis and the like.
“564 Billion a pop?”
That is ‘Million’. They are (estimated to be) a quarter what the B2s cost.
OOps Thx! MIllions .. But still.. Half a bill?? Wow.. Bring back dirigibles.
Look at the early designs for the B-2, before the big redesign for better low level performance.
This is almost identical. Seriously, when I first saw this today I thought they were just recycling the early B-2 concept art.
So here’s my guess on the name. Started out as B-2 (Improved). Or B-2i. Changed to B-21 to kinda keep the original nomenclature while assign plausible deniability (21st Century Bomber) etc.
That's not quite the way I remember it... I think it was the steerable dish that was at issue, because it was heavy. Anyway, later, it was retrofitted to a phased array, which is steerable electronically, saving weight.
The John Boyd you didn't read about
Drawing on experience gained from dogfights over North Vietnam, Boyd lobbied to remove the radar from the YF-16, which would later become the US Air Force's F-16 Fighting Falcon.In a poignant passage from Corham's book, Boyd was crushed when the Air Force overrode him, installing the radar anyway. Boyd's child had been defiled by what he viewed as corruption within the defense industry.
But whatever. You think Boyd was a bad guy. He's dead, so who gives a crap what anybody thinks of him?
I believe that most bureaucracies prepare for the last war, whether its massed infantry attacks, cavalry charges, battleships, or aircraft carriers. The Bismarck was an impressive ship, but they only had one - and the Germans were afraid to let it leave port for that reason. I think that large, super-expensive bombers are the apotheosis of this natural bureaucratic trend and thinking in war-planning
Whats the solution? Anything you can have a lot of, which can suffer a lot of losses, yet still work in coordination and network with other weapons systems and still have large firepower. Just off the top of my head - drones, missiles, space-launched munitions.
For crying out loud, quit playing games and screwing around with the aircraft designation system. This thing needs be called the B-3A.
I believe the plan is to have some of the last ones that roll off the line be RPA's.
How about The B-53!
Nope, already taken.
It’s the B-2.1
What you imply affects cost plus percentage of cost contracts, which are officially a no-no simply because the very concept encourages cost over-runs.
I won't address accounting standards here but I doubt that reasonable minds have made any headway in that regard in the past ten years.
You’re welcome.
BTW, to get the 174 number that Deptula says is the minimum requirement, you are essentially replacing all the B-52s (as well as all the B-1Bs and B-2s).
I spent 30 years working on one side of that equation or the other. You are not telling me anything I don’t already know about contracting with the government. However, requirement changes always have an affect on both price and contractor profit. Contractors won’t assume responsibility (risk) for engineering changes on a firm fixed price contract if it is the government requesting the changes. And the contractor won’t suggest changes that will cost him money on a FFP. And C-P ECP’s are negotiated separately from the original cost contract. Thus, more costs and more profit. Unless the effort is well thought out, such as delivering a mess of 9mm ammo, the contractor will think twice before accepting a FFP contract if risk is involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.