US Air Force LRS-B Bomber Thread

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
More details on the fund.

Boeing have to build P-8, KC-46 etc... LM have win the Jackpot provide the futur Fighter for 3 Air Services and now Northrop can begin.

Really the best choice and give to USA 3 combat aircraft manufacturers.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Congress and mission would never work, You have to evaluate and decide based on what seems the best offer as simply buying it all will cause more problems then it's worth. Northrop offered the best product for the Job, Lockheed Did the Same on the F35, Boeing is a proven builder of Airliner Airframes.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #72
Congress and mission would never work, You have to evaluate and decide based on what seems the best offer as simply buying it all will cause more problems then it's worth. Northrop offered the best product for the Job, Lockheed Did the Same on the F35, Boeing is a proven builder of Airliner Airframes.
Correct...but the net result is three separate, large aircraft manufacturers and that is also a good thin for the US.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Your right TE for procedure etc... but DOD buy only or to 99 % US armament and for get best prices it is better for him have several manufacturers.

Replace B-52H in first after B-1B with for main mission nuclear deterence ofc versatile for conventionnal bombardment, LACM attacks and i hope armed with AGM-158C and mines as the B-52H, Harpoon for him.

Only a part of B-52H are " nuclear capable " coz START treaty about 40 on 76, the B-1B since AGM-69 withdrawal is not but some rumors can get again nuclear weapons coz the 2 Bombt Wings equiped are rattached to the AF Global Strike Command from fall 2015.
 

Jura

General
LOL
McCain Threatens To Block New Air Force Bomber
The powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Chairman, John McCain, told reporters Thursday he would not authorize the Air Force’s Long-Range Strike Bomber so long as it was procured using a cost-plus contract — a contracting vehicle he has railed at in the past.

“I am saying I will not authorize a program that has a cost-plus contract — and I told them that,” McCain, R-Ariz., said at a Defense Writer’s Group breakfast in Washington, D.C.

“My biggest concern is the cost-plus provision in the contract. I will not stand for cost-plus contracts. They will say its because they’re not sure of some of the things they need in the development stage," the senator said. "Fine, then don’t bid on it until you do know. If you have a cost-plus contract, tell me one time that there hasn’t been additional costs, then I would reconsider. The mindset in the Pentagon that still somehow these are still acceptable is infuriating.”

McCain was categorically opposed to contract structure and expressed unwillingness to hear the Air Force’s argument on the matter — while brandishing his iPhone to make a point.

“Silicon Valley built the latest one of these without a cost-plus contract,” he said of his smartphone. “‘Well, the technology is such that we’re not sure of it.’ Somehow the commercial side can do this without a cost plus contract. It is an evil that has grown and grown and grown over the years, and I will not stand for it on any weapon system.”

“I don’t have to have a briefing to know that there was cost-plus contacting.”

Told the Air Force had signed contracts, McCain scoffed.

“That’s fine with me, they can do whatever the hell they want, we have to authorize procurement,” McCain said.

Told even the engine manufacturer's name was under wraps, he called the secrecy surrounding the program, “stupid.”

“Someone, somewhere is going to see some engines being made and say, ‘hey,’” he said. “It could be at Pratt & Whitney or Rolls Royce, or wherever the hell that is. I mean some of this is just stupid. So, it’s kind of the classic Pentagon — I don’t what it is, but we will find out who makes the engines.”

McCain was sympathetic to arguments that the program’s classification must be eased to garner Congressional support.

“If someone wants to build an engine for an airplane that requires Congressional authorization, then it must be known who’s making it and under what circumstances,” he said.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jura

General
LOL
McCain Threatens To Block New Air Force Bomber

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
found the response:
“The Air Force is aware of the concerns that Senator McCain has with regards to the contract type for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B). In developing the acquisition strategy and contract type for the LRS-B program, the program built upon lessons learned from previous acquisition programs. The contract has been set up to be cost-plus with incentives for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. The second part of the contract is for the initial production of the first 5 lots, which are usually the most expensive aircraft, and will be firm fixed price,” Air Force spokesman Ann Stefanek said in a statement “The Air Force values the oversight role that Senator McCain has and looks forward to continuing to work with him and the Committee on moving forward with this critical capability for the Department and the nation. The Department looks forward to being able to provide the Senator a complete briefing of the program at his earliest convenience.”
in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #76
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


B-21-01.jpg

Flight Global said:
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.

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.”

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.”
This, in essence, is going to be a slightly smaller, upgraded and modernized B-2...thus the B-21 designation.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That was the goal from the start Jeff, basically to fill in the B2 fleet that never was. Leveraging now mature stealth technologies into a scaled down bomber that can fill gaps left by aging B52s and B1s well offering the most modern features. Albeit at a slightly lower range and payload.
 

Jura

General
Thursday at 4:11 PM
LOL
McCain Threatens To Block New Air Force Bomber

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LOL again:
Air Force Defends B-21 on Hill, but McCain Still 'Concerned'
Less than a week after Sen. John McCain threatened to block the Air Force’s new B-21 bomber so long as it was procured using a cost-plus contract, top service officials took to Capitol Hill to defend their acquisition strategy.

Three top Air Force officials involved in B-21 development testified in a closed briefing before the Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee Tuesday: Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official; Randall Walden, director of the Rapid Capabilities Office, a small group inside Air Force acquisitions that handles secretive programs such as the X-37B space plane; and William Bailey, B-21 system program director.

However, the meeting appears to have done little to appease the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Sen. McCain continues to be concerned about the cost-plus structure of the B-21 development contract," his office told Defense News March 2. "He will carefully consider his legislative options to address these concerns."

Earlier in the day, Bunch also defended the B-21 before the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee. The Air Force carefully considered what contracting structure to use for the B-21, Bunch told lawmakers. The service ultimately settled on a two-part structure: a cost-plus contract with incentives for the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase; and a firm fixed-price arrangement for initial production of the first five lots of aircraft.

McCain was categorically opposed to the cost-plus contract structure, expressing his frustration during a Feb. 25 event in Washington.

“I will not authorize a program that has a cost-plus contract — and I told them that,” said McCain, R-Ariz. “If you have a cost-plus contract, tell me one time that there hasn’t been additional costs, then I would reconsider. The mindset in the Pentagon that still somehow these are still acceptable is infuriating.”

“It is an evil that has grown and grown and grown over the years, and I will not stand for it on any weapon system,” McCain continued.

Bunch stressed that over 70 percent of the B-21 contract is actually on a fixed-price contract structure, where the government sets the requirements and price and the contractor absorbs any cost overrun.

Cost-plus contracts are frequently used for programs that carry a lot of technical risk, like a never-before-built, low-observable, penetrating B-21, Bunch explained to the House Armed Services subcommittee. The contract the Air Force has with Northrop Grumman on the B-21 is structured with incentives in order to minimize cost growth, Bunch emphasized. If Northrop does not control costs and schedule, the contractor will not get any fee, he said.

There are many examples where the Air Force has tried unsuccessfully to use fixed-price contracts for new technologies, Bunch stressed. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, has previously pointed to the ill-fated A-12 aircraft as an example of such a failure. Fixed-price development tends to create situations where neither the government nor the contractor has the flexibility needed to make adjustments as they learn more about what the program requires, Kendall has argued.

Bunch pointed to Boeing’s KC-46 tanker as an example of a successful fixed-price contract, because Boeing has the resources to absorb any cost overruns. Boeing last year rang up an $835 million pre-tax charge on KC-46, but was able to continue work on the program by utilizing its commercial line, and will also be able to make up some of that loss with foreign military sales.

This is not an option with B-21, Bunch said.

“Commercialization of a long range strike bomber and foreign military sales are not two things we are looking at,” Bunch said.

The Air Force is confident it can control cost growth on the B-21 because the government-industry team is using mature technologies in development work, the service has established an independent cost estimate for the program, and the requirements are stable, Bunch said.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





This, in essence, is going to be a slightly smaller, upgraded and modernized B-2...thus the B-21 designation.
If the planform and shaping is at optimal level for RCS and aerodynamics, then the $23 billion development cost will predominantly be around engine power, IR reduction, avionics, sensors, ECM and communications. I would speculate that the LRSB would potentially act as a communications hub within a A2AD bubble and in providing redundancy in the event that some communication satellites are made ineffective. It will be a hub and spoke model providing the big data pipe for data transfers and communications in a networked sensor environment. In other words, it would be a highly capable electronics platform, making the meaning of "bomber" rather out of place. Currently, the US lacks a highly capable ISR platform that can operate within contested air space (bar RQ-180 which is an unknown). It will dovetail well with the F-22 and the F-35 in terms of LPI communications and in long range sensors and potentially replacing the E-3/E-E2-D in the risk of operating within the threat axis.

“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.
 
Top