|
|
Post by pat perry on Jun 18, 2022 0:09:05 GMT 9
Here's something you don't often see.
B-21 Bomber Delivers Pentagon Surprise: It’s Under Budget So Far
(Bloomberg) -- Northrop Grumman Corp.’s cost estimate for developing the new B-21 stealth bomber has come in lower than the US Air Force’s $25.1 billion projection, according to the service’s chief weapons buyer, a rare early-stage success story among major weapons programs that routinely run billions over budget.
“We had money in the program budget that went beyond the contractually required payments” so that “gave us the opportunity” to target the money for early spending on riskier aspects of the program, Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary for acquisition, said in an interview.
How much Northrop was able to save is classified, as are most details about the Air Force’s next-generation bomber. The service has estimated that the B-21 is likely to cost at least $203 billion to develop, purchase and then operate 100 aircraft over 30 years.
The savings come as Northrop tests the bomber’s systems on the ground, assembles the first six test aircraft and prepares for a first flight in 2023.
Northrop was awarded the development contract in 2015 in a surprise win over a joint bid from the top two U.S. defense contractors, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co.
Past Mistakes
The Air Force is trying to avoid the mistakes of its rollout of its current bomber, the B-2, in the 1980s. Its development program was started in 1981, and in 1987 the Pentagon approved procuring planes even as it was still in development and testing. Yet, it was only in April 1989 that the Air Force disclosed in public testimony that it had spent $22.4 billion on B-2 development, a revelation that surprised lawmakers.
The sticker shock resulted in some unlikely congressional alliances to curtail the program, with Representative John Kasich, a Republican from Ohio, joining Representative Ron Dellums, a Democrat and self-described socialist from California.
Northrop, which depended on the US government for 85% of its revenue last year, has made the bomber “a huge corporate priority so they’ve assembled a good team” and invested a “pretty substantial” amount of corporate dollars upfront to reduce program risk, Hunter said. “What stands out is the corporate commitment they have made to success.”
Kathy Warden, chief executive officer of Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop, told analysts in a earnings call in April that progress on the bomber has been “partly enabled by our digital design capabilities and advanced manufacturing technologies, which reduce risk ahead of the aircraft first flight.”
She also disclosed a $67 million incentive fee that the company expects at the contract’s end. Although this wasn’t the first such fee paid to Northrop or projected internally to be earned, “we separately disclose those that have a significant effect on the company’s financial statements,” the company said in a statement. It said the contract contains incentive fees for beating both cost and performance targets.
None of the difference between the $25.1 billion development estimate and Northrop’s lower number will be added to the already agreed-to fee structure, it said.
Hunter said the Air Force will become more transparent with the public about the B-21 after the aircraft is displayed, or “rolled out,” later this year. Congressional staff with the highest security clearances have received regular program updates for years.
“We will be in a position to be more forthcoming once we are actively out there flying” because “we will be more visible,” Hunter said. The “first flight is a big marker,” as well, he said because “if we can do the ‘power up’ and achieve first flight, that tells us a significant number of our engineering boxes we needed to check” were achieved.
Comments?
Pat P.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Jun 18, 2022 5:50:53 GMT 9
The Ancient B-52 will only be viable for so long...the fact that it's lasted this long is a testament to the way things were designed and built when it was new (somebody should've taken notes...). It'll be interesting to see how it progresses and what they'll tell us that it's capable of.
I don't think it's a bad thing to develop new weapons platforms...but make sure they're fully developed before deploying them, as they've done previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 18, 2022 6:45:47 GMT 9
The base design still has plenty of headroom for modernization... it's just a matter of time on the airframes.
Twenty years ago when I crashed the 50th Birthday party at Boeing Wichita the one-line I gave a room full of old SAC bird-colonels was "give me one Boneyard airframe and about $75 mil on a DARPA expense account and I will show you some hair-curling Next Level Stuff"... and now with 20 years' more technology to replace older avionics with newer, lighter, more compact and more capable systems I'll bet such a teardown-and-rebuild today would make our early-2000s "Hunter-Killer BUFF" concept look as much a relic as it in turn did Dale Brown's "Old Dog" that inspired it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Jun 18, 2022 21:11:01 GMT 9
I was referring more to the things they can't improve...like the physical design of the airframe. In today's world of mach 2 capable fighters, the sub-sonic B-52 has an obvious weak spot. One that all the electronics in the world can't solve. It can't fly faster, or higher, than any of today's modern fighters, and if/when they get close enough to spot it, it's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 18, 2022 23:36:55 GMT 9
The B-52 has changed over the years. It started off as High Alt Nuke Bomber. They it became a low altitude infiltration bomber. It has had almost constant improvements with the latest being a stand-off bomb platform. It flies toward targets and launches stand off weapons. A total of 194 B-52Gs and Hs were modified to carry AGM-86s, carrying 12 missiles on underwing pylons, with 82 B-52Hs further modified to carry another eight missiles on a rotary launcher fitted in the bomb-bay. So the threat of surface to air or air to air missiles isn't a huge threat as they don't enter theater of operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 18, 2022 23:58:30 GMT 9
I was referring more to the things they can't improve...like the physical design of the airframe. In today's world of mach 2 capable fighters, the sub-sonic B-52 has an obvious weak spot. One that all the electronics in the world can't solve. It can't fly faster, or higher, than any of today's modern fighters, and if/when they get close enough to spot it, it's done. True, sir--the "H-K" concept was meant to address that more aggressively by taking the fight TO enemy fighters and SAMs with long-range weaponry, see them and pop them before they get within their own effective range to clear a path for other bombers. You could say "Wild Weasel on Steroids," almost. A new, faster wing, more powerful engines and a less radar-reflective tailgroup would've helped some too albeit not bringing it up to even "near-peer" to a B-1. (Admittedly, there's no reason the same concepts couldn't be applied to a Lancer... faster and more maneuverable might even make them work better on that patform.) |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 19, 2022 3:40:24 GMT 9
Having worked MA-1 from 1963-1971 I can say the only thing I saw on MA-1 Radar bigger than a B-52 was the Aluminum Overcast...The C-5.
One day at Tyndall I was working a Six and checking out the Radar. I saw an aircraft on horizon and didn't see it on Radar. I was in long range settings. So I got on Comm and called Ground Control and asked if they had the aircraft on Radar. Their response was, extend your range setting. It is 35 miles out and would be doing a pass-by. It looked so close because it was so big.
We had a lot of B-52/B-57 fly in area around Tyndall and McGuire (539 FIS). We would usually light them up at distance and when they applied counter measures I would turn on the Hydraulic magnetron and they would get on radio and tell us to cut out the games as they were conducting missions. Both bombers had a lot of counter measures but they couldn't keep up with our fast speed frequency changing.
Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jun 19, 2022 3:51:59 GMT 9
Speaking of Wild Weasels, I worked the F-4G WW at Spangdahlem AB Germany from 1978-1980. I was Chief of Simulators and worked closely with Intel folks and went to all Simulator planning meetings at Singer-Link, along with a WSO. The only thing wrong with F-4G was lack of weapons. Not supply issue, but ability to carry sufficient stores. So to make up for it, the F-4G would fly with 2 F-4E birds carrying extra weapons. So as the flight of three would enter active airspace at 4-500 feet or lower, the WSO would tell the pilot he had 10-15 targets so climb up to 1500' so I can get a better fix. To this the pilot would say "YGTBSM" (You got to be chitting me). After painting the SAMS/Radars the WSO would data ling coordinates to other F-4E birds who could "Shoot in the dark". At one contractor meeting the WSO explained to engineers that we needed many more active targets to closely monitor real life Europe. I had to interrupt and ask for closed meting. I had to make sure all had clearance and explain to them that what WSO had just exposed to them was Secret NOFORN. Our ability to shoot ground sites without line of sight was new and not to be released. We couldn't even tell our German partners.
Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jun 19, 2022 3:59:21 GMT 9
Having worked MA-1 from 1963-1971 I can say the only thing I saw on MA-1 Radar bigger than a B-52 was the Aluminum Overcast...The C-5. One day at Tyndall I was working a Six and checking out the Radar. I saw an aircraft on horizon and didn't see it on Radar. I was in long range settings. So I got on Comm and called Ground Control and asked if they had the aircraft on Radar. Their response was, extend your range setting. It is 35 miles out and would be doing a pass-by. It looked so close because it was so big. We had a lot of B-52/B-57 fly in area around Tyndall and McGuire (539 FIS). We would usually light them up at distance and when they applied counter measures I would turn on the Hydraulic magnetron and they would get on radio and tell us to cut out the games as they were conducting missions. Both bombers had a lot of counter measures but they couldn't keep up with our fast speed frequency changing. Lorin I'm reminded of something my old prof mentioned from when the 318th did Giant Voice--IIRC it was GV '81, the one where MAJ Anderson crapped the bed screwing around with the LeMay Trophy and got himself shitcanned and my prof elevated to Commanding Officer, mighta been late '70s. Anyway, they were tangling with some visiting RAF Vulcans participating in Bomb Comp, and from what he said his flying crews found the Vulcan one of the hardest targets they ever engaged. (IMHO, when UK MOD retired 'em we shoulda bought the entire force and refitted 'em to USAF practice including bangseats for everyone--use them as "Super Weasels" to force-multiply for the B-52 and B-1 force.) |
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Jun 19, 2022 10:18:14 GMT 9
Having worked MA-1 from 1963-1971 I can say the only thing I saw on MA-1 Radar bigger than a B-52 was the Aluminum Overcast...The C-5. One day at Tyndall I was working a Six and checking out the Radar. I saw an aircraft on horizon and didn't see it on Radar. I was in long range settings. So I got on Comm and called Ground Control and asked if they had the aircraft on Radar. Their response was, extend your range setting. It is 35 miles out and would be doing a pass-by. It looked so close because it was so big. We had a lot of B-52/B-57 fly in area around Tyndall and McGuire (539 FIS). We would usually light them up at distance and when they applied counter measures I would turn on the Hydraulic magnetron and they would get on radio and tell us to cut out the games as they were conducting missions. Both bombers had a lot of counter measures but they couldn't keep up with our fast speed frequency changing. Lorin You just sparked a memory...working in the Mock-Up we often got to see the results of debrief complaints. I had one of the flight line guys bring me a few receiver boxes one night because the pilot claimed that he could see a T-33 at 16 miles, but not a Buff at 4 miles. I told him I'd check them out, but not to get his hopes up. He agreed. Final result, all the boxes were good...and they added a new topic to mission briefings...bone up on your ECCW systems. |
|
