# US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber



## Greyman (Feb 26, 2016)

US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber


----------



## Capt. Vick (Feb 26, 2016)

I have a name: Massive Cost Overrun

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 26, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> I have a name: Massive Cost Overrun


We should start a pool to see how long it takes for the word "behind schedule" to pop up

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> We should start a pool to see how long it takes for the word "behind schedule" to pop up



And "it doesn't work, it's too slow, it's bomb load it too small, it's already obsolete, it's not maneuverable, it breaks all the time, it's not that stealthy, the pilot's can't see out of it, it's uncomfortable to fly in, the ejection seats kill women pilots..."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 26, 2016)

And: "it lost to an F-16 in a dogfight"!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Feb 26, 2016)

...nobody has released an accurate kit of it in 1/32 scale, the complaints go on and on...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Feb 28, 2016)

Meh...not sure i like the designation, B-21. But it goes along with all the other "21" themed things that the military has jumped on, trying to signify the "twenty first century" aspect. I wonder how many Air Force folks will be shivering every time they see this aircraft, thinking of the PTSD inducing bureaucracy and castrations of TAMI-21?

T!


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 28, 2016)

Still wondering why the B-3 designation was dropped...


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Still wondering why the B-3 designation was dropped...



Not dropped... changed... 2+1=3!

Now wait for someone to come up with a conspiracy theory about that!


----------



## Token (Feb 28, 2016)

The B-3 designation did not get dropped, that is a different aircraft. The B-3, and others, are part of the secret force that the military does not want the public to know about. As proven by the designators there are at least 19 secret bomber types in use or planned to be in use. They likely fly from the same bases as the Aurora. 

T!


----------



## yulzari (Feb 29, 2016)

Token said:


> The B-3 designation did not get dropped, that is a different aircraft. The B-3, and others, are part of the secret force that the military does not want the public to know about. As proven by the designators there are at least 19 secret bomber types in use or planned to be in use. They likely fly from the same bases as the Aurora.
> 
> T!


Powered by hypersonic engines using the Earth's gravity reverse engineered from alien craft...........................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 29, 2016)

Hmmm...not sure this will go down too well with the negative-laden press. I'm just waiting for the first headline to read "B-21 - Looks Just Like a B-2" - looks the same, must work the same so why are we paying so much for this shiny new thing? All this and it can't manoeuvre with an F-16. Bound to be a failure!


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 29, 2016)

I was waiting for the "can't maneuver with a Spitfire" remark!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 29, 2016)

Actually, there was a typo in the press release. The official name isn't B-21 it's B-2*.*1.

Sorry...couldn't resist.


----------



## davparlr (May 4, 2016)

DeJa vu all over again. I was on the proposal team for the B-2 and then became manager for Avionics Controls and Displays, responsible for hardware development, operational logic and symbology, software requirements, and software development. Very heady days. We were doing exciting things and couldn't tell anyone what we were doing or where we were going, including my wife. The program in general was the best of times and the worst of times. In the beginning it was great, coming up with control ideas, generating hardware requirements, building lab equipment, simulating the crew station with displays, entertaining constant flow of big shots, including Barry Goldwater, who I missed due to being out. The best of times. Then came making the daggone thing, getting suppliers to meet schedule and perfromance, solving interface problems, but most of all supporting first flight. It was costing one million dollars a day for every day we delayed first flight. Luckily, my system never affected first flight but the pressure was still there. The worst of times.

Comments on the reasons for cost and schedule growth

1. Unrealistic schedule led to non-existent systems engineering. On go ahead, we had to release specs and initiate procurement in order to meet first flight schedule. With subsystem contract go-head, system engineering stops and make-work engineering starts.
2. Poor program planning led to non support of procedures such as release cycle. I, only a first level manager, personally signed off on multi-million dollar contracts because there was nobody else to do it.
3. Contract selection, both prime and subcontractor, weighs both cost and schedule heavily forcing contractors to optimize both in order to get the contract. They propose the perfect program, WHICH NEVER OCCURS! And, cost models can be manipulated and/or mismanaged.
4. Little contract discipline. We had both firm fixed price and cost plus contracts. Both could, and often did, result in cost and schedule impacts. No one tended to object to Program creep. The User customer wanted their ideas incorporated, the Prime was too happy to implement to get more money, so too the subcontractors. Congressional sources were also happy in more work for their constituents. And the Program Office, charged with maintaining Program performance, was not strong enough to counter the User community.

There were many others but I felt these were the biggies early in the program.

Military programs have a designed in system to overrun cost and delay schedule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2016)

davparlr said:


> We had both firm fixed price and cost plus contracts. Both could, and often did, result in cost and schedule impacts. No one tended to object to Program creep. The User customer wanted their ideas incorporated, the Prime was too happy to implement to get more money, so too the subcontractors. Congressional sources were also happy in more work for their constituents. And the Program Office, charged with maintaining Program performance, was not strong enough to counter the User community.


 And this was/ is the scenario for the F-35 that few understand, but then again is this the norm for almost every government contract these days. It seems the end user has folks (who I call parasites) who do nothing but create solutions for problems that don't exist and in the end justify their GS-XX positions. The "MIC" doesn't exist at some mahogany corporate office(s), it lives within the pentagon, perpetuated by people living off our tax dollars!

(stepping off soapbox)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 12, 2018)

USAF ‘Bomber Vector’ revealed – B-52 to be upgraded, B-1 and B-2 to be scrapped | Combat Aircraft


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2018)

I cant get my head around this....let me get this straight. B2 and B1 to be scrapped and B-52 to be kept? How is that logical?


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I cant get my head around this....let me get this straight. B2 and B1 to be scrapped and B-52 to be kept? How is that logical?



There hasn’t been any bombing against a country with a significanr air defense network for 40 years. The B-52 is capacious and cheap to run. The countries with capable air defense networks all have nukes.


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 13, 2018)

Well isn't this dandy.
Speaking only to my time working with B-52's and B-1's side by side in actions over Afghanistan, the B-1 dropped far more tonnage with fewer airframes available. The B-52 still got more love though. While the MC rates of both were fairly miserable, the B-1 was just slightly better. I am not shilling for the bone, it's just that I don't see keeping the -52 and burying the bone (pun intended). I can certainly understand the cost side of things which are true, but operational requirements, of which the B-1 has some significant advantages in theater, seem to be ignored. That said, I am damn glad I was never a hydro troop on a bone. One of the worst jobs in the AF!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2018)

Right now we're looking at about 100 B-21s, I have't seen anything about the production run and when the first ones will enter service, but it would seem like once their numbers start hitting USAF tarmacs, the B-1s and B-2s should start going away. Amazing that the article mentions that a 257 bomber force is unsustainable!


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 13, 2018)

Then think about the 1000 bomber sorties in the ETO...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> Then think about the 1000 bomber sorties in the ETO...


Exactly!


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 13, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the ejection seats kill women pilots..."


Ejection seats have a higher probability of killing female aircrew?



Token said:


> The B-3, and others, are part of the secret force that the military does not want the public to know about.


Who knows these days, I wouldn't be all that shocked: Admittedly it raises questions why we have the force we currently have in public. Some kind of modern day "Wunderwaffe"?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Ejection seats have a higher probability of killing female aircrew?


You need to read up on the "alleged" issues with the F-35 ejection seat. Google, google, google....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 13, 2018)

At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.

I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.
> 
> I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.


That's a pretty wide debate. With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews and it seems the B-21 will retain a 2 man crew. I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area, or have this portable highway overpass dropping scores on precision weapons on the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 13, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's a pretty wide debate. With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews and it seems the B-21 will retain a 2 man crew. I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area, or have this portable highway overpass dropping scores on precision weapons on the enemy.



In the latter scenario, each weapon could be independently guided to the target by real-time updates from offboard sensors and platforms. Frankly, in this scenario, I see little need for the "bomb truck" to be a manned platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 14, 2018)

If the USAF gets rid of the B-52, they’ll need to come up with a new line to replace the one about pilots flying planes older than their grandfathers. They get a lot of mileage from that in budget battles, keeping money from any bureaucracy’s true foes, other government agencies, like the army, navy, or NSF


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> In the latter scenario, each weapon could be independently guided to the target by real-time updates from offboard sensors and platforms. Frankly, in this scenario, I see little need for the "bomb truck" to be a manned platform.


Exactly! And I think the general public really don't understand how accurate this technology has become.
Another option is to have these bombers as weapons standoffs where another weapons platform can utilize the bomber's payload after expelling its own. This scenario has been discussed here before. US Air Force plans to upgrade the B-1B aircraft in the Fighter/Interceptors - Defence Blog


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 14, 2018)

I remember seeing something about the B-1's being used to carry missiles that would fly back behind the F-35s and once the F-35s had expended it's munitions, the B-1s could launch theirs and the F-35s would take control of them. That I think is an awesome idea!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 14, 2018)

Yeah...but not as cool as one of these:







Now THAT's what I call a flying bomb truck!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 14, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You need to read up on the "alleged" issues with the F-35 ejection seat. Google, google, google....


Weight issues...



> With the exception of the B-52 large bombers are being operated with smaller crews


Never knew that until now...


> I think the mindset is to still have a large bombardment vehicle that could be recalled or diverted. As we know autonomous technology has exploded so this has to be weighed against the need to man a large bomb dump truck that could saturate an area


Yeah, but if that unmanned bomb-truck saturates an area due to a glitch in it's programming people will be pissed. I'm worried about when it becomes timed to couple automated systems with nuclear weapons to automated control systems that direct wars...


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 14, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Yeah, but if that unmanned bomb-truck saturates an area due to a glitch in it's programming people will be pissed.



There's no more risk of that happening in an unmanned platform than there is in a manned platform. In all modern combat aircraft, the pilot interacts with the computer and it's the computer that does EVERYTHING. A bug in the code is a bug in the code, and a carbon-based pilot can't do much (anything) to solve the problem in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Walrus (Feb 15, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Hmmm...not sure this will go down too well with the negative-laden press. I'm just waiting for the first headline to read "B-21 - Looks Just Like a B-2" - looks the same, must work the same so why are we paying so much for this shiny new thing? All this and it can't manoeuvre with an F-16. Bound to be a failure!


TBH I was just thinking that it looks like a B-2 with a one stuck on the end. 

Don't worry about the Albino Dumbo going over cost, Uncle Donny will just increase the Military budget to 70% of GDP.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> There's no more risk of that happening in an unmanned platform than there is in a manned platform. In all modern combat aircraft, the pilot interacts with the computer and it's the computer that does EVERYTHING.


Yes, but with a person removed, an error has that much more a risk of being disastrous. In some cases a person could tell the computer effectively "NO WAIT!!!"


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Yes, but with a person removed, an error has that much more a risk of being disastrous. In some cases a person could tell the computer effectively "NO WAIT!!!"



Firstly unmanned does not necessarily mean autonomous (ie the bomb truck could well be remotely piloted). Your second point is, I'm afraid, pretty bogus. Currently, weapons release ALWAYS involves a human-in-the-loop (even on UCAVs) to confirm the target before the ordnance is pickled. Per my previous point, if the human initiates weapons release then the weapons will release...and there's nothing he/she can do about it. Computers operate in milliseconds whereas humans take 1-3 seconds to react. There's no way to beat the computer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2018)

buffnut453,

Yes, but there have been desires to have computers operate without a person in the loop


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> buffnut453,
> 
> Yes, but there have been desires to have computers operate without a person in the loop



Desiring a capability is one thing. Turning into a viable reality in a complex operational battlespace is something entirely different. For now, we're still talking very much about human-in-the-loop. Sadly, even if we went to "human monitoring the loop", if there was a bug that caused inadvertent weapons launch, there's little the human could do about it. The ordnance would be off the rail before the human realized anything had happened. This is why any flight/mission critical software receives such stringent attention to ensure safe operation. As stated previously, humans no longer fly aeroplanes. Computers fly aeroplanes. The human just makes the decision of where to go and what to do once they get there.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> At $1B a copy for the B-2, that would certainly have bought a lot of Tomahawks or other guided munitions.
> 
> I have to wonder if the age of a large manned bomber has passed.


Each B-2 can carry 80 precision guided weapons, 20 B-2 can attack 1600 separate targets. Each 500 lb JDAM cost $25k or $40m per 20 missions . Each tomahawk cost $1,000,000 or $1.6B per 1600 missions. After about 13 missions, total cost expenditures would be equal to B-2 fleet cost. And the B-2s can be reused, tomahawks cannot. B-2 are also far more flexible for mission planning. While I agree that manned bombers should become obsolete, large platform stealth drones carrying attack weapons are not. This is strickly a thumb nail estimate but does show that cruise missile cost is driver in procuring weapons and can't be dismissed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2018)

davparlr said:


> Each B-2 can carry 80 precision guided weapons, 20 B-2 can attack 1600 separate targets. Each 500 lb JDAM cost $25k or $40m per 20 missions . Each tomahawk cost $1,000,000 or $1.6B per 1600 missions. After about 13 missions, total cost expenditures would be equal to B-2 fleet cost. And the B-2s can be reused, tomahawks cannot. B-2 are also far more flexible for mission planning. While I agree that manned bombers should become obsolete, large platform stealth drones carrying attack weapons are not. This is strickly a thumb nail estimate but does show that cruise missile cost is driver in procuring weapons and can't be dismissed.


Additionally, from what I understand, the B-2's operational life isn't so much based on airframe stress rather than the man hours required to maintain the aircraft (surface coatings).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2018)

The modification of the B-2 from a high altitude bomber to a low level terrain following bomber caused extensive redesign and affected altitude and cost, both of which I suspect the AF would like back. However, because of that, and the fact the B-2 will likely always be a high altitude bomber, the airframe will probably last forever!


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 29, 2018)

davparlr said:


> The modification of the B-2 from a high altitude bomber to a low level terrain following bomber caused extensive redesign and affected altitude and cost, both of which I suspect the AF would like back. However, because of that, and the fact the B-2 will likely always be a high altitude bomber, the airframe will probably last forever!



So help me out here. How many times, as defensive technology evolves, has the US gone from high altitude to low altitude back to high altitude and then back again?

If the BUFF can still get it done (high altitude), then we need to keep the BONE and bring back F-111's (low level terrain followers). What's old is new again! Oh wait... as long as I don't have to maintain those suckers. ANYTHING swing wing is a hydraulic nightmare!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Frazer (Jul 21, 2018)

I'm wondering about possible modularity of payload accomodaiton. Everything is going multi-role these days, and that's why a manned plane and not just a big UCAV. It's billed as a future controller and ELINT platform and AAW missile-carrier.
Maybe crew access back into the payload bay area, since it has crew of two, special gear would mean more space avaialbel for people. Possible insertion of parachutist or delivery of payload other than drop-able bombs as well.
The B-2 was the only thing that can carry the MOP, and I can't imagine them being comfortable without that capability being retained. No Tomahawk can fill that role. That's different from carrying a lot of 500lb JDAMs, and even nukes are pretty small in comparison to big conventional or penetrating bombs


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 24, 2018)

....and before you know it, we're back to....


----------

