LRS-B... The B-21

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Flugzeug A

I assume it’ll be Xbillion per airframe.
I haven’t read the entire post but , how many are the USA claiming they’ll order right now & how many do people think they’ll ACTUALLY buy?
It strikes me as one of those ‘Brilliant but too expensive...’ pieces of kit.
On that basis & with other factors , I can’t see Australia buying any!

Supposedly the B-21 is being 'designed to cost' and it's at least being claimed that they are actually below budget and ahead of schedule (although I'd view that with a healthy dose of skepticism). I've heard a target price of ~$500 million/per copy, out the door (so including non-recurring costs). If they pull it off, a bargain compared to the ~$2 Billion each for the B-2.

[T28B]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Supposedly the B-21 is being 'designed to cost' and it's at least being claimed that they are actually below budget and ahead of schedule (although I'd view that with a healthy dose of skepticism). I've heard a target price of ~$500 million/per copy, out the door (so including non-recurring costs). If they pull it off, a bargain compared to the ~$2 Billion each for the B-2.

Not meaning to be cynical, but the F-35 had a projected price that didn't quite pan out.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by T28B

Not meaning to be cynical, but the F-35 had a projected price that didn't quite pan out.

I have a couple former co-workers and good friends who were on the Boeing JSF team. When the Lockmart design got chosen, they were aghast because it was so apparent that they'd never be about to build it at the advertised cost. They claimed that the Boeing proposal really was 'designed to cost' while it was readily apparent that the winning bid wasn't - in their words 'they won't be able to build it for twice what they are quoting'.
Which turned out to be a pretty accurate prediction

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by tdracer

I have a couple former co-workers and good friends who were on the Boeing JSF team. When the Lockmart design got chosen, they were aghast because it was so apparent that they'd never be about to build it at the advertised cost. They claimed that the Boeing proposal really was 'designed to cost' while it was readily apparent that the winning bid wasn't - in their words 'they won't be able to build it for twice what they are quoting'.
Which turned out to be a pretty accurate prediction

Well, Boeing shouldnt have designed the X-32 to look so wrong - it was never going to win. Also, given how Boeing eventually won the KC-X contract, a case of the pot calling the kettle black I think.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by T28B

Not meaning to be cynical, but the F-35 had a projected price that didn't quite pan out.

But it has panned out - now at about $80 million per unit for the A for the DoD (slightly more for FMS).

[rattman]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

But it has panned out - now at about $80 million per unit for the A for the DoD (slightly more for FMS).

Yeah its actually cheaper than an Apache. I will let that sink in, you can buy 3 F-35A's for every 2 Apache

[Asturias56]

shall we say - it's taken some time..................... and all those different build versions...........

[chopper2004]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

No doubt the PRC will pay close attention, too.

Mind you thought PLAAF were reportedly gonna unveil their H-20 at Zhuhai Air show, evidently it did not happen ...

However have been following Modern Chinese Warplanes FB page






Anyhow the Raider rollout will probably be in the hangar with sci fi lighting effects and the sheet chucked off it...

If I am correct it be 1600 their time when event will happen? Be down the pub for late one.....that night

cheers

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

But it has panned out - now at about $80 million per unit for the A for the DoD (slightly more for FMS).

You need to another ~$20 million for the F-35 engine (engines for the F-35 are accounted for in a separate contract than the airframe). Which gets it right up to that "twice" number...

[henra]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

shall we say - it's taken some time..................... and all those different build versions...........

But still it is currently terrific military value for the money. You can complain a lot about the sometimes somewhat twisted way up to this point. You can complain about details which are not yet working perfectly. But if you now buy an F-35A and especially if you wait for the Block IV you (will) get A LOT of bang for the buck.
With e.g. JASSM-ER and Meteor you have an extremely powerful platform for not much more money than legacy platforms.
But this comes as a result of huge quantities (and there also the big Export quantities) where you can distribute even 2- digit billion development costs easily. This is for me the big question mark with the B-21. This will be an exclusive US strategic Bomber. There will be no (big) Export Sales. Each development cost increase and each reduction in quantities will have a direct and massive impact on Unit cost.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by tdracer

You need to another ~$20 million for the F-35 engine (engines for the F-35 are accounted for in a separate contract than the airframe). Which gets it right up to that "twice" number...

Nope, that's no longer the case and hasn't been for quite a while now - the unit cost includes the engine.

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Supposedly the B-21 is being 'designed to cost' and it's at least being claimed that they are actually below budget and ahead of schedule (although I'd view that with a healthy dose of skepticism). I've heard a target price of ~$500 million/per copy, out the door (so including non-recurring costs). If they pull it off, a bargain compared to the ~$2 Billion each for the B-2.

The cost per airframe is always a bit interesting, imagine that ~$500m is if the program goes to the full 100+ airframes. The B-2 was always going to be pricy, but with the buy cut down applying the entire program costs to only 21 airframes the "per airframe" costs get eye watering. Think the B-2 was intended for @120 airframes. Of course a large buy also costs lots of money.

Other low production wallet busters: Space Shuttle (5 airframes), Air Force one replacement (2), F-22 (179), Japanese US1/PS1/F-2, C-1...

Makes the A-12/SR-71 seem like a bargain.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Sat 030030Z Dec 22 / Fri 02 1630 US PST Dec 22

(2) Northrop Grumman on Twitter: "We are one day away from the big reveal. Join us tomorrow at 4:30 pm Pacific to get your first look at the B-21: https://t.co/U2Who6wi3f This changes everything. #DefiningPossible #RiseoftheRaider https://t.co/A3mszU1fAm" / Twitter

[chopper2004]

Here she is

[rattman]

About as fugly as I expected

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by rattman

About as fugly as I expected

Came here for some expert analysis. I wasn't disappointed.

[ORAC]

[henra]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Another picture:
https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/202...=70&width=1440
and
https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/202...=70&width=1440
The side windows are interesting. Wonder what the reasoning behind their very low positioning and their existance at all (what usefull can you see when looking out of those windows?) is.
Otherwise looks like a neat refinement of the B-2. Smoother with the engines better hidden. Even less orthogonal angles mainly in the cockpit area. Would be intersting what the actual size is compared to B-2.

[alf5071h]

10 key facts about the Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider

Hype, fact, fiction ?

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what...s-b-21-raider/

[Asturias56]

seems to sit pretty low - not much space to get a munitions trolley under there as portrayed.