Bomber B-21 Raider. Air Force hopes and funding problems

23
According to the current plans of the Pentagon, by the middle of the next decade a promising long-range bomber B-21 Raider, developed by Northrop Grumman, should fly into the air. Creating a new machine for the air force is associated with certain problems of a technical, financial and organizational nature. As it became known in recent weeks, actual problems may prevent the desired results. In particular, it was about the possible tightening of work and exit from the established schedule.

Recall that in 2014, the US military launched a new development program for a promising long-range bomber under the designation Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B). In October of next year, the company Northrop Grumman became the winner of the preliminary projects competition. Despite criticism from competitors, it was she who received the order to design a new car. A few months later the bomber received the official designation B-21 and the additional name Raider.



To date, the lead developer and the Pentagon have identified a list of subcontractors, and also began full-fledged design work. Over the next few years, it is expected to complete the pilot design stage of the project and begin preparing the serial construction of aircraft. It was at this stage that the B-21 project had some problems directly related to the general negative situation in the highest echelons of American power.



On January 18, Northrop Grumman B-21’s development theme was touched upon by US Deputy Secretary of the Air Force Matt Donovan. At that time, there were fierce disputes in Congress about the further financing of a number of defense programs. Among other things, it was proposed to reduce allocations for some projects, one of which could be a program for developing a new long-range bomber. According to M. Donovan, this could lead to inhibition of design work.

Also, the Congress could not decide on a decision on further financing of state bodies, which could lead to a temporary suspension of their work. Under these conditions, the leadership of the Air Force was worried that lawmakers could propose a new reduction in military spending that could harm the progress of promising projects. Along with other new developments, the B-21 aircraft could have been cut.

M. Donovan noted that the long-term cost reduction at the moment is capable of hitting the research and development stages of the B-21 Raider project. The costs of new projects can be reduced to the level of the 2010 of the fiscal year, in which case the application for the current 2018 will be only partially satisfied. All of this can have critical consequences in the context of various programs and projects, including LRS-B.

Press representatives asked M. Donovan about the future prospects of the B-21 bomber. They are interested in when new aircraft will be able to achieve initial operational readiness, if funding problems persist. The deputy minister replied that the impossibility of saving the required expenses for the project will really affect the timing of its implementation. However, he did not give specific data and specify when the troops will be able to master the new technology.

Meanwhile, the Air Force leadership is working on creating a new draft of its budget for the 2019 fiscal year. The budget request was to be submitted in mid-February. M. Donovan did not specify the details of the draft, but noted some features of its development. According to him, the draft defense budget for the next year was drawn up in parallel with the work on the National Security Strategy. In accordance with the latter, the United States should have certain advantages over Russia and China. The new draft military budget takes into account these requirements.

The Deputy Minister of the Air Force did not indicate the exact numbers or disclose other details, but touched on the theme of the B-21 / LRS-B program. According to him, the project promising long-range bomber will certainly receive increased funding. However, it was not specified how the allocations will increase.

Already after Matt Donovan’s speech, it became clear that the Congress was still unable to arrive at the necessary decisions in time. Already on January 20 - on the second day after the statements of the Deputy Minister of the Air Force - the work of the state bodies was suspended for two days. Lack of money should have a negative impact on the work of many structures, as well as have an undesirable impact on a number of projects. However, the following official mention of the B-21 Raider project was not so pessimistic.

A few days ago, the military and political leadership of the United States published a new Nuclear Policy Review. This document indicated the peculiarities of the current situation and the challenges facing the US nuclear forces. In addition, its authors have indicated some plans for the further development of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, as well as their carriers. One of the sections of the review was devoted to the air component of the nuclear triad, including the promising project.

The Nuclear Policy Review recalled that, to date, the US has launched a program to build and deploy the next-generation B-21 Raider bomber. The goal of this program is to strengthen the grouping of strategic bombers, with the subsequent replacement of the existing equipment of this class. Similar processes will be launched in the mid-twenties.

There are no other references to the B-21 project in the Nuclear Policy Review. Nevertheless, this document contains some information about promising tactical and strategic weapons that can be used with the new aircraft. The authors of the document recalled some existing and prospective projects aviation weapons of destruction equipped with nuclear warheads. At the same time, as indicated, some of these products can be used by other carriers, including those from the category of tactical aviation.

Strategic and tactical bombers will be able to use the free-falling bombs B83-1 and B61-11 to hit some targets. Pentagon intends to keep it weapon in the arsenals over the next few years. They will remain in service, at least until such time as the promising B61-12 munition equipped with guidance systems shows all its capabilities. The entry of this bomb into service is scheduled for 2020 year.

The Survey recalls that in the early eighties, the US strategic bombers became carriers of new air-based cruise missiles, but by now the latter have lost their full potential. To maintain the required percussion capabilities of the B-52H aircraft, a long-range Long-Range Stand-Off long-range cruise missile (LRSO) is being developed. In the future, it can enter the nomenclature of weapons of the new B-21 bomber. The presence of such ammunition will ensure the preservation of the required capabilities for the breakthrough of a complex anti-aircraft defense system of a potential enemy.

To date, the Pentagon and the company Northrop Grumman have managed to reveal some details of the promising project B-21 Raider. According to the approved plans, the new aircraft should become a kind of development of the ideas embodied in the B-2 project. The project is based on the concept of a subsonic subtle aircraft built according to the “flying wing” scheme and capable of carrying missile or bomb armaments. One of the main tasks of such a bomber will be a hidden exit to the area of ​​launching rockets or dropping bombs in order to destroy the main enemy air defense targets. Leaving the enemy without a significant part of the defense systems, the B-21 Raider bombers will allow tactical aircraft to begin their work.

According to various data and estimates, the promising B-21 will be smaller and lighter than the existing B-2. The wingspan may not exceed 35-40 m, and the normal take-off weight will be within 100 tons. The aircraft will receive turbojet engines from Pratt & Whitney. With the help of such a power plant, he will be able to fly at subsonic speed and show high values ​​of the flight range and combat radius. There is no exact information about the vehicle's combat load.

In accordance with the 2015 contract of the year, which determined the conditions for creating a new aircraft, the total cost of the entire development and construction program was to reach 80 billions of dollars. As often happens with bold projects, already in the course of project work, the need to increase funding was identified. Last November, Congress approved a new program cost - 97 billion. Most of this money will go to the production of mass-produced aircraft.

According to current plans, which, however, can be adjusted for economic and organizational reasons, the first prototype of a new type will have to take off no earlier than the beginning of the next decade. The next few years will go to the test and refinement of the machine, after which the company Northrop Grumman will be able to begin mass production of equipment for supply to the air force.

The approved schedule requires the transfer of serial B-21 to the troops at the end of the first half of the twenties. No later than 2025, these machines will have to reach the stage of initial operational readiness. Subsequently, the air force will put a few dozen production machines, the development of which will continue for a long time, until the late thirties or early forties.

The number of required LRS-B / B-21 bombers for several years remained a topic of controversy at all levels. One of the tasks of these machines will be at least a partial replacement of existing types of aircraft. In addition, the Pentagon wants to increase the qualitative and quantitative potential of long-range aviation. As a result, the ability to purchase a significant number of new bombers, up to 130-140 units, was called at different periods.

By now, such plans have been revised and have become noticeably more modest, but still look impressive. Starting in the mid-twenties, the United States Air Force wants to get at least a hundred new aircraft. In the future, the possibility of the appearance of a new order for several dozen machines is not excluded. Nevertheless, a similar contract - if it is signed - will appear only in the distant future.

Numerous statements by officials and various documents clearly show that the military and political leadership of the United States are well aware of the need for the LRS-B program and its result in the form of the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider bomber. The design of this aircraft has already been launched, and in the foreseeable future it will lead to the desired results. At the same time, disagreements in certain circles and the lack of consensus on the distribution of budget money can lead to known problems.

A few weeks ago, the Deputy Minister of the Air Force pointed out that the current disputes over the financing of state structures are capable of hitting the B-21 project and shifting the timing of the appearance of its real results. The January budget problems were solved in a few days, and this may be cause for optimism. However, the specific situation in Washington may lead to new situations like this, and disagreements among lawmakers will only worsen the situation. Obviously, the Pentagon will be able to bring the project B-21 Raider to the desired final, but when this happens and what will be the final cost of the entire program - it remains only to guess. Too many problems can be in the way of a major, but complex and expensive project.


Based on:
https://defensenews.com/
http://janes.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://armyrecognition.com/
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    8 February 2018 16: 16
    "Chef, it's all gone." In addition to the fact that the new bomb carrier will not fly, more than a third of the American A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft will never take off again, there is no money to replace the wings.
    As always, VO correspondents consume sturgeon of the second freshness. Everyone has already decided. Leaders of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate reached a compromise on budget parameters for 2 years. This was announced by the leader of the democratic minority in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, DW reports. According to him, the budget provides the necessary resources to our military, will increase costs and end the permanent state of sequestration. Budget expenditures, including defense, will increase by $ 300 billion over the next two years.
    So the B-21 continues to develop, the wings will change. Do not move the timelines to the right.
  2. +3
    8 February 2018 16: 37
    It seems that this AIR SILVER and at the price of the namesake will be equal ...
    1. +1
      8 February 2018 17: 29
      A bomber is striped, it is very necessary. Russia resumed production of the upgraded Tu-160, the Chinese, with their yellow paws, steal something and thousands of pieces are scribbled. And the Yankees that restore B-52 or B-1.
      1. 0
        11 February 2018 12: 25
        B-21 - the development of B-2. Smaller overall dimensions, less payload,
        more stealth.
        1. 0
          11 February 2018 15: 40
          I’ll write in Russian, Willie ???
  3. +3
    8 February 2018 16: 47
    cheap replacement pins
    in principle, everything is true, the cost of the spy and its operation is sky-high, to change the concept and move away from the inconspicuous beaver-rocket carrier which you’ll catch the hell on time, the penguins don’t want to,
    so replace too expensive pins with a cheaper analogue with the same functionality, the idea is sound,
    another question is what will come of it,
    At the moment, all major programs in the United States come out of the initial budget very strongly, if the essence of the program is cost savings, then it would be possible to fail the topic.
    Although - nothing fundamentally new seems to be offered, if you do not reinvent the wheel and use the best practices from the F35 and B2 programs, then probably with a competent approach you can get a modern stealth for sane money.
  4. Kir
    0
    8 February 2018 16: 47
    f-117 / b-2 / ... apparently the fate of b-21 would be to replenish the ranks of these expensive irons, if they did, and then only on the old b-52 they could put a merry-go-round for cruise missiles, and they hardly entered it.
  5. +1
    8 February 2018 20: 12
    LCS, F-22, F-35, B-2, railgun, Zamvolt, the modernization of the old Abroms at the price of building a new Armata - and so on everywhere.
    However, famously they saw! Nifiga did not take off, but sawing - famously!
    1. 0
      9 February 2018 20: 41
      however, as in your defense ministry
  6. +1
    8 February 2018 20: 59
    By the way, I propose immediately to lay in the design for a combat laser or railgun at the same time. So that's right ... how to ...
  7. +1
    9 February 2018 00: 46
    There is no doubt that they will come out of the announced price. Like everywhere, lately. Which, however, does not prevent them from building the significantly expensive Virginia, Lightning, Fords, Berks and others.
  8. 0
    9 February 2018 00: 55
    No, of course I believe that in the USA there are very smart, smart, ingenious designers. No less brilliant managers, as well as the fact that they are helped by an alien mind. But who will explain to me: how can a more perfect aircraft (because: B-2 was counted on counteracting a maximum of “Bukam” and S-300) cost (moreover, decently - more than double) than “Spirit”? I had a triple in economics, maybe I missed something important and I don’t know?
    1. 0
      9 February 2018 07: 11
      Likely to switch to plywood and fabric frame :)
      Seriously, they’ll do it, of course, but its full cost will definitely be higher than that of B2. And by pushing the allies by analogy to the F-35 program, the price can not be reduced. And in the case of the F-35 it’s just a marketing ploy with virtual price frauds, and not a real cheapening of the product). Unless they have full communism will come and they will cancel the money ... :)
      1. 0
        9 February 2018 11: 31
        Quote: g1washntwn
        And by pushing the allies by analogy to the F-35 program, the price can not be reduced.

        The fact of the matter is that only the US Air Force will become the only buyer of this wonderful airplane. There will be no financial influence from outside.
        Even if we take into account that developments on V-2, F-22, F-35 will be widely used, the Raider will have to meet the requirements of the future. These are new solutions and huge funds. Two conclusions can be drawn here:
        1. Either the B-2 turned out to be not at all as good as it is presented, and the Americans are aware of its incapacity, having decided to urgently "work on the mistakes", and realized that there is no way to do with modernization. In fact, why would they need another bomber, so soon? So now they have a fair margin, B-52 and B-1 will stand until 2040, B-2 - until 2060.
        2. Everyone (developer, military, Congress) is deceiving each other, and they know this very well, but I pretend that they don’t notice anything, and are preparing for the next development of a pretty swollen military budget. Moreover, the creation of a real aircraft is not necessary at all - you can simulate violent activity, for example, editing a video, write a report on how the B-21 alone crushes enemies and its efficiency is 500% higher than that of the B-2, invite a handy carpenter to make a wonderful a wooden model, and show it to everyone, and everyone will deeply penetrate and admire the American genius. Allocating money for this, naturally
        1. 0
          9 February 2018 11: 36
          The old scheme of Odessa plumbers: Madame, your water closet is clogged, you need to urgently change to a new one! But for this you need to break the wall and hold pipes ... by the way, my brother can organize all this and will make you a little pleasant discount.
        2. 0
          12 February 2018 19: 29
          Quote: Gregory_45
          The fact of the matter is that only the US Air Force will become the only buyer of this wonderful airplane. There will be no financial influence from outside.



          Did they ever sell their bombers to other countries? Neither B-52, nor B-1, much less B-2 was exported. What kind of injections can we talk about?

          And the problems will constantly emerge in print and it doesn’t matter how the development works. As the cost is limited in 500 million. By hook or by crook, they will beat out money. The case is already familiar.
        3. -1
          9 August 2018 06: 48
          "not so good" only in one tomahawks he is incapable of carrying (as they say here either stealth, or being a good bomber like our Tu-160 carrying up to 42 tons of weapons, but with this scheme the Tu-160 simply cannot be made using stealth technology , even if sheathed with radar absorbing materials like b-2 (one even has a cockpit lantern with gold added to the glass, the price for one plane is one and a half billion dollars (for comparison, you can buy 450 T-90 tanks for this money)
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. -1
      9 August 2018 06: 50
      money is being sawn there no worse than ours
  9. +2
    9 February 2018 11: 26
    Quote: Kir
    f-117 / b-2 / ... apparently the fate of b-21 would be to replenish the ranks of these expensive irons, if they did, and then only on the old b-52 they could put a merry-go-round for cruise missiles, and they hardly entered it.

    With difficulties? Wow. I didn’t know. I did not know that the same "carousel" was on the V-1B before it was taken out of the nuclear structure and dismantled this carousel. And probably already 16 AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles in the bomb bay at the V-2B in bulk lay (like 16 AGM-158 cruise missiles)
    And what you just don’t recognize in
    1. -1
      9 August 2018 06: 43
      B1 can’t carry a long-range missile launcher (wiki to help) the tomahawk just doesn’t climb inside, they tried to make external holders, so B1 became poorly controlled due to pylons, so now it’s just a carrier of free-fall nuclear bombs (and against our anti-aircraft defense Mig-31 itself with a detection range of up to 320 km and S-400, he can’t even enter close to the drop zones, except to throw bombs on the Papuans) he still has short-range air-ground missiles, but they are without nuclear warheads
  10. -1
    9 August 2018 06: 39
    As I understand it, it will be the same B-2, only with an extended bomb bay under long missiles (the b-2 now carries only short-range bombs and missiles, just like the b-1) the Tu-160 fired from a distance -Run for new missiles, the plane is quite suitable for us (especially with the advent of instead of the x-55 missiles with a range of 5000 km)
  11. 0
    9 August 2018 08: 44
    Quote: nikoliski
    B1 can’t carry a long-range missile launcher (wiki to help) the tomahawk just doesn’t climb inside, they tried to make external holders, so B1 became poorly controlled due to pylons, so now it’s just a carrier of free-fall nuclear bombs (and against our anti-aircraft defense Mig-31 itself with a detection range of up to 320 km and S-400, he can’t even enter close to the drop zones, except to throw bombs on the Papuans) he still has short-range air-ground missiles, but they are without nuclear warheads

    Nikolay! Wiki, of course, is a fairly mobile encyclopedia, but alas, not the ultimate truth. If you would seriously study the history of this bomber, you would know that
    1. Before the bomber was withdrawn from the US strategic nuclear forces, its first two bomb compartments were merged into one. The rotary launcher, which housed the AGM-86 cruise missiles, was quietly placed there.
    2. He also had pylons, on which the same cruise missiles could be suspended
    3. Yes, now it is not “strategic” in classifying START treaties. The problem was considered for a very long time by joint commissions of the USA and the Russian Federation. Our diligent was not satisfied that the alterations that made the B-1B "non-strategic" were cosmetic. That is, the outer pylons could be returned to the place, since the seats of these pylons were not destroyed so that it would be impossible to return them. The partition dividing the twin bomb bay so that the KR does not fit there was such that this partition could be dismantled quickly enough, giving the B-1B again the possibility of a “strategic"
    4. Mig-31 and S-400 - this is a bit very good. But ask yourself how many MIG-31s ​​are in service throughout Russia. And how many S-400 will be in the army. Both the one and the other system are not military, they are more likely to belong to the country's air defense, and not military. And the function of B-1B will not be striking at strategic targets, but only against secondary ones. But in this situation, the problem of the destruction of B-1B becomes quite problematic. Indeed, modern nuclear munitions are capable of hitting targets even when dropped from a distance of 20-30 km
    5. So, as is customary to say in relation to B-1B, not "everything is clear." Now it is a “second line” bomber, fulfilling by no means strategic goals. As for the Papuans. Believe me, our aviation and the US aviation are not intended mainly for a "war of annihilation" when there is a nuclear mess. Basically, both here and in them, the basis of wars is the war against the Papuans. Agree that even stinking in Afghanistan, even though the war in Syria is not a war with an equal in strength enemy. Namely with the "Papuans"
    1. -1
      9 August 2018 10: 16
      I agree with many things, but as for the Mig-31, they are just in the areas of a possible breakthrough, patrolling the north of the country where there are no permanent air defense systems (the Mig-31 bases of Arkhangelsk and Kotlas) 10 Mig with their powerful radars (by the way, they can exchange data) create a zone of continuous detection and control of a thousand kilometers long, and at a speed of 3000 km h and thanks to long-range missiles, I think if they were raised by alarm the war begins to slip past them such solid targets as the B-1 are unlikely to be able to, if one and leaks, he won’t just bombard wild territories, and as he approaches cities or other objects he will “meet” something else in the face, for example, an air defense missile system, at least (of which we have about 300 pieces) in addition to hundreds of S-300 and C -400 there are still hundreds of Tungussok air defense missile systems Arrow air defense system Osa (since B1 must break through the defenses at an altitude of 60 meters they can also knock it out and “drop” it) the Americans did not in vain conduct research and said that their aircraft did not act normally against us will be able to (they take too much into account losses) So their main weapon, which is really scary for us, is the traders on 14 Ohio nuclear submarines and these missiles are capable of destroying most of the cities of our country even without bombing (there are no more than 24 traders on each boat 4 now on strategic offensive arms warheads cost 475 kilotons, but in the "margin" you can attach up to 14 kiloton warheads with a KVO of 100 meters to each missile.) I read that they are warheads removed by strategic offensive arms only they are kept in warehouses and not how we sold them to them at nuclear power plants Ohio alone, you can put up so many warheads that we are more than enough ...