US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Zool

Zool

Junior Member
Brumby said:
If I understand the proposed project costing correctly, the $550 million unit cost is only for the airframe. The classified portion is the cost of the family of systems that would be incorporated into the plane. Such systems would probably be the sensors, avionics and CNI as the core capabilities for spectrum domination. I agree that it is probably possible to determine the capabilities of the plane if such an amount is known.
Click to expand...

That's just not the case though. $500 odd million dollars per unit was the initial flyaway cost estimate during the program bid, not just the cost of the airframe. The government is looking for an updated per unit flyaway cost estimate since then (not a line by line cost analysis of each subsystem), and the USAF does not want to give it up. The quotes in the article I posted scream aversion to oversight and a fear of budget cuts; to me anyway.

Here is an article on B-21 costs from earlier in the year:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Zool said:
That's just not the case though. $500 odd million dollars per unit was the initial flyaway cost estimate during the program bid, not just the cost of the airframe.
Click to expand...
The flyaway cost if I correlate to other official statements indicate a clean airframe without the necessary systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

McCain has advocated for that information to become public, but Walden on Tuesday said those numbers have little value to the public because they don't account for the total cost of the bomber as family of systems.
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Air Force has said developing the B-21 will cost about $23.5 billion total and that buying 100 of the stealthy, exotic long-range strike aircraft will cost about $55 billion. “That number is just for the bomber,” Walden said, noting that the “family of systems” it will use will cost extra.
Click to expand...
It is the cost of the family of systems that is being classified.
 
Zool

Zool

Junior Member
Brumby said:
The flyaway cost if I correlate to other official statements indicate a clean airframe without the necessary systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is the cost of the family of systems that is being classified.
Click to expand...

Family of systems in this case likely means the weapons package, it does not mean sub systems. As the quotes say, the price is for the bomber. The bid was for the bomber at the approx. $500 million per unit cost estimate. These USAF bids have never before excluded the systems that comprise a flyaway aircraft like radar, avionics, engine etc, so unless procurement and unit cost definition has recently changed (it hasn't), then the estimate is for the total aircraft cost minus payload and whatever else makes up 'family of systems'. Government wants an updated per unit cost estimate. Seems reasonable to me.

Edit - Just to put this to bed, you can also look at the above quote you included which notes approx. $55 Billion for a purchase of 100 B-21. That works out roughly to the initial bid cost of $500 Million per flyaway aircraft. At least that is the understanding until the Air Forces releases updated per unit costs :)
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Zool said:
Family of systems in this case likely means the weapons package, it does not mean sub systems. As the quotes say, the price is for the bomber. The bid was for the bomber at the approx. $500 million per unit cost estimate. These USAF bids have never before excluded the systems that comprise a flyaway aircraft like radar, avionics, engine etc, so unless procurement and unit cost definition has recently changed (it hasn't), then the estimate is for the total aircraft cost minus payload and whatever else makes up 'family of systems'. Government wants an updated per unit cost estimate. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
You can certainly make that argument but it doesn't correlate to these back and forth over some classified costings. The B-21 in my view is clearly an upgraded B-2. The USAF probably has solid costing on a B-21 airframe with existing sensors and avionics. That to me is their baseline cost. There is something else that the USAF wants to keep classified and that to me are the future capabilities and that effectively are the electronics because the B-21 is simply a spectrum dominant platform. It is this capability that the USAF wants to keep a lid on. Weapons package just don't add up.
The Senate is clearly concern because the cost blowout from the F-35 program is with sensor fusion and they don't want to see a repeat with this family of systems in the B-21.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Brumby said:
You can certainly make that argument but it doesn't correlate to these back and forth over some classified costings. The B-21 in my view is clearly an upgraded B-2.
Click to expand...
B21 is likely to be a massively different bird then B2. I mean B2 was designed over 35 YEARS AGO!!
There will no doubt be similarities between the two yes but 30 years of technology and material sciences evolution. as well as some mission difference between the two is likely to mean that B21 is not a B2 rebranded. The question is now where with the Avionics and engines and sub systems.
 
Zool

Zool

Junior Member
Brumby said:
You can certainly make that argument but it doesn't correlate to these back and forth over some classified costings. The B-21 in my view is clearly an upgraded B-2. The USAF probably has solid costing on a B-21 airframe with existing sensors and avionics. That to me is their baseline cost. There is something else that the USAF wants to keep classified and that to me are the future capabilities and that effectively are the electronics because the B-21 is simply a spectrum dominant platform. It is this capability that the USAF wants to keep a lid on. Weapons package just don't add up.
The Senate is clearly concern because the cost blowout from the F-35 program is with sensor fusion and they don't want to see a repeat with this family of systems in the B-21.
Click to expand...

Well you replied after my short edit so you may have missed the math you yourself included in the prior message, but it absolutely adds up.

There's not much more I can say on this really because it is what it is, in terms of the way USAF deals with aircraft procurement and bids. No speculation required. The Air Force is the final customer and operator, not an integrator. It pays Boeing or LM for finished ready-to-fly aircraft.

I'm pretty confident 'family of systems' refers to the weapons package (as they are indeed systems in and of themselves) and perhaps simulators and maintenance systems as well. But there is zero doubt that the initial bid estimate of $500 Million per unit is for flyaway aircraft. All that remains is an update on that cost. We'll get it sooner or later and bet on it being higher than $500 Mil.

Adding to Terran's post, B-21 development will be much more cost efficient versus B-2 because it will be using in relative terms, off-the-self technology, especially on the electronics and engine side. B-2 was custom everything with little leverage from the civilian industry of the day. One of the big goals with B-21 is to achieve high operational readiness with a reduced sortie cost, but I'm with the Senator's who expect an upfront unit cost much higher than $500 Mil per aircraft!
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Zool said:
Well you replied after my short edit so you may have missed the math you yourself included in the prior message, but it absolutely adds up.

There's not much more I can say on this really because it is what it is, in terms of the way USAF deals with aircraft procurement and bids. No speculation required. The Air Force is the final customer and operator, not an integrator. It pays Boeing or LM for finished ready-to-fly aircraft.

I'm pretty confident 'family of systems' refers to the weapons package (as they are indeed systems in and of themselves) and perhaps simulators and maintenance systems as well. But there is zero doubt that the initial bid estimate of $500 Million per unit is for flyaway aircraft. All that remains is an update on that cost. We'll get it sooner or later and bet on it being higher than $500 Mil.

Adding to Terran's post, B-21 development will be much more cost efficient versus B-2 because it will be using in relative terms, off-the-self technology, especially on the electronics and engine side. B-2 was custom everything with little leverage from the civilian industry of the day. One of the big goals with B-21 is to achieve high operational readiness with a reduced sortie cost, but I'm with the Senator's who expect an upfront unit cost much higher than $500 Mil per aircraft!
Click to expand...

The following is taken from a CRS document which basically spells out the structure of the program, the scope and potentially what is included and not in the costing.
The program appears to be structured in a three tier manner.
(1) The B-21 itself which basically uses existing mature technologies. This is the $550 million per unit cost
(2)There is reference to risk of integration of technologies in the EMD phase. Whether the unit cost includes integration is unclear but I would suspect it does. Why is there technology risk at this stage is unclear.
(3)There is a family of systems which is clearly not in the initial phase. The reference is some kind of node of a larger distributed networked of sensors and communications. It appears to be integral to the B-21 program. This is the portion which I believe is being classified.

upload_2016-6-24_15-39-28.png
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Brumby said:
If I understand the proposed project costing correctly, the $550 million unit cost is only for the airframe. The classified portion is the cost of the family of systems that would be incorporated into the plane. Such systems would probably be the sensors, avionics and CNI as the core capabilities for spectrum domination. I agree that it is probably possible to determine the capabilities of the plane if such an amount is known.
Click to expand...
I understand $550 million unit fly away cost with all equipment not design etc... ofc
Right now IIRC about 10 % less expensive as planeed, good in more B-52H get 55 years few on her 80 or more :eek: years service life :)

New bomber or not the futur LRSO is more as interesting coz a Stealth is not invisible... so a bomber can fired with it outside the range of SAM max S-400, 400 km, futur S-500 500/600 km ? definitely LRSO get a minimum range of 2000 km lauch safe sure and in more this range is added to CR of the Bomber.
Only things the stock of missiles is much more inferior to bombs less expensive also big bombs more powerful and there a B2 or B-21 is very intereting can bomb in ennemy territory if the ennemy SAM defense is not too important.
If they need escort thinking only stealth fighters available not mixed with no stealth which can draw attention.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top