As the Air Force rethinks requirements for its Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, it appears to be reconsidering the number of B-21 bombers it needs, as well.
“I think that’s exactly what the Air Force is looking at,” said Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden, which makes the B-21 and is not competing for NGAD. “They are undertaking a force structure design review, and the Secretary has been open about looking at the various options they have for increasing their force size and has talked specifically about NGAD. And we know that B-21 is in the mix as well.”
Warden made her comments during an earnings call Oct. 24.
The Air Force is in the midst of a congressionally mandated force structure review and, at the same time, rushing to complete the NGAD requirements analysis ordered up after Secretary Frank Kendall paused NGAD ahead of a down-select decision on two competing designs this summer. NGAD has always been seen as an extension of the B-21 family of systems, a necessary addition to ensure the Raider gets to its target and makes it back out safely.
Air Force officials have insisted 100 Raiders is sufficient to the current need, though others have argued for building more. But Warden said Oct. 24 that the size of the B-21 fleet is one factor in part of a broader requirements review.
Cost is a major factor. Kendall paused NGAD because of the cost of each aircraft. Having previously suggested that each sixth-generation jet could cost multiple hundreds of millions of dollars, he said in September he’d prefer to pay no more than the cost of an F-35, or $80 million to $100 million per tail.
The difference, spread across a fleet size of 200-250 fighters, would yield tens of billions in savings. That’s where the B-21 comes into play. Asked during the Oct. 24 earnings call if NGAD savings could fund more B-21s, Warden made her comments.
The Air Force uses 2010 as the base year for calculating B-21 costs, when the unit cost per bomber was contractually set at $550 million. That puts its cost in current dollars at about $780 million. However, Kendall told Congress in April that the B-21 was below cost projections for low-rate initial production. The cost ceiling will go up for subsequent aircraft.
“It would be premature for me to suggest where that force structure review will end up,” Warden said of the Air Force study. “But I do think in the coming months, we may get a better indication from the Air Force as to how they’re thinking about B-21 quantities in the long run.”
In March, then-deputy chief for planning Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr. told lawmakers that a decision on a larger fleet wouldn’t be needed until the 2030s. A month later, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said he wasn’t looking to buy more than 100 because technological developments could produce something better by the time all those aircraft are built.
Others have argued for more Raiders, however. Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, has said he would “love” to have more B-21s.
“If you take a look at the real world operating requirements the Air Force has, [planners] fully understand that the Air Force’s combat capacity must grow,” retired Col. Mark Gunzinger of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “And if the challenge is to fight tonight, to respond over global ranges … that drives requirements for longer range capabilities, larger payloads, and capabilities that can operate in degraded, highly contested threat environments. That is a prescription for penetrating bombers. It’s a very common sense narrative for why we need to rebuild our bomber force.”
Gunzinger said the U.S. needs to scale up to deter two peer adversaries in Russia and China, and that more B-21s, procured at a faster rate, is the best way to do so.
“The most cost-effective way of doing that is to increase the acquisition of B-21 because it’s a two-for-one deal,” Gunzinger said. “It enhances conventional defense and it enhances nuclear deterrence.”
But Gunzinger questioned the idea of shifting spending from NGAD to B-21.
“I don’t think the capabilities they’re looking for in NGAD would mean that they could trade off NGAD for B-21 or vice versa,” Gunzinger said. “The fact is, the Air Force is so small and so old, it needs both, and it needs them in quantity.”
Another analyst, Christopher Bowie, has said: “We should plan to build more than the 100 currently on the books [because] no matter how capable an aircraft, it can only be in one place at one time.”
Citing studies from the Mitchell Institute, the MITRE Corporation, and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Gunzinger assessed that that the Air Force needs a bomber fleet of 300 or more aircraft, with 200 or so of them being stealthy, penetrating bombers like the B-2 or B-21.
All that discussion preceded Kendall’s decision to “pause” NGAD rather than commit to one design. He now has a senior-level panel, including three former Air Force chiefs and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, looking at options, and he has promised a decision by year’s end. If that triggers a reassessment and new competition, it could set back the NGAD program by years.
Not surprisingly, Warden said Northrop stands ready to increase B-21 production if asked.
“In the short run, we remain very focused on delivering them optionality. The performance that we are delivering gives them a capability that is in production now that is well below the cost target for the platform,” she said. “And we believe that that’s the role of industry, to give the government options as they think about their force structure.”
Warden said she expects the Air Force to award a second low-rate production contract before the end of the year. The service awarded the first LRIP contract after first flight of the bomber last year, though officials declined to disclose exact figures on the size of the deal and the number of aircraft covered.