The Secretary of the US Air Force, Frank Kendall, has confirmed that five Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider stealth bomber test aircrafts are now taking shape at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

Kendall made this announcement during the Air Force Association Air, Space, and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on September 21. These aircraft are part of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) batch, funded under the Long-Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) contract.

“As I speak, there are now five test aircraft being manufactured on the B-21 production line at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California. This investment in meaningful military capabilities that project power and hold targets at risk anywhere in the world addresses my No. 1 priority,” said Kendall, referring to Air and Space Forces’ ability to continuously deter and defeat threats.

In January, it was confirmed that two B-21 test aircraft were making their way down the production line at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Palmdale. According to Doug Young, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman’s Strike Division, this significant progress can be credited to a strong customer partnership, early application of digital tools, and a talented, dedicated workforce.

The USAF expects the B-21 to enter service at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota sometime in the mid-2020s, followed by Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Dyess Air Force Base in Texas.

The B-21 heavy stealth bombers will join the USAF’s B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress fleets around 2027 and eventually replace them as a Long-Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B). B-12’s advanced design will also allow it to handle intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic attack, command center, and other missions.

However, there is no information about the completion of construction of the first B-21, whose final design is still unknown. Kendall has confirmed that five prototypes of a fleet that will one day number between 100 and 200 US$550-million B-21 bombers are being assembled, which would begin operating in the mid-2020s.

“With the capability to hold targets at risk anywhere in the world, this weapon system is critical to our national security,” said Young. “Northrop Grumman is committed to delivering the B-21 Raider to the warfighter on time to ensure America can project its power globally for decades to come.”

An F/A-18 flies with an Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) during a captive carry flight test. Credit: U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy has completed the first live-fire test of the new AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER). The missile was launched from a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and met all of the objectives set for this test.

The test took place on July 19 off the coast of Point Mugu Sea Test Range. “This first live-fire event is a major step to providing our fleet with the most advanced weapon system to defeat evolving surface-to-air threats,” said Capt. Alex Dutko, Direct and Time Sensitive Strike Weapon (PMA-242) program manager. “Our Navy and Northrop Grumman team has done tremendous work executing this event and ensuring we met all test objectives.”

The live-fire test validated the overall systems integration and the missile’s propulsion system and confirmed some of the simulations run on the missile. This was the first in a series of development test events that will ensure AARGM-ER can meet required objectives.

Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor for the AGM-88G, said that the live-fire test took place three months earlier than originally envisioned and demonstrated the long-range capability of the new missile design.

This firing marked a significant milestone for the program, as it is slated to enter Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) this summer, which will support future deployment of the AARGM-ER to the fleet and initial operating capability. The Navy is integrating AARGM-ER on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft as well as the Air Force F-35A, Marine Corps F-35B, and Navy and Marine Corps F-35C aircraft.

“While this event serves as a validation of this hard work, it, more importantly, gets us one step closer to making our fleet more lethal,” said Felipe Jauregui, Anti-Radiation Missile Technical Project Office at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, California. “Our engineering and test teams have worked tirelessly with their counterparts across the enterprise and government teams.”

Reporter: Matt Leonard

In 2020, 439 million pounds of cargo moved through Wilmington Air Park in Ohio. That makes it the third largest cargo-focused airport in the U.S. — “extensive cargo traffic but little or no passenger traffic” — according to an analysis of government data by researchers at DePaul University.

The facility has a history in cargo operations, but for a time in the early 2000s, Wilmington Air Park’s future didn’t look as bright as it does today.

In 2003, DHL acquired Airborne Express, which was headquartered in Wilmington, Ohio. DHL had about 6,000 employees, making it one of the largest employers in the region, according to the Courier.

DHL’s air hub was in Cincinnati before it acquired assets from Airborne Express. It had to decide which one to keep.

“It doesn’t make sense to operate two hubs that close together,” Michael Webber, the president of Webber Air Cargo, said in an interview. It went with Wilmington, integrating the hubs in 2005.

But a few years later, financial issues led DHL to make some tough decisions. It signed a $1 billion deal with UPS for its “archrival” to carry its airfreight, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Things were not looking good for Wilmington. As part of the reorganization, DHL moved its international business away from Wilmington, back to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky. The decision resulted in a loss of 8,000 jobs, according to Wilmington Air Park.

“The deal contemplated by DHL and UPS creates a crisis unprecedented in the rural United States, much less in rural Ohio,” ABX Air and Air Transport Services Group CEO Joseph C. Hete said in written testimony submitted before a 2008 congressional hearing on the deal. “Never have so many jobs left such a rural region in so short a period of time.”

Cargo-first growth in Wilmington, Ohio
More than a decade later, Wilmington Air Park is one of the fastest-growing airports in the country. That’s in large part thanks to Amazon.

“We were confident that Wilmington has a big future of Amazon Air,” Joseph P. Schwieterman, the director of the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University and one of the authors of the report, said in an interview.

E-commerce is also helping to propel the growth of cargo-focused hubs, he said. These hubs have seen their traffic grow more than 31% YoY between 2019 and 2020, Schwieterman found.

“The surge in at-home delivery has pushed supply chains to the max,” he said. “And cargo airports have been positioned well to take advantage of that.”

Wilmington is still relatively small compared to many other airports. Its 2019 cargo volume was less than 0.5% the size of the largest cargo hub in the U.S. — Memphis International. But off of this small base, Wilmington grew its cargo volume by nearly 289% YoY in 2020, according to the DePaul report.

The growth comes at a time when all eyes are — again — on Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky where Amazon has announced plans for an Air Hub. Wilmington is now the fifth-largest air hub in Amazon’s network, according to the DePaul analysis.

The quick growth was the result of the infrastructure built by Airborne Express and DHL that made it a viable option, Webber said.

“It would be much more challenging for an airport like Wilmington to meet the kind of demand [of Amazon] if you were starting from a Greenfield site with nothing on it,” he said. “But that’s an airport that already had a cargo hub in its history.”

That’s where Wilmington sees its future: cargo.

“We view ourselves unabashedly as a cargo first airport,” Executive Director of the Clinton County Port Authority Daniel Evers said.

Beth Huber, the associate director of the Clinton County Port Authority, said the facility’s location allows airlines to reach “60% to 70%” of the U.S. population with an hour-long flight. And it’s 10 minutes from Interstate 71, which allows quick access to Cincinnati, Columbus and Dayton, Evers said.

Amazon’s time in Wilmington dates back to 2015 when it first began a pilot project to determine the validity of an air cargo option.

Amazon “operated here for 18 months, found it to be very viable,” Evers said. After the pilot in Wilmington, Amazon made a decision to build the hub in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky.

“But a year later, the company contacted us and due to its growth and its need for additional capacity introduced the topic of returning to the Wilmington Airpark,” he said.

Wilmington replaced a dozen panels on the primary runway, repaired its taxiways and the ramp that serves the air cargo operations. Parking was added, two facilities were demolished, fencing was put up and navigational aids were updated. It amounted to “tens of millions of dollars” paid by the Port Authority and Amazon, Evers said.

Connecting flights, trucks and parcels
With the infrastructure in place, Amazon is able to connect to fulfillment centers in the region. Trucks can bring in deliveries to the airport from fulfillment centers that can be delivered next day to Columbus or Dayton. The sortation center at the airport allows for packages to come in on one flight or truck and leave on another flight or truck depending, on where in the country it might be headed, Evers said.

This has resulted in employment not only for Amazon’s sortation center, but also for the Air Park, he said. With a big customer in the facility operating 24/7, it now has to worry about things like being able to clear runways during a snowstorm in the middle of the night.

“There’s equipment investment, there’s staffing and investment in getting people trained and qualified to operate big snowplows,” Huber said.

With Amazon in town, Wilmington was able to take the title of the busiest aircargo hub in Ohio at the end of 2020, according to WVXU.

And Evers and Huber said they’re still talking with more prospective clients about coming to the airport. One benefit they present them with is the fact that they’re not in a large city, and there is plenty of room for new clients to build.

“We have the opportunity to grow and offer people either a spec space or a built-to-suit space, that is going to give them a little bigger footprint maybe than they might get in a metropolitan airport,” Huber said.

Parcels take to the sky
Not all of air cargo facilities are used for the same purpose. FedEx and UPS do more overnight flights to help facilitate overnight delivery. But Amazon Air’s networks appear to be designed for general inventory movements for replenishing fulfillment centers, Schwieterman said.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence that they’re shipping addressed packages heavily on Amazon Air,” he said. “They might be. But the flight network isn’t designed for … for airplane-to-airplane package transfers like FedEx and UPS.”

This could change when it opens up its air hub in Cincinnati, he said.

“The could be a strategic pivot where they recalibrate their network to be more like FedEx and UPS,” he said. “But there’s not a lot evidence of that yet.”

Service: USN Speed: Mach 1.7 Range: 1,275 nm Armament: One M61A1/A2; AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM-9X, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon; Joint Direct Attack Munition; Data Link Pod; Paveway Laser Guided Bomb
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the U.S. Navy’s primary strike and air superiority aircraft. It is an updated version of the F-18C/D, featuring a 20 percent larger airframe, 7,000 lb heavier empty weight, and 15,000 lb heavier maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33 percent more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41 percent and endurance by 50 percent over the earlier Hornet.

The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement.

The first operational cruise of Super Hornet, F/A-18 E, was with VFA-115 onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) on July 24, 2002, and saw initial combat action on Nov. 6, 2002, when they participated in a strike on hostile targets in the “no-fly” zone in Iraq.

Super Hornet, flew combat sorties from Abraham Lincoln during Southern Watch, demonstrating reliability and an increased range and payload capability. VFA 115 embarked aboard Lincoln expended twice the amount of bombs as other squadrons in their airwing (with 100% accuracy) and met and exceeded all readiness requirements while on deployment. The Super Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less labor hours per flight hour.

The forward fuselage is unchanged from the C/D Hornet, but the remainder of the aircraft shares little with earlier F/A-18C/D models. The fuselage was stretched by 34 inches to make room for fuel and future avionics upgrades and increased the wing area by 25%. However, the Super Hornet has 42% fewer structural parts than the original Hornet design. The General Electric F414 engine, developed from the Hornet’s F404, has 35% additional thrust over most of the aircraft’s flight envelope. The Super Hornet can return to an aircraft carrier with a larger load of unspent fuel and munitions than the original Hornet.

Other differences include approximately rectangular intakes for the engines and two extra wing hard points for payload (for a total of 11), retaining previous hardpoints on the bottom centerline, wingtips, and two conformal fuselage positions. Among the most significant aerodynamic changes are the enlarged leading edge extensions which provide improved vortex lifting characteristics in high angle of attack maneuvers, and reduce the static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics. This results in pitch rates in excess of 40 degrees per second, and high resistance to departure from controlled flight.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an attack aircraft as well as a fighter through selected use of external equipment and advanced networking capabilities to accomplish specific missions. This “force multiplier” capability gives the operational commander more flexibility in employing tactical aircraft in a rapidly changing battle scenario. In its fighter mode, it serves as escort and fleet air defense. In its attack mode, it provides force projection, interdiction, and close and deep air support.

The Air Force has determined that few, if any, existing training ranges have the capability to provide fighter pilots with advanced training.

To prepare fighter pilots across the force for peer combat, many squadrons should move and many ranges will need expensive upgrades, according to a new study from the Rand Corp.

The study, “Fighter Basing Options to Improve Access to Advanced Training Ranges,” estimates the costs of restationing units, upgrading ranges and adding virtual training to get squadrons the appropriate, advanced training they’ll need in future fights.

And as aircraft get more advanced, so does the need for such advanced ranges. Half of all range events for the F-35 require an advanced range. More than one-third of events for the F-22, nearly one-quarter for the F-16 and 19 percent for the F-15 and 16 percent for the A-10.

As they have broken down the need, based on aircraft, report authors also weighted the effectiveness of training for those platforms on total training.

For example, because so much more of their training requires high-capability ranges, the most effective move is to have F35s stationed alongside such ranges. Meaning, putting a single F-35 squadron within access of the appropriate complex range provides equal effectiveness as putting three total squadrons of either the F-15C, F-15E or A-10.

To accomplish this, the authors recommend that a squadron not within the 150 nautical mile range of an upgraded range should be moved to a base within that distance. That distance allows for enough time at the range for required training in addition to transit time to reach the site.

They also recommended that lower weighted aircraft, such as the A-10 Warthog be swapped out with higher-weighted aircraft such as the F-35 Lightning II.

That will be helpful for the F-35s and F-22s but not as much for the F-15s and A-10s, which still have an important operational role to fill.

Authors stopped short of listing specific basing changes, citing a need to resolve training and basing details. The Air Force needs to finish defining range requirements and capacity, which will lay out how much time each type of squadron will need to train on the new ranges.

The following ranges were listed, in priority, in the RAND report for needed upgrades:

1. Nevada Test and Training Range

2. Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex

3. Utah Test and Training Range

4. Belle Fourche Electronic Scoring Site Range

5. Poinsett Range

6. Elgin Test and Training Complex

7. Adirondack Range

8. Mountain Home Range Complex

9. Hardwood Range

10. Smoky Hill Range

11. Air Force Dare County Range

12. Snyder Electronic Warfare Site

13. Grand Bay Range

14. Melrose Range

15. Barry M. Goldwater Range

16. Warren Grove Range

17. Claiborne Range

A combination of 15 or more planned range upgrades and 10 to 20 squadron moves results in a 90 percent effectiveness score.

Some trade-offs between the two overhauls would still manage a 70 percent rating. Those include 15 to 17 ranges upgraded and no squadrons moved or six to eight ranges upgraded but 15 to 20 squadrons moved.

The best outcome for restationing, though, comes when at least half of the ranges are upgraded. That’s because if not enough ranges are upgraded then there are not enough bases within the set 150 nm distance of a range.

Adding Air National Guard units in the moves to active bases further increases the effectiveness of the restationing models. If ANG units are not allowed to move to upgraded ranges, it will hamper overall effectiveness because much of the fighter force is in the ANG.

The F-35 squadron at Fort Worth, Texas is not near any of the 17 ranges, so it is moved essentially in all solutions, typically to Eielson AFB, Alaska or Hill AFB, Utah.

“The largest opportunity to improve readiness in the long term is integrating the range modernization plan and the F-35 rollout,” according to the report.

To strike a balance, the report recommends that the Air Force estimate long-term costs for range modernizations to determine the total number it can afford to upgrade and compare that with the “cost and institutional challenges of restationing squadrons.”

Those costs are not just for the pilots and aircraft. The Air Force must consider the squadron, operations support, aircraft, equipment, component and munitions maintenance that goes along with the unit, both personnel attached and infrastructure upgrades.

Personnel move costs alone were estimated at $13 million per squadron, just to move the people. Added infrastructure for personnel was estimated at $25.3 million per squadron.

Depending on the type of aircraft in the squadron, infrastructure restationing costs range between $63 million and $92 million per squadron.

Those figures amount to an estimated total cost of $101 million to $130 million to re-station a single squadron.

Range upgrade costs estimated at $1.2 billion for research, development, test and evaluation funding. Two ranges highlighted, NTTR and JPARC, that will receive the most advanced capabilities, will cost roughly $1 billion. The other 15 ranges listed will cost between $120 million and $220 million each.

The average range upgrade, not including the two prioritized ranges, equals $165 million, nearly the average cost of restationing a squadron, $130 million.

But, the authors noted, the Air Force will likely get more for their money on the range upgrades as more squadrons will be able to use the range than simply restationing a single squadron instead of doing a range upgrade.

Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia and Tyndall AFB, Florida received additional attention as both are under environmental threat with an estimated three- to seven-foot sea-level rise in the coming decades, given their coastal proximity.

As the force builds its new F-35 squadrons, stationing them within the recommended distance of the advanced ranges should be easier since there would be “fewer institutional constraints compared with existing forces.”

Report authors made the following recommendations:

• Prioritizing a range upgrade near an F-22 base and consolidating F-22 squadrons. This would require a more detailed analysis of airfield capacity issues, range capacity, and availability constraints.

• Coordinating the introduction of new F-35 squadrons, retirement of legacy aircraft, and range upgrades to ensure that F-35 squadrons would have range access at the earliest possible time.

• Developing a training strategy that outlines how much training would be required at each range capability level to better understand how much range capacity would be required and then evaluate restationing against other potential solutions.

• Developing full life cycle cost estimates for range modernization to understand the number of ranges that would be affordable over the long term and how those costs would compare with the cost and institutional challenges of restationing squadrons.

• Collecting and incorporating relevant risk data, such as hazard exposure maps, climate data, and electric power reliability metrics, in basing decisions.

Another add on to help bring squadron training up to snuff might be the use of Live Virtual Constructive simulators paired with available range access. Though that too presents its own challenges as currently, just three bases have such simulators.

Just doing range upgrades will only give a portion of fighter squadrons the access they need for advanced training. Restationing can greatly increase fighter squadron effectiveness, but authors note that will depend on Air Force leadership’s willingness to make and manage those changes.

But authors did identify a short-term benefit that would come from consolidating F-22 squadrons near an upgraded range. That would mean moving up the Joint Base Langley-Eustis in the upgrade priority rankings or converting a fourth-generation fighter base nearby to a high-priority range for those F-22 squadrons.

As the Air Force rolls out its F-35 squadrons, the basing of those units near the upgraded ranges will provide the most benefits toward meeting effectiveness goals.

But even these major moves might not be enough.

Even with range upgrades and restationing, the Air Force will still need to develop graduated training requirements so that more basic tasks can be completed in concert with advanced training events, keeping the entire force at an effective level.

Conclusions listed in the report:

* Range upgrades alone can provide only a portion of fighter squadrons with access to advanced training ranges. Restationing could significantly increase access, but the amount would depend on institutional freedom to make restationing decisions. Most significantly, if Air National Guard squadrons cannot be consolidated near advanced training ranges, the potential benefits of restationing would be substantially limited.

• Using the current basing posture and planned range upgrades, the F-22 squadrons may not have access to advanced training ranges.

• The largest opportunity to improve readiness in the long term is integrating the range modernization plan and the F-35 rollout.

• The one-time cost for restationing a fighter squadron and the cost to procure equipment for a single range modernization are on the same order of magnitude. However, when research and development and operation and sustainment costs are taken into account, range upgrades may be substantially more expensive over the long term. Upgrading a single range may provide access for more than one squadron, and a cost-effectiveness assessment should be conducted that accounts for the life cycle range modernization costs.

• There is significant variability in electric power reliability and exposure to natural hazards and climate effects across USAF fighter bases and ranges that might require different levels of investment to recover from or mitigate disruptions.