Iron Key - Click Here!
DID » Military Overall » Force Structure » USAF Wants a New Bomber By 2018… Or Does It?  

USAF Wants a New Bomber By 2018… Or Does It?

09-Jun-2008 14:24 EDT

Related Stories: Americas - USA, Force Structure, Heavy Bombers, New Systems Tech, Pre-RFP, Project Methodologies

Advertisement
AIR_B-52H_B-1B_B-2_Together.jpg
B-52H, B-1B & B-2A
(click to view full)

GOOD NEWS: 2006 saw a convergence of opinion within the USAF that a new long-range strike platform was needed. This is understandable given the B-52H Stratofortress fleet’s age (40-50 years), the B-1B Lancer’s internal power and electronics issues, both of these platforms’ low survivability against advanced air defense systems, and the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber’s very small numbers [21, of which 7-12 are generally operational]. The unmanned J-UCAS program, however, was seen as having inadequate range and payload [Boeing X-45C: 1,400 mile radius with 8 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs]. The USAF decided that it wasn’t a solution and pulled out, stalling American UCAV development until the Navy chose to go ahead with the carrier-based UCAS-D.

In September 2006, Inside Defense reported that the US Air Force was responding to ongoing Congressional pressure with a proposed $5 billion initial investment over the next few years. Their goal was to develop a next-generation long-range strike platform by 2018, with a fly-off before final platform selection. Now the potential contractors are beginning to align – but will the fly-off still take place?..

AIR_FB-22_Concept.jpg
FB-22: out
(click to view full)

BAD NEWS: Officials disagreed on what kind of aircraft or missile should be designed to meet the requirement. A single plane? A missile? A family of aircraft? Manned or unmanned? A fighter-bomber like the FB-22/FB-23 idea to fill the FB-111’s vacant shoes, or a full-reach heavy bomber? A traditional land-based platform, or should it be carrier capable? Something comparable to the $2 billion B-2s to take on the toughest strike missions – or more of a utility aircraft like some of the “arsenal aircraft” proposals, aimed at replacing the B-52s with a platform based on a passenger jet or C-17 that would be more economical to fly and maintain? And where do proposals to simply re-engine the B-52 fleet fit in?

Until (unless) this was sorted out, R&D efforts could not succeed – and issues of future force structure remained open questions. An official Analysis of Alternatives was scheduled for Spring 2007, and the articles below chronicle developments in that process as it works its way forward. At this point, it appears certain that the new bomber will fly at subsonic speeds, and incorporate modern advances in stealth technology. Other elements are less clear.

Competing Teams

On the contractor side, the program seemed to be shaping up a bit more clearly.

On Jan 25/08, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced that they would be cooperating on a bid of their own. Their team will perform studies and system development efforts “in pursuit of the anticipated U.S. Air Force Next Generation Bomber program.” Their collaborative research and development efforts will include will include work in advanced sensors, future electronic warfare solutions, better networked awareness of the broader battlefield, command and control issues for stealth platforms, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.

Northrop Grumman is an obvious contender, as the designer and manufacturer of the B-2A Spirit Stealth bomber. The firm has moved away from designing full-scale manned military aircraft in recent years, but there are persistent rumors of black (secret) program contracts related to the design of a next-generation bomber, and NGC’s leadership has indicated that black programs are a growing strategic focus for the company. Taken in tandem, it seems likely that Northrop Grumman is already working on a next-generation stealth bomber design.

All of this work was effectively brought to a halt when Us Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced his FY 2010 budget recommendations, and effectively suspended the competition. Research may continue in some related technologies under ‘black’ (non-public) budgets, but Sec 124 of the Senate’s S.1390 FY 2010 defense budget was clear:

“On May 7, 2009, President Barack Obama announced the termination of the next generation bomber aircraft program in the document of the Office of Management and Budget entitled ‘Terminations, Reductions, and Savings,’ stating that ‘there is no urgent need to begin an expensive development program for a new bomber’ and that ‘the future bomber fleet may not be affordable over the next six years’.”

Additional Readings

  • DID (April 6/09) – Gates Lays Out Key FY 2010 Budget Recommendations. The program is effectively canceled. “We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.”
  • Military.com (June 7/08) – Secret Plan for ‘Invisible Bombers’. The report claims that Northrop Grumman has received a secret development contract to develop a bomber-class aircraft with a radar signature 1/10th that of a mosquito.
  • DTI, via Military.com (April 28/08) – New AF Bomber May Also Fly Recon. Or at least, an unmanned version might. Note that there will be limitations: the USA’s B-2 stealth bomber, for instance, tends to confine itself to night missions against defended sites, because it has little ability to protect itself once it has been seen visually. Any unmanned bomber would have a similar issue.
  • Defense Technology International, via Military.com (Dec 4/07) – New Bomber to Carry Nukes. A decision that could raise its cost by 50%, due to the required redundancy and EMP hardening. It also guarantees that the bomber will be a maned aircraft, not a UAV or UCAV.
  • USAF, Air Force magazine (August 2007) – Great Expectations. “Air Combat Command recently conducted an analysis of alternatives for such an aircraft, and the Air Force has decided which capabilities it will seek in its next generation long-range strike system. The study evaluated “midterm” requirements, the state of technology, and the need to have a fully operational aircraft on the ramp in 2018. The results were, in some cases, quite surprising….”
  • Government Executive magazine (June 13/07) – Air Force envisions stealthy long-range bomber for 2018. “The service, which hopes to fly the bomber by 2018, likely will use the F-22’s stealth and maneuverability capabilities when developing the new aircraft, Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., said during a breakfast with reporters…. The service also plans to make the bomber a subsonic propulsion aircraft, said Elder….” The article adds that the USAF may be mandated by Congress to have 76 B-52s, but it’s only manning 56.
  • Inside Defense via Military.com (Sept 30/06) – New Bomber Program to Begin ‘Black’. Which means a classified program. “The ACC chief said programmatic details such as anticipated costs and initial capability milestones will be disclosed to the public. However, issues pertaining to the platform’s projected range, speed and payload will remain closely held secrets known only by a select number of service and Pentagon officials intimately involved with or charged with overseeing its development.”

tag: 2018bomber

Images on Defense Industry Daily

Defense Industry Daily does not own the rights to the images displayed on our site. We use images under "fair use" copyright doctrine, from public sources and private organizations, or use images under Creative Commons/ GNU licenses that make them available to the general public, or with explicit and noted permission. All rights remain with the original image owners.

If you believe that a DID image may violate these conditions, please discuss it with us via an email to editorial@defenseindustrydaily.com

The sizes displayed on DID are the only sizes we have to offer.

Close