USAF Wants a New Bomber… Or Does It?

B-52H, B-1B & B-2A
(click to view full)

Bomber is back on the agenda. (Jan 6/11)

The 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, meanwhile 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 J-UCAS wasn’t a solution and pulled out, stalling American UCAV development until the Navy chose to go ahead with the carrier-based N-UCAS.

The bad news? They seemed to have little idea of exactly what they wanted in their bomber. The FY 2010 budget killed those plans anyway, but in September 2010, pressure to field a new bomber began to rise again…

• Bad News, Good News [updated]
  
• Competing Teams
  
• Additional Readings & Updates [updated]
  

Bad News, Good News

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.

THE GOOD NEWS? Key technologies, from stealth to control of unmanned combat aircraft, have taken many steps forward since this discussion began.

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.

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’.”

By 2010, however, pressure began to rise again to field a new bomber. The breakthrough came, ironically, during a January 2011 speech about $150 billion in spending and program reductions:

“Finally, a major area of investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber. This aircraft – which will have the option of being piloted remotely – will be designed and developed using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity. It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service. The follow on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities – an area that should be a high priority for future defense investment given the anti-access challenges our military faces.”

Competing Teams

Phantom Ray rollout
(click to view larger)

On the contractor side, the program seemed to be shaping clearly, the picture has become muddy again.

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.

By March 2010, however, it became clear that the joint team members were each going their own way. Boeing’s X-45C Phantom Ray provides them with a very useful test platform that could become a base for a new unmanned bomber, and Lockheed Martin’s own work on “black program” UAVs gives them growing expertise as well.

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.

Additional Readings & Updates

• DID – Carrier UCAVs: The Return of UCAS. N-UCAS is a funded Northrop Grumman project.

• DID – Ride on the Ray: Boeing’s X-45 UCAVs

• DID – Funds to Boeing, NGC to Advance UAV Aerial Refueling.

• Aviation Week (June 30/11) – What We Are Allowed to Know About the Bomber. Short answer: not much. Optionally manned, stealthy, plans for 80-100.

• Joint Forces Quarterly (#60, Q1 2011) – Long Range Conventional Strike: A Joint Family of Systems [PDF]. Good article, penned by Northrop Grumman analysts; see also Aviation Week Ares coverage.

• Aviation Week Ares (March 18/11) – Where The 2018 Bomber Went

• Aviation Week Ares (Feb 18/11) – A Quick Look At The USAF’s New Bomber Requirements

• US Department of Defense (Jan 6/10) – Statement on Department Budget and Efficiencies. As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.

• Defense News (Sept 15/10) – P&W Pitches Engine For Long-Range Strike. Their PW9000, part of a new class of engines called “geared turbofans” that offer a wider variable thrust range, and much better fuel efficiency.

• NDIA’s National Defense magazine (Sept 15/10) – Air Force Under Pressure to Fund New Bomber.

• CSBA Report (Sept 14/10) – Sustaining America’s Strategic Advantage in Long-Range Strike [PDF]

• Defense News (Sept 13/10) – USAF Secretary: New Bomber Critical for the U.S.. But it would be built for conventional strike, and only certified for the nuclear mission later, if at all.

• Aviation Week (March 1/10) – A Lockheed/Boeing Breakup Over Bomber? There’s a $200 million request in the FY 2011 budget that lays the foundations for a bomber program revival, but Boeing Phantom Works’ President says cooperation with Lockheed Martin is “in stasis”.

• Aviation Week Ares (Dec 16/09) – New Bomber Claims New Missions. ISR, and possibly directed energy weapons?

• Government Executive (May 14/09) – Gates says next-generation bomber might fly without pilot

• Gvernment Executive (May 21/09) – Commander agrees with decision to delay new bomber. In light of upcoming START nuclear treaty negotiations with Moscow, expected to start in a few months.

• 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.”

• Aviation Week Ares (Sept 10/08) – Northrop Grumman Boosts New Bomber

• 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.

• The Register (May 29/08) – SpaceShipOne firm to build Stealth Bomber 4.0? Also explains some of the evidence for the belief that this program has gone “black” (i.e. super-secret, no longer openly reported or discussed).

• 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.

• Government Executive magazine (Aug 15/07) – Air Force’s commitment to new bomber a matter of debate

• 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.

• Aviation Week (May 2/07) – Next Decade”s AF Bomber To Be Subsonic, Manned [sic]

• Air Force Association (February 2007) – Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long-Range Strike [PDF format, 642k]. In-depth report and analysis by Dr. Rebecca Grant of ISIS.

• USAF, Air Force magazine (October 2006) – The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends

• 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.”

• Inside Defense via Military.com (Sept 2/06) – Air Force has ‘Hard Time’ Developing Bomber

• Inside Defense via Military.com (Aug 25/06) – Big Down Payment for Future Bombers

• USAF (July 26/06) – Gen. Moseley: New long-range bomber on horizon for 2018

• USAF, Air Force magazine (June 2006) – No Easy Answers on New Bomber

• Air & Space Power Journal (Summer 2005) – “Narrowing the global-strike gap with an airborne aircraft carrier”

tag: 2018bomber