USAF to Receive Funding to Develop Long-Range Bomber

[Ryan Ruck]

USAF to Receive Funding to Develop Long-Range Bomber

Despite financial uncertainty, the USAF will be able to manufacture a new long-range bomber

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently indicated the U.S. Air Force is likely going to receive funding set aside for a new long-range bomber, according to media reports.

In April, Gates cut several high-profile projects, which led to Air Force officials being disappointed that funding for the bomber could have vanished. However, the bomber program is expected to receive at least $1 billion, with the number expected to significantly increase in the years to come.

"We are probably going to proceed with a long-range strike initiative coming out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and various other reviews going on," Gates noted. "We're looking at a family of capabilities, both manned and unmanned."

The U.S. military continues to transition its air fleet to be better prepared for the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Working with private contractors, military officials continue to look for new ways to modernize its fleet at a time when the Pentagon has requested lower spending budgets.

It's unknown if the Air Force is more interested in developing a long-range unmanned aircraft, or will instead decide to rely on manned bombers. To date, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been reconnaissance aircraft, though coordinated strikes have taken place using UAVs.

Gates' announcement also will excite private contractors, which have been disappointed in the lack of government-issued contracts.

Maybe we’ll be lucky and get 3 or 4 before it is cancelled.

[Ryan Ruck]

DoD: Next 'Bomber' May Be a Family of Systems

29 Mar 2010

The U.S. Defense Department is examining how to fit "complementary" tools on the "family of systems" that would replace a long-range bomber concept terminated last year, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter said March 29.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April 2009 canceled a years-long effort to establish requirements and a formal development program for a new long-range bomber. Gates felt the department needed to stop that work, which was led by the Air Force, and begin a new look at how the U.S. military could best fulfill all the missions envisioned for a new deep-penetrating bomber.

After months of examining, Pentagon officials in recent months have said they expect to replace the former long-range strike aircraft concept with a "family of systems," each designed to conduct specific kinds of missions. Speaking to an industry audience in Arlington, Va., Carter said it is likely that the platforms will be designed to do tasks deemed "complementary" to one another.

Then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley in the mid-2000s used terms like long-range strike and persistent ISR when describing the service's mission requirements for a new bomber aircraft. Carter used the same phrases in his National Aeronautics Association presentation and added two more to things the "family of systems" will do: "prompt global strike and electronic attack."

The former refers to a next-generation weapon that can be launched quickly to take out fleeting targets anywhere around the globe; the latter refers to offensive and defense missions like jamming enemy signals.

Although Carter said officials "are still thinking through" what the family of platforms will have to look like, he said some of them likely will be "dual-use."

For instance, an aircraft designed for electronic attack missions also could be armed with complimentary jamming equipment, he said. And a long-range strike aircraft could be fitted with sophisticated ISR sensors.

Some of the family's platforms, Carter said, will be "stand-off systems" while others would be "stand-in." And some will be "reusable" where others "could be expendable."

The Pentagon's senior acquisition, technology and logistics official also said that, as Pentagon officials decide how to move forward with the family of systems concept, they will factor in industrial base implications.

Officials "have to keep in mind," he said, "that if certain capabilities [within U.S. defense firms are] allowed to whither, it will be hard to replicate them."

Carter added that the Pentagon "has a special responsibility to segments of industry," and promised DoD officials that, as part of the family of systems program, the department "will be looking at all the contributions each segment can make."

[Ryan Ruck]

“Next-Gen Bomber” Really Dead; New Long-Range Strike Aircraft Design by OSD

June 25, 2010

The 2006 QDR called for the Air Force to develop a next generation bomber to be ready by 2018; an initiative that promptly went nowhere. Now, the very term “next generation bomber” is “dead” in the halls of the Pentagon, reports John Tirpak, citing comments made yesterday by Air Force Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements.

Breedlove says what is being discussed is something much smaller than the NGB would have been, and though stealthy, it will not be designed to penetrate dense SAM belts like the NGB. It will be more of a “utility infielder” for a family of strike platforms under consideration.

There is a “lively debate” going on at the Pentagon regarding long range strike and penetrating platform cost (very high) versus the cost of enemy guided missile defenses and battle networks (very low). Importantly, Breedlove said that for the first time, requirements for a major aircraft are not coming from Air Combat Command, but are coming down from OSD.

[Ryan Ruck]

DoD Fast Tracks New Bomber; 'Planning Number' is $550 Million Per Plane

February 15, 2012

The Pentagon wants production of the Air Force's new bomber put on the fast track, despite the program's $500 million per-plane price tag.

DoD Comptroller Bob Hale wants the bomber, known as the Long-Range Strike aircraft, to move as quickly as possible through the development and production phases. His comments came during an Aviation Week-sponsored event in Arlington, VA. Service leaders hope to have an aircraft ready for initial operations by 2020, Marilyn Thomas, budget chief with the Air Force's assistant secretary for financial management, said this week. The Air Force has already set aside $292 million in research dollars for the bomber in their fiscal 2013 budget request. The service plans to spend $6.3 billion into the effort over the next five years. Once developed, the new bomber will replace B-1Bs and B-2s. The new plane will be designed to evade advanced aerial defense systems, employ stealth technologies and carry nuclear weapons.

Early DoD estimates for the program have the aircraft costing roughly $550 million per copy. That figure was included in the Pentagon's fiscal '13 budget blueprint sent Monday to Congress. With an anticipated fleet of 80 to 100 aircraft, that comes out to $5.5 billion for just the bombers. That is a bargain compared to the $2.2 billion per-plane cost of the stealthy B-2, but it dwarfs the $228 million per plane cost of the B-1B, according to service fact sheets. The new bomber's price tag presumably does not include the costs associated with development of the associated "family of systems" designed to work in tandem with the new aircraft.

Air Force leaders have said those systems could run the gamut from electronic warfare capabilities to anti-aircraft systems.

Former Pentagon acquisition chief and current Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said last July the department would not make the same mistakes, spending-wise, on the new bomber as the pricey B-2. At the time, Carter said the military could not afford an "exquisite" airplane, so keeping costs down on the new bomber would be a priority. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright went a step further that month, saying the United States simply could not afford a new bomber while maintaining its other nuclear commitments. However, during Monday's fiscal '13 budget briefing Thomas sought to assuage some of those cost concerns.

Thomas reiterated that the Air Force was drilling down into "proven technologies" for the new bomber. By doing that, the service can save millions in research and development costs since Air Force wouldn't have to build many of the bomber's capabilities form scratch, she said. As far as the $550 million per-plane cost, Thomas told reporters the number was "a planning number" and would likely change as the program matured. She did not comment on whether that number would go up or down in the future.

I'd like to know what this new bomber is supposed to do that the B-2 or B-1B don't and, why exactly they need replaced.