New Bomber for USAF-Someday(sigh)

[GZR_Sactargets]

Bombshell: Boeing and Lockheed Martin are expected today to announce a teaming arrangement in the forthcoming competition to build the Air Force's Next-Generation Bomber. A press advisory issued late yesterday said the two aerospace giants have agreed to "perform studies and system development efforts" for the anticipated Air Force program. USAF wants to field the new bomber in 2018. It is envisioned as a highly survivable, penetrating subsonic manned platform. The Air Force's newly issued weapons roadmap lists Barksdale AFB, La.; Dyess, AFB, Tex.; Ellsworth AFB, S.D.; and Minot AFB, N.D., as potential beddown sites.

From AF Daily Report 24 Jan 08

[Joseph29]

to build the Air Force's Next-Generation Bomber.

From AF Daily Report 24 Jan 08

Wasn't that supposed to be the B-2? Or do they want a more conventional looking bomer like the B-52 or the B-1?

[SMOC]

This is really intended as a replacement for the BONE and BUFF. Currently neither of those airframes can enter protected airspace without assistance of other aircraft. Additionally, they would like to build off of stealth technology utilized in the F-22 and F-35.

As of right now neither the B-1 or B-52 is scheduled to be retired until somewhere in the 2030-2040 time range but a new bomber could help in lowering the amount of sorties of those older aircraft.

[KevinJarvis]

I can't wait to see what this is gonna look like.

[GZR_Sactargets]

I can't wait to see what this is gonna look like.

We will probably have to wait a long time (other than 'artists concepts') In reality, a 10 year lead-time is not far off of the usual concept-to-development process. We are a long way from the 120 day development of the Mustang. Most of the manufacturers have a 'skunk works' type of shop. They will each have their pet concepts they will try to roll into the concept proposal. It will be interesting but in these days we won't know much until the roll-out. I had a small part for SAC in the B-2 and a bit related to weapons for the B-1, In both cases very little was open to the public. It would be interesting to see the Request for proposal(RFP) if there was one. This may be an unsolicited proposal in an attempt to get the jump on the competition. It may also just turn into vapor ware or be a long delayed item (as was the B-1). Some of us may recall the B-1 began as the AMSA (advanced manned strategic Aircraft).

[GZR_Sactargets]

Doable or Not?: The Air Force's commitment to field a penetrating, survivable next-generation bomber in 2018 is "uncertain" at best and USAF's advocacy of the new platform "lacks conviction and credibility," the Center for Strategic and International Studies states in its new report. But there's more sobering news, according to CSIS: Having a penetrating bomber by 2018 "is probably not doable," because the technology is not mature enough, writes author Clark Murdock, senior adviser at CSIS, based on input from subject matter experts, including ex Air Force officers and former senior Defense Department officials. And trying to rush immature technology in that timeframe "will lead to skyrocketing costs," making the system "almost certainly not affordable," he says. Further, achieving the type of persistence in the platform so that it could hold targets at risk in highly defended areas deep inside enemy territory, is "extremely challenging and is probably not achievable in technologies mature enough for fielding in 2018," reads the report. Perhaps a better option, it argues, is to allow more time for the technologies to mature and instead field a more affordable "penetrating bomber the nation needs" in the mid 2020s. As an interim option, Murdock recommends that the Air Force consider fielding "a commercial-derivative bomber" optimized for conducting low-end missions such as close air support in low-threat environments if the B-52s and B-1s still in service around 2018 are not capable of supporting the volume of these missions. Air Force officials maintain that the QDR-driven date of 2018 can be met. And, the likely contractors-the new Boeing and Lockheed Martin bomber team and Northrop Grumman-all seem to think the new bomber is doable by 2018. A top Boeing official said last fall that technologies are mature enough to field an advanced bomber, and a Northrop counterpart agreed, but both cited funding as the critical issue.

[KevinJarvis]

Pardon my nieve thoughts on this, but what will a larger bomber aircraft do that a wing of fighter/bombers can't?

Not taking into account the weapons load and the physcological impact that larger aircraft bring, why couldn't several fighter/bombers, with higher stealth technology, do the same only in larger numbers? I understand this would put more crews at risk, but compare that to the survivabilty of a faster and stealthier aircraft and using smart weapons.

We definatly got our moneys worth out of the loveable Buff, but I'm not so sure the B1 or B2 were worth it due to cost overruns, mechanical difficulties and service length.

[SMOC]

I don't believe(unless I completely missed the quote) that the concept is to create a larger bomber but instead to create a better bomber. Newer technology will help make it self sustaining in combat limiting the amount of support aircraft necessary. Additionally, the BUFF and BONE use crews of 5 and 4 respectively while the newer B-2 only uses a crew of 2. In all likelihood the new bomber will also use a crew of 2 which will minimize necessary aircrew. Maintenance time will decrease. And there is the chance the payload will increase which could mean less sorties.

The only real question in this if the USAF will get the bomber they want the first time or if they will have a stop gap like the beloved FB-111A.

[GZR_Sactargets]

A single aircraft with a large payload needs one tanker. A pack of smaller aircraft needs a pack of tankers. That's one reason.

[flyboy]

With the advanced UCAVs coming on-line it might be a unmanned platform. With a large payload of JDAMs, a single large platform could strike many targets with only the risk of one aircraft.

[KevinJarvis]

Since drone F4's have been around a while, how long will it be till we see a QB-52?

[SMOC]

With the advanced UCAVs coming on-line it might be a unmanned platform. With a large payload of JDAMs, a single large platform could strike many targets with only the risk of one aircraft.

Well, at this point the requirement is for a manned platform so I wouldn't expect a UAS bomber... yet.