Next-Generation Bomber

{{main|2037 bomber controversy}}

File:1999 USAF bomber roadmap.png

In 1999, the Air Force released a white paper stating that it would need a new "capability" around 2037 to replace retiring bombers. The paper estimated that due to mishap attrition and other factors other than useful service life, the number of B-1 Lancer would not meet Air Force requirements of 89 aircraft by 2018. For the B-2, the number of aircraft would slip below the service's requirements of 19 aircraft by 2027 due to a combination of mishaps and retirements due to the end of service life. It predicted it would need to begin retiring B-1s at the end of their service life around 2038.{{cite web|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL34406.pdf |title=RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress |publisher=Congressional Research Service |date=22 December 2009 |access-date=13 September 2022}}{{cite report |title=U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=usafresearch |via=Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln |publisher=U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense |page=27 |date=November 2001 |access-date=28 April 2021 |quote=The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037}}

The Department of the Air Force's contentment with the size and age of the bomber fleet disappointed some members of Congress who believed a new aircraft would be needed before 2035.{{cite magazine |last1=Tirpak |first1=John A. |title=The Bomber Roadmap |url=https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0699bomber/ |work=Air Force Magazine |date=1 June 1999 |access-date=29 April 2021}} The case for a hastened timeline was bolstered, some observers believed, by the DoD's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, which warned of increasing threats to U.S. power projection.{{cite web |last1=Axe |first1=David |title=Will the $55 billion bomber program fly? |url=https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/will-the-55-billion-bomber-program-fly/ |website=Center for Public Integrity |date=19 May 2014 |access-date=20 April 2021 |pages=V, 27 |quote=the Air Force believed it could wait until 2037 for a new bomber. But in 2001, a Defense Department strategy review warned that another world power could launch a surprise attack on a U.S. ally that U.S. ground and naval forces could not prevent}} The report said developments in adversary air defenses would threaten U.S. air power in future conflicts, and that access to enemy denied areas would be limited to stealth aircraft.{{cite book |title=2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report |date=30 September 2001 |publisher=Department of Defense |pages=30–31 |url=https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/quadrennial/QDR2001.pdf?ver=AFts7axkH2zWUHncRd8yUg%3d%3d |access-date=4 May 2021}}

The Air Force conceded that a new bomber would be needed earlier when it updated its service life projections in November 2001. The new paper anticipated a capability gap due to a strategic shift from nuclear deterrence to conventional bombing, and the loss of B-52's low-level flying mission capability. The paper said the Air Force would need to begin its acquisition program in 2012–2015.{{cite report |title=U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=usafresearch |via=Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln |publisher=U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense |page=27 |date=November 2001 |access-date=28 April 2021 |quote=The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037}} The paper's recommendations were adopted as Air Force policy by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Edward C. Aldridge Jr.{{cite journal |last1=Watts |first1=Barry D. |title=Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options |pages=15 |url=https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2005.04.06-Long-Range-Strike.pdf |access-date=10 May 2021 |journal=Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments |date=April 2005}} Internally, some Air Force officials also considered filling the gap by complementing the aging strategic bomber force with an interim "regional bomber", such as the proposed Lockheed Martin FB-22, Northrop Grumman FB-23, and Boeing B-1R.{{cite magazine |last=Tirpak |first=John A. |magazine=Air Force Magazine |access-date= 8 March 2017 |date= October 2002 |oclc= 5169825 |pages= 28–34 |title= Long Arm of the Air Force |url= http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2002/October%202002/1002longarm.pdf |volume= 85 |issue= 10 |issn= 0730-6784}}{{Cite web |date=13 July 2004 |title=YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2004/2004-09%20-%201169.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120723232009/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2004/2004-09%20-%201169.html |archive-date=23 July 2012 |website=Flight International}}

In June 2003, Jane's Defence Weekly reported upon ongoing study efforts within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and USAF Air Staff to prepare to start a new long-range strike system, which would not necessarily be an aircraft (other options being discussed included ultra-high-speed munitions), that could mature technologies in the 2012-15 timeframe in order to transfer into a developmental program.{{cite journal |last1=Sirak |first1=Michael |date=11 June 2003 |title=In striking distance |journal=Jane's Defence Weekly |page=28}}

The sinking of ex-USS Schenectady as a test during Operation Resultant Fury in 2004 demonstrated that heavy bombers could successfully engage naval targets on their own. This led to the requirement for a new bomber that could survive against modern defenses.{{Citation |url= http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/spr06/faggard.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080208151021/http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/spr06/faggard.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 8 February 2008 |date= Spring 2006 |title= Affecting the Strategic Battlespace with Effects-Based Public Affairs |publisher= Air force |newspaper= Air chronicles}}{{Cite magazine |date= Mar 2012 |url= https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/airforce-bomber-gamble/ |title= Bombs Away: How the Air Force Sold Its Risky New $55 Billion Plane |magazine=Wired}} In 2004–2006, the USAF Air Combat Command studied alternatives for a new bomber type aircraft to augment the current bomber fleet which now consists of largely 1970s era airframes, with a goal of having a fully operational aircraft on the ramp by 2018.{{Sfn |Grant |2007 |pp= 17–20}} Some speculation suggested that the next generation bomber might be hypersonic and unmanned.{{Sfn |Grant |2007 |pp= 6–7}} However, these were put to rest when US Air Force Major General Mark T. Matthews, head of ACC Plans and Programs stated that available technology indicates a manned subsonic bomber at a May 2007 Air Force Association sponsored event.Warwick, Graham. [http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-says-next-bomber-will-be-subsonic-and-manned-213646/ "USAF says next bomber will be subsonic and manned"]. Flight International, 3 May 2007. He later stated that a manned subsonic bomber provides the "best value" to meet the required range and payload performance by 2018.Warwick, Graham. [http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/speed-bump-usaf-sets-modest-goals-for-new-bomber-214539/ "Speed bump: USAF sets modest goals for new bomber"]. Flight International, 12 June 2007.

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), directed the Air Force to develop a new long-range precision strike capability by 2018; the previous "regional bomber" concepts were also dropped in this QDR.[https://thediplomat.com/2012/05/06/why-the-u-s-wants-a-new-bomber/ "Why the US Wants a New Bomber"], The Diplomat, 6 May 2012.Ehrhard, Tom. [http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2009/09/an-air-force-strategy-for-the-long-haul/ "An Air Force Strategy for the Long Haul"]. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 17 September 2009. USAF officials identified the new bomber as having top-end low-observability characteristics with the ability to loiter for hours over the battlefield area and respond to threats as they appear. Major General David E Clary, ACC vice-commander, summed it up by saying the new bomber would "penetrate and persist". Deployment of cruise missiles was another issue for the new bomber. The B-52 is the only aircraft currently in the Air Force inventory allowed under strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty to be armed with nuclear cruise missiles. Major consideration was paid to operation readiness and flexibility. In 2006, the program expected that a prototype could be flying as early as 2009.{{cite magazine |url=http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/October%202006/10062018.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090923015849/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/October%202006/10062018.aspx |url-status=usurped |archive-date=23 September 2009 |title=The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends |magazine=Air Force Magazine |date= October 2006 |access-date=30 March 2010 |first=Adam J |last=Hebert}} In September 2007, several Air Force generals stressed that it was still their plan to field the bomber by 2018. In order to meet the tight schedule, the Air Force would initially pursue a basic model then improves its capabilities subsequently.[http://www.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd/current.htm#A5 "Senior Air Force Generals To Skeptics: We Can Field A New Bomber In 2018"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081201125628/http://www.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd/current.htm#A5 |date=1 December 2008}} Defense Daily, 26 September 2007.

On 25 January 2008, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced an agreement to embark on a joint effort to develop a new US Air Force strategic bomber, with plans for it to be in service by 2018.{{Cite news |date=25 January 2008 |url=http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/01/25/boeing_lockheed_to_work_on_new_bomber/3556/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20090815024217/http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/01/25/boeing_lockheed_to_work_on_new_bomber/3556/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=15 August 2009 |title=Boeing, Lockheed to work on new bomber |agency=United Press International}} This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions, including advancements in network-enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.{{Citation|year=2008 |type=press release |url=http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080125a_nr.html |title=Boeing and Lockheed Martin Team for Next Generation Bomber Program |publisher=Boeing |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080128172840/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080125a_nr.html |archive-date=28 January 2008 |df=dmy-all}} Under their joint arrangement, Boeing, the No. 2 Pentagon supplier, would be the primary contractor with about a 60% share, and Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, would have around a 40% share, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans.{{Cite news |url= https://www.thestar.com/Business/article/297438 |title= Boeing, Lockheed team up on bomber project |work=Toronto Star |date= 25 January 2008 |url-access=subscription}} Northrop Grumman, another major defense contractor, received $2 billion in funding in 2008 for "restricted programs" – also called black programs – for a demonstrator that could fly in 2010.{{Citation |url= http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTI-Bomber.xml |title= Ultra Stealth |newspaper= Aviation Week |date= 26 May 2008}}

The Air Force was expected to announce late in 2009 its precise requirements for a new bomber that would be operating by 2018.{{Cite news |url= http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004145212_webboebomber25.html |title=Boeing, Lockheed to team up against Northrop for bomber contract |work=Seattle Times}} In May 2009, testimony before Congress, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mentioned that the Pentagon was considering a pilotless aircraft for the next-generation bomber role.{{Citation |url= http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0509/051409cdpm1.htm |title= Gates says next-generation bomber might fly without pilot |newspaper= Congress Daily |publisher= Government Executive |date= 14 May 2009}}

{{more|Long Range Strike Bomber program}}

In April 2009, Defense Secretary Gates announced a delay in the new generation bomber project that would push it past the 2018 date.{{Citation |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53E4KG20090415 |title= Gates sees more changes to US weapons in 2011 |date= 15 April 2009 |publisher= Reuters}} This was caused not only by budget considerations as the NGB was already experiencing spiraling costs due to numerous mission additions and requirements creep, but also by nuclear arms treaty considerations.{{Citation |url= http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB042209.xml&headline=USAF%20Bomber%20Grounded%20by%20More%20than%20Budget&channel=defense |title= USAF Bomber Grounded by More than Budget |newspaper= Aviation Week}} On 19 May 2009, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said that the USAF's focus in the 2010 budget was on "Long-range strike, not next-generation bomber" and will push for this in the QDR.{{citation |work= Air Force Times|date= May 2009 |url= http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_hasc_hearing_051909w/ |title= Schwartz: Service needs long-range capability}} In June 2009, the two teams working on NGB proposals were told to "close up shop".[http://opencrs.com/document/RL34406/2009-09-18/?23939 RL34406, "Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022521/http://opencrs.com/document/RL34406/2009-09-18/?23939 |date=16 July 2011}}. Congressional Research Service, 18 September 2009 On 1 March 2010, Boeing said that the joint project with Lockheed Martin had been suspended{{cite web |url= http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4519959&c=AME&s=AIR |archive-url= https://archive.today/20120730041208/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4519959&c=AME&s=AIR |url-status= dead |archive-date= 30 July 2012 |title= Boeing, Lockheed Put Bomber Partnership on Ice |publisher= Defense news |date=1 March 2010 |access-date=6 September 2011}} and on 24 June 2010, Lieutenant General Philip M. Breedlove said that the term "next-generation bomber" was dead and that the Air Force was working on a long-range strike "family" that would draw on the capabilities of systems like the F-35 and F-22 to help a more affordable and versatile bomber complete its missions.{{Cite web |url= http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/airforce_long_range_071010w/ |title= Leader says future bomber won't go solo |work= Air Force Times |date= Jul 2010}}

On 13 September 2010, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said that long range strike would continue cautiously with proven technologies and that the plan to be submitted with the 2012 budget could call for either a missile or an aircraft.{{cite web |url= http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=46087 |title= Air Force secretary: 'Make hard choices now' |publisher= Govexec |access-date= 6 September 2011}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.af.mil/information/speeches/speech.asp?id=610 |title=State of the Air Force |year=2010 |publisher=U.S. Air Force |place=US |type=speech |archive-date=19 July 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120719181511/http://www.af.mil/information/speeches/speech.asp?id=610 |url-status=dead |df=dmy}} The bomber is to be nuclear-capable, but not certified for nuclear use until later. On 24 February 2012, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley announced that a competition was under way with a target delivery in the mid-2020s.Reed, John. [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/afa-new-bomber-program-underway/ "AFA: New bomber program 'underway'."] DoD Buzz. 24 February 2012. On 27 October 2015, Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to build the new bomber.{{cite news |title=Northrop Grumman wins Long Range Strike Bomber contract |date=27 October 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pentagon-to-award-long-range-strike-bomber-contract-tuesday/2015/10/27/7f299748-7cc3-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html}}

The design goals in January 2011 were:Majumdar, Dave. [https://archive.today/20120904021628/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5520432 "U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers."] Defense News, 23 January 2011.

• Total program cost estimated at $40 to $50 billion.
• Fleet size of 175 aircraft: 120 for ten combat squadrons, plus 55 for training and reserves.
• Subsonic maximum speed.
• Range: 5,000+ nautical miles (9,260+ km).
• "Optionally manned" (for non-nuclear missions).
• Total mission durations of 50 to 100 hours (when unmanned).
• Ability to "survive daylight raids in heavily defended enemy territory".Grant, Greg. [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1007/103107g1.htm "Air Force chief describes future bomber."] Government Executive, 31 October 2007.
• Ability to carry thermonuclear weapons.
• Designed to use commercial off-the-shelf propulsion, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies.{{cite web|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3233524&C=america |title=U.S. Air Force: No 2009 Money for Next-Gen Bomber |publisher=Defensenews.com |access-date=6 September 2011}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
• Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and aerial reconnaissance along with command and control gear to enable the crew to direct other aircraft and forces.Majumdar, Dave. [http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-new-bomber-could-do-long-range-missions-021211w/ "New bomber could conduct long-range missions."] AirForce Times, 12 February 2011.

An August 2008 paper by Northrop Grumman highlighted the following trends and requirements:[http://www.northropgrumman.com/analysis-center/paper/assets/The_2018_Bomber_the_case_for_a.pdf The 2018 Bomber: The Case for Accelerating the Next Generation Long-Range Strike System]

• Airfields available for American use have declined since the Cold War.
• Hostile cruise and ballistic missiles could shut down the few available airfields.
• Fewer fighter aircraft will be available to escort the bomber force.
• Advanced fighter aircraft and surface to air missiles are being made available to potentially hostile states.
• The existing USAF bomber force was small and largely outdated.

{{Portal|Aviation}}

{{aircontent

|see also=

• Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider
• 2037 bomber controversy
• Long Range Strike Bomber program

|related=

|similar aircraft=

• Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

|lists=

• List of bomber aircraft

}}

{{Reflist|32em}}

• {{Citation |last=Grant |first=Dr. Rebecca |url=http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/0207bombers.pdf |title=Return of the Bomber, The Future of Long-Range Strike |publisher=Air Force Association |date=February 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629152341/http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/0207bombers.pdf |archive-date=29 June 2011 |df=dmy-all}}
• {{Citation |last= Rose |first= William 'Bill' |year= 2010 |title= Secret Projects: Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft |place= Hinckley, England, UK |publisher= Midland}}

• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2004/November%202004/1104strike.aspx |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090825145639/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2004/November%202004/1104strike.aspx |url-status= usurped |archive-date= 25 August 2009 |title= Long-Range Strike in a Hurry |magazine=Air Force Magazine |date= November 2004}}
• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/11294wna.xml |title= USAF Weighs Four Skunk Works Designs for Interim Strike |magazine=Aviation Week & Space Technology |date= 28 November 2004}}
• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/October%202006/10062018.aspx |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090923015849/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/October%202006/10062018.aspx |url-status= usurped |archive-date= 23 September 2009 |title= The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends |magazine=Air Force Magazine |date= October 2006}}
• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/August%202007/0807bomber.aspx |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090611003315/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/August%202007/0807bomber.aspx |url-status= usurped |archive-date= 11 June 2009 |title= Great Expectations |magazine=Air Force Magazine |date= August 2007}}
• {{Citation |url= http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm |title= "B-3" Long Range Strike Platform |publisher= Global Security}}
• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/March%202008/0308IssBf.aspx |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090815025007/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/March%202008/0308IssBf.aspx |url-status= usurped |archive-date= 15 August 2009 |title= 'Issue Brief', 2018 Bomber |magazine=Air Force Magazine |date= March 2008}}
• {{Citation|url=http://opencrs.com/document/RL34406/2009-12-22/?24320 |id=RL34406 |title=Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress |publisher=Congressional Research Service |date=22 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022716/http://opencrs.com/document/RL34406/2009-12-22/?24320 |archive-date=16 July 2011 |df=dmy-all}}
• {{Citation |url= http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080125_bomber_assessment.pdf |title= US Air Force Bomber Modernization Plans: An Independent Assessment |publisher= CSIS}}
• {{Citation|url=http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-.pdf |title=The Case For Long-Range Strike: 21st Century Scenarios |publisher=Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090226215825/http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-.pdf |archive-date=26 February 2009 |df=dmy-all}}
• {{Citation|last=Gunzinger |first=Mark |url=http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20100914.Sustaining_America/R.20100914.Sustaining_America.pdf |title=Sustaining America's Strategic Advantage in Long-Range Strike |publisher=Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments |date=September 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110105054305/http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20100914.Sustaining_America/R.20100914.Sustaining_America.pdf |archive-date=5 January 2011 |df=dmy-all}}
• {{Cite magazine |url=http://www.popsci.com/node/30794 |title=Stealth Reborn |magazine=Popular Science |date=January 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090122100310/http://www.popsci.com/node/30794 |archive-date=22 January 2009 |df=dmy-all}}
• {{Cite magazine |url= http://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-secret-military-program-2014-8 |title= The US Air Force Is Pushing Ahead With One of Its Most Secretive Programs |date= August 2014 |magazine=National Defense Magazine}}

{{Boeing model numbers}}

{{Stealth aircraft}}

Category:Stealth aircraft

Category:Military aircraft procurement programs of the United States

Category:Strategic bombers