Next-Generation Bomber

Next-Generation Bomber
Boeing/Lockheed Martin "2018 Bomber" concept image
General information
Project forStealth bomber
Issued byUnited States Air Force
History
OutcomeCanceled
SuccessorsLong Range Strike Bomber

The Next-Generation Bomber (NGB; unofficially called the 2018 Bomber or B-3 Bomber) was a program to develop a new medium bomber for the United States Air Force. The NGB was initially projected to enter service around 2018 as a stealthy, subsonic, medium-range, medium payload bomber to supplement and possibly—to a limited degree—replace the U.S. Air Force's aging bomber fleet (B-52 Stratofortress and B-1 Lancer). The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) heavy bomber program superseded the NGB program.

Development

[edit]

1999 Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers controversy

[edit]
Main article: 2037 bomber controversy
1999 Long Range Bombers projection

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.[1][2]

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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]

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.[2] The paper's recommendations were adopted as Air Force policy by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Edward C. Aldridge Jr.[6] 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.[7][8]

2018 Bomber

[edit]

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.[9]

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.[10][11] 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.[12] Some speculation suggested that the next generation bomber might be hypersonic and unmanned.[13] 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.[14] He later stated that a manned subsonic bomber provides the "best value" to meet the required range and payload performance by 2018.[15]

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.[16][17] 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.[18] 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.[19]

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.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23]

The Air Force was expected to announce late in 2009 its precise requirements for a new bomber that would be operating by 2018.[24] 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.[25]

Move to LRS-B

[edit]
Further information: 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] In June 2009, the two teams working on NGB proposals were told to "close up shop".[29] On 1 March 2010, Boeing said that the joint project with Lockheed Martin had been suspended[30] 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.[31]

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.[32][33] 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.[34] On 27 October 2015, Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to build the new bomber.[35]

Design

[edit]

The design goals in January 2011 were:[36]

An August 2008 paper by Northrop Grumman highlighted the following trends and requirements:[40]

  • 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.

See also

[edit]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

Related lists

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 22 December 2009. Retrieved 13 September 2022.
  2. ^ a b U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper (Report). U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense. November 2001. p. 27. Retrieved 28 April 2021 – via Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 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
  3. ^ Tirpak, John A. (1 June 1999). "The Bomber Roadmap". Air Force Magazine. Retrieved 29 April 2021.
  4. ^ Axe, David (19 May 2014). "Will the $55 billion bomber program fly?". Center for Public Integrity. pp. V, 27. Retrieved 20 April 2021. 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
  5. ^ 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (PDF). Department of Defense. 30 September 2001. pp. 30–31. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  6. ^ Watts, Barry D. (April 2005). "Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options" (PDF). Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments: 15. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  7. ^ Tirpak, John A. (October 2002). "Long Arm of the Air Force" (PDF). Air Force Magazine. Vol. 85, no. 10. pp. 28–34. ISSN 0730-6784. OCLC 5169825. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  8. ^ "YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid". Flight International. 13 July 2004. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012.
  9. ^ Sirak, Michael (11 June 2003). "In striking distance". Jane's Defence Weekly: 28.
  10. ^ "Affecting the Strategic Battlespace with Effects-Based Public Affairs", Air chronicles, Air force, Spring 2006, archived from the original on 8 February 2008
  11. ^ "Bombs Away: How the Air Force Sold Its Risky New $55 Billion Plane". Wired. March 2012.
  12. ^ Grant 2007, pp. 17–20.
  13. ^ Grant 2007, pp. 6–7.
  14. ^ Warwick, Graham. "USAF says next bomber will be subsonic and manned". Flight International, 3 May 2007.
  15. ^ Warwick, Graham. "Speed bump: USAF sets modest goals for new bomber". Flight International, 12 June 2007.
  16. ^ "Why the US Wants a New Bomber", The Diplomat, 6 May 2012.
  17. ^ Ehrhard, Tom. "An Air Force Strategy for the Long Haul". Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 17 September 2009.
  18. ^ Hebert, Adam J (October 2006). "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends". Air Force Magazine. Retrieved 30 March 2010.
  19. ^ "Senior Air Force Generals To Skeptics: We Can Field A New Bomber In 2018". Archived 1 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine Defense Daily, 26 September 2007.
  20. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed to work on new bomber". United Press International. 25 January 2008. Archived from the original on 15 August 2009.
  21. ^ Boeing and Lockheed Martin Team for Next Generation Bomber Program (press release), Boeing, 2008, archived from the original on 28 January 2008
  22. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed team up on bomber project". Toronto Star. 25 January 2008.
  23. ^ "Ultra Stealth", Aviation Week, 26 May 2008
  24. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed to team up against Northrop for bomber contract". Seattle Times.
  25. ^ "Gates says next-generation bomber might fly without pilot", Congress Daily, Government Executive, 14 May 2009
  26. ^ Gates sees more changes to US weapons in 2011, Reuters, 15 April 2009
  27. ^ "USAF Bomber Grounded by More than Budget", Aviation Week
  28. ^ "Schwartz: Service needs long-range capability", Air Force Times, May 2009
  29. ^ RL34406, "Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress" Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Congressional Research Service, 18 September 2009
  30. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed Put Bomber Partnership on Ice". Defense news. 1 March 2010. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2011.
  31. ^ "Leader says future bomber won't go solo". Air Force Times. July 2010.
  32. ^ "Air Force secretary: 'Make hard choices now'". Govexec. Retrieved 6 September 2011.
  33. ^ "State of the Air Force" (speech). US: U.S. Air Force. 2010. Archived from the original on 19 July 2012.
  34. ^ Reed, John. "AFA: New bomber program 'underway'." DoD Buzz. 24 February 2012.
  35. ^ "Northrop Grumman wins Long Range Strike Bomber contract". The Washington Post. 27 October 2015.
  36. ^ a b c d e f g Majumdar, Dave. "U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers." Defense News, 23 January 2011.
  37. ^ Grant, Greg. "Air Force chief describes future bomber." Government Executive, 31 October 2007.
  38. ^ "U.S. Air Force: No 2009 Money for Next-Gen Bomber". Defensenews.com. Retrieved 6 September 2011.[dead link‍]
  39. ^ Majumdar, Dave. "New bomber could conduct long-range missions." AirForce Times, 12 February 2011.
  40. ^ The 2018 Bomber: The Case for Accelerating the Next Generation Long-Range Strike System

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Next-Generation_Bomber&oldid=1248632927"