Defense News Suddenly, USAF Wants A New Bomber
June 7, 2004
By Laura M. Colarusso
U.S. Air Force officials are jumpstarting efforts to bring new long-range strike capabilities into the inventory — a move that shows the service is facing up to the harsh reality that it needs to modernize more than its fighter fleet, analysts and sources said.
“It’s not a panic,” said one Air Force source familiar with long-range strike aircraft. “It’s the looming reality that we are running out of time.”
The Air Force has long planned to fly the current bombers — the B-1, B-2 and B-52 — for three more decades, allowing officials to spend today’s money on the F/A-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). But recently, the service seems less sure.
On April 29, the Air Force told defense contractors that it was “updating its requirements for [global strike and precision attack] capabilities” and asked for ways to improve “substantially” the service’s strike capabilities by 2015.
The request for information left open the option to upgrade existing aircraft or buy an entirely new plane. Either way, the aim would be to begin rolling out the new or improved aircraft by 2015, and have them fully operational in 2020, the request said. The program could start as early as 2006 — a fast-moving acquisition schedule when compared with the two-decade-long effort to develop the F/A-22.
Air Force Secretary James G. Roche has repeatedly stressed that a faster strike plane is needed to hit moving targets, particularly during counter-terrorism operations against elusive foes.
Other needed capabilities include substantial range and the ability to evade ever-more-sophisticated air defenses. U.S. and British aircraft flew from air bases in nearby countries during Operation Iraqi Freedom, but that may not always be possible, said Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force vice chief of staff, testifying March 3 before the House Armed Services Committee on March 3.
“We are unlikely to encounter such a luxury in subsequent conflicts,” said Moseley, who commanded the air wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in written testimony. “In the future, we will require deep strike capabilities to penetrate and engage high-value targets during the first minutes of hostilities anywhere in the battlespace.”
Air Force officials were not available to comment further by press time about plans for a new bomber project.
Possible Solutions
But the Air Force source familiar with long-range strike aircraft said the request for information shows that the service is trying to figure out what it needs to round out what may be an imperfect mix of combat aircraft.
“The question is, what is it?” the source said. “How many do we need? How much can we afford?”
Various unmanned aerial vehicle technologies might offer one answer. Another might be the F/B-22, a bomber version of the Raptor proposed in 2001 as U.S. and allied forces were hunting for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The fighter can cruise about 500 miles at around 900 mph, or four times as far at slower speeds.
An elongated bomber version would have a range nearly two-and-a-half times as long, and carry 30 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs internally. Proponents say the F/B-22 could be ready relatively quickly because most of the development work has already been done. Critics say the extended fuselage would require the F/B-22 to undergo rigorous developmental and operational testing regimens.
Already, the service has received about 25 responses to the April 29 request, said Lt. Col. M.D. Dates, chief of bomber requirements for Air Combat Command. Boeing has filed six, including a re-engined, upgraded B-1; an X-45D, a larger version of the X-45B Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle; and a blended-wing-body arsenal ship, company officials said. Northrop Grumman has submitted eight suggestions, including a B-2 upgrade and unmanned systems.
One thing’s for sure, said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a nonprofit defense analysis group: The Air Force’s current focus on the short-ranged JSF and Raptor, both by Lockheed Martin, won’t solve the long-range strike problem.
“If you’re looking at Turkey as the model of the future, the front-line states are not going to give you basing rights and you can’t do short-range strike missions,” Pike said. “If you can’t get any closer to the targets than Diego Garcia or Guam, what kind of airplane are you going to use? You’re not going to fly a bunch of Joint Strike Fighters halfway around the planet.”
A New Office
The Air Force has created an Air Force Materiel Command office to support the search for a new long-range strike capability. The Long Range Strike office convened for the first time Feb. 11; its integrated-process team came together later in the month.
Its members may use the results of the request for information to figure out “where are we now, where are we going and how are we going to get there,” said Dates, a team member.
By 2007, the team will complete an analysis of alternatives and determine what technologies the Air Force should develop for the long-range strike platform — whether it turns out to be a manned aircraft, a remotely-piloted vehicle, a space system or something else.
The team also will decide whether the Air Force needs ask for long-range strike money in 2006. Dates said the Air Force is now looking to field the heavy bomber replacement by 2025, at least a decade earlier than previously planned.
Dates said he did not know why the Air Force had accelerated the schedule, but Moseley’s March 3 testimony gave some insight.
“Today, our current projections show all three … bombers to be viable weapon systems for decades to come,” Moseley said. “However, aging aircraft sustainment and advances in threat technology will eventually make a new bomber mandatory.”
© Copyright 2004
