Twitter Facebook Google RSS
Air Power 

Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward 


By Stew Magnuson 

B-1 bomber

It is a program shrouded in secrecy.

Air Force officials over the past few years have been happy to talk publicly about how much they need a new long-range strike bomber, but have given it a “secret” classification and share few other details.

But after a half-decade of discussions about what the aircraft should be in unclassified settings, 2014 has seen some revelations and movement in the program.

A request for proposals was released in July and two competitors are expected to respond, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team and Northrop Grumman.

Gen. Michael Hostage, commander of the Air Force air combat command, after the RFP was released, reiterated what has been said before.

The Air Force needs an aircraft by the mid-2020s that can reach deep inside enemy territory and deliver a lethal payload,  he said at an Air Force Association speech in Arlington, Virginia.
In his mind, the Air Force has bomber shortcomings now.

The B-52 and B-1 bombers do not have the ability to penetrate robust air defenses. The B-2 does, but its payload is limited, and there are only 21 of them.

“We have 21 B-2s, an aging fleet of B-52s and a rapidly aging fleet of B-1s,” he said. Adversaries have to know that they have no “sanctuary,” he said.

Those three aging aircraft have prompted the Air Force to name the long-range strike bomber as one of its three top acquisition priorities along with the KC-46 tanker and the F-35.

Analysts interviewed in 2013 about the bomber’s funding prospects struck a cautious note, saying funding delays could hamper the program. The outlook is much better and clearer this year, they said.

“The Air Force has made the hard tradeoffs internally to keep it fully funded. And I expect it will continue to do that,” said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The new bomber is “on track and pretty solid as a program,” he said.

The Air Force, however, has submitted budgets that exceed the levels of the Budget Control Act. “If they do that again this year, the Air Force will have to pare back its planned spending for fiscal year ’16,” he added. But he has heard that the Air Force has developed a balanced budget through 2023 that fully complies with the BCA.

“While there is some concern that sequester can impact funding for the program, it’s much less than some may think. I just don’t see a major challenge to the program,” Gunzinger said.

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at The Teal Group, said, “I think it is one of the more secure programs out there.”

Another revelation this year came from a July 2 Congressional Research Service report, which was posted first on the Federation of American Scientists website. Jeremiah Gertler, a specialist in military aviation, suggested in the three-page brief, “Budget Highlight: Air Force Long Range Strike Bomber,” that a good portion of the development money may have already been spent over the years in “black” budgets.

Gertler examined the budget projection numbers from 2013 to 2019 and concluded that it resembles a production program rather than a development program.

“This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets,” he wrote. “Such prior development would also help explain how the Air Force intends to get the system from a request for proposals to initial operational capability in about 10 years, when equally or less complicated systems like the F-22 and F-35 have taken more than 20.”

Citing the CRS report, Aboulafia said, “there is probably a lot of cash that has already been spent. … The ramp has remained pretty consistent. They are proceeding at full speed.”

Gunzinger said the acquisition strategy for the Air Force should be to buy capability over time. The first bomber off the line might not “do everything,” but functionalities can be added later on to make it more affordable and to not take such a bite out of the defense budget in the early years.

That includes a modular design.

“For a system that has a 30 to 40 year life, it is vital,” Gunzinger said. The nation can’t afford to build a new bomber or fighter every 15 to 20 years, he added.

The Air Force is sticking to its $550 million per aircraft price tag. Gunzinger said CSBA analyzed this number and found it to be realistic. Air Force officials have also stated publicly that they wanted already developed technologies for the aircraft, Gunzinger noted. That could keep the price down.

But “we can’t do what we did with the B-2 and prematurely truncate the buy at 21 aircraft,” Gunzinger said.

The plan to procure 132 B-2s fell well short of its goal after Congress lost faith in the program and cut the fleet number off at 21. Its predecessor, the B-1, also was never built in the numbers envisioned.

Once you lose that economy of scale and development costs are factored in, the price per aircraft skyrockets, he noted.

Eric Fanning, undersecretary of the Air Force, told Washington, D.C.- based reporters in March that the service was sticking to its $550 million per aircraft estimate.

“We are still using that as a pretty firm chalk line for those companies that are bidding on it,” he said. There are skeptics who believe the $550 million price is too low, and that the Air Force will not get the requirements out of the bomber that it needs, he said.

“This is keeping both the Air Force and the contractors pretty disciplined about what they put into the bomber,” he said.

The price of $550 million per aircraft figure does not factor in the development costs, he said. He didn’t know what the per-unit cost what be if the R&D was added, but it wouldn’t double it, he said.

Gunzinger said: “We need to buy them in numbers. Not only for the economy of scale, but to replace the fleets of aging bombers.”

It also depends on what kind of aircraft the Air Force is looking for, he said.

The service has consistently called the program a “family of systems.”

What that means exactly is still a closely guarded secret.

The potential bidders, who have seen the request for proposals, declined to provide comment. Boeing did not respond to a request for an interview. 

Tim Paynter, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems military aircraft systems director of communications, also could not make executives available for an interview, saying only in an emailed statement that:  “Northrop Grumman’s design, production and sustainment of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, the bomber most recently produced for the U.S. Air Force, positions the company well for the LRS-B program. We are very interested in working with the Air Force to provide this critical capability for the nation.”

A “family of systems” could mean several things, Aboulafia said.

Hostage in his July speech said: “We are not going to build a platform that has everything on it … it will be part of a family of capabilities and it will shape the members of that family to produce what it needs to produce.”

Gunzinger said this might include subsystems such as jammers, standoff weapons and decoys to improve survivability.

Aboulafia said there are three possibilities: it could mean both manned and unmanned versions, a concept that has been bandied about for some time. It could mean different types of aircraft and systems working together to deliver a payload — missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and bombers. Or it could be different sized aircraft scaled up or down to suit the mission needs.

Gunzinger said: “This is the way the DoD is now approaching future air dominance.” It is not looking at single aircraft to do a job. “They didn’t look at the bomber in isolation.”

Stand-off weapons, airborne electronic attack, sensor platforms and other penetrating systems can help aircraft survive behind enemy lines, he said.

“All this composes a system of systems for long range strike,” he said.

Another revelation this year was that the Air Force intends to begin the process of certifying the bomber for nuclear-weapons payloads shortly after it joins the force, Gunzinger pointed out.

That has dampened criticism that the Air Force wasn’t serious about maintaining the air-breathing leg of the nuclear triad, he said.

“It sounds as if the Air Force is indeed very serious about that,” he added.

The speculation is necessary because of the classified nature of the program.

Fanning said in March that he expected more transparency in the future.

“I expect, yes, that we will be revealing more details, and we will be more transparent on that program as we move forward and move further into it than we are right now,” he said.

Neither Gunzinger nor Aboulafia has seen more light being shed on the program so far.

Gunzinger said there is a good reason to keep the program in the black.

Requirements — such as the degree of stealth, the kinds of missions it will potentially perform, payload, range and other factors — shouldn’t be revealed to competitors, he said. Premature disclosures could diminish advantages.

“I’m surprised at some of the details they have revealed,” he said.

Aboulafia said as far as more transparency: “No one has seen it.”

Keeping a program “in the black” is a doubled-edged sword, he said. “On the one hand, it allows you to do all kinds of things without the hyper level of congressional scrutiny and oversight. The negative side of that is that you don’t build an industrial constituency, so it is harder to guarantee funding.”

The next milestone is the down select from two teams to one, which the analysts said is expected in the spring of 2015.

 - Additional reporting by Chelsea Todaro

Photo Credit: Defense Dept.
Reader Comments

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward

If you have an idea of how many missiles your adversary has in a particular area or in a system. How long it will take to replenish or rearm the system you could pretty much send cheap inexpensive missile decoys in swarm that radiate 4th generation fighter signals as well as jamming etc. What you will be doing is trading an expensive missile for a cheap decoy. What you will be doing is opening a hole in there air defense. That's one strategy. These decoys could be carried on B52 bombers. Speed of Sams is irrelevant in this scenario. Your depleting your adversaries stock pile.

oli on 09/04/2014 at 00:13

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward

A New Bomber in 10 years time ??? Please, unless they have already designed, built, and flight tested one using black project money, we would not see a new bomber until 2040. The Old Buff's may be in the air protecting America when they turn 100.

Michael S. on 08/25/2014 at 16:06

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward

How gullible the American public must be to accept the expenditure that this bomber will incur.
This is just an exercise for the government to keep the money making armament,s industry happy, as basically the need for a supersonic bomber is obsolete due to the weaponry that is in use today

Roy McArthur on 08/20/2014 at 05:20

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward

You need a 100 bombers to attack who? Until they tell us the end game, forget it. Missiles, ICBMs and cruise missiles make so much more sense then bombers costing $50 billion to make and probably 2 trillion to maintain.

madskills on 08/19/2014 at 16:14

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward in the technology and design won't show up on the flightline in China a year or so after the aircraft is rolled out? That kind of secret?

Steve Davies on 08/19/2014 at 07:08

Re: Top Secret Air Force Bomber Program Moves Forward

Sigh, this is one of those programs where "I'll believe it when I see it," that is IF we ever get to SEE it. What with the way Stealth aircraft programs have fared (Commanche, F-22, F-35, A-12, B-2, Darkstar drone, etc.) it's really a "Wait and see" approach to reveal if this one will be successful.

That being said, I think the new bomber has to fly higher and faster and attack before it gets to the target. The problem with the B-2 is that it was so precious that when used in Kosovo, "non-stealthy radar friendly" planes had to escort it, throwing SEAD and ECM jamming all over the place just to protect the B-2 in what was a moderate to low SAM threat environment. As such, it would be wise if the new Future Bomber System has some aircraft that carry SEAD, ECM, decoys and the like because I think the days of bombers operating solo in high-threat airspace is over since Russia has SAMs that go Mach 8+.

Oh, and aren't there 20 B-2s now (not 21) since one crashed in Guam?

Peter on 08/18/2014 at 15:08

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

  Bookmark and Share