US Air Force to Develop New Generation Bomber by 2018!

The US Air force's development plan for a next generation bomber that could finally replace the ageing B-52 fleet is finally coming together. A top Air Force General in Washington said on Wednsday, June 14th. The new aircraft will be developed using the lastes technologies from several major R&D programs including the F-22 and even a few Black Programs.

Washington: The United States will very likely field a next-generation sub-sonic bomber by 2018, a top Air Force general said Wednesday. He also said that he was confident that development of the bomber would take place within this tight schedule. Typically, development of new aircraft takes, at the very least, a decade.

"We have technologies we can exploit quickly," said Lt Gen Robert Elder Jr, the commander of the 8th Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., and Joint Functional Component commander for Global Strike and Integration at the US Strategic Command. "There's been a lot of technology development that can be plowed back into this airplane ... (which allows us) to be able to do the types of things that drive you to a subsonic bomber. But it achieves what you are looking for."

Source:USAF to Develop New Bomber by 2018

This is a major and long awaited step forward in the development of a new heavy bomber for the US Air force. This announcement shows a serious commitment on the part of the Air Force to updating the US Bomber fleet and expanding it's capibilities for evolving threats.

I see this as a major step on several fronts:

First: It may finally allow the legendary B-52 to get it long and well earned retirement. While the B-52 is truly one of the greatest planes of all times, we must remember that the Newest aircraft in that fleet is now 45 years old. Even the best aircraft wears out after decades of flying and combat. Even the Great B-52 has to move on at some point.

Second: By bringing new technology to the US bomber fleet, the effectiveness and efficency of the fleet will go up dramatically! For example this plane could be design to an even higher level of reliability, mantainability and servicability than either the F-22 or even F-35 by incorperating everything that has been learned from the development, testing and deplotment of these planes.

Third: The development of this bomber will represent the new post Cold War thinking and strategies. since the Cold War ended in the late 1980's, the US military has made major changes in its doctrine for fighting wars.

This is the trasition the US Air Force has been needing to make for along time now. I am glad to see they are moving forward at long last!

For anyone intrestined in further reading on this topic, se the following sites for more details:

www.govexec.com...

New Bomber by 2018

USFA Sets Modest Goals for New Bomber

These sources will help provide perspective and in depth info in the new bomber project!

Tim

NOTE: While this is basically breaking news, I felt that do to the topic and focus of this post, it would be better suited to the Aircraft Forum then the Breaking News Forum!

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Ghost01]

Is it really breaking news? I personally have heard about said replacement programe for some time now and for me this time line really point out to me that there is no need for an interm bomber unless they can devleop it and field it in under 2 years which is more then highly unlikely.

But this is the same programme isn't it? We have already had an active thread on the USAF bomber for ages already.

With the length of development times, will we see it in service before 2030?

The B-52 will be being pushed around in a wheelchair by then! Too little too late?

A change in the philosophy of small numbers of technologically advanced weapons balancing large numbers of 'iron' weapons?

Will the USA have to buy something from outside (outsource)?

Flog them some Tornados waynos!

The Winged Wombat

To penetrate and persist in the presence of integrated air defences "the next-generation bomber will have signature reduction well below the F-22 and F-35," says Muellner. He adds: "They are good at shooter frequencies, but not at low frequencies. The B-2 is good at low frequencies, but not at shooter frequencies. The next-generation bomber will be really good at all frequencies."

Surprising to say the least


(From your flightglobal link)

Uh-oh...this could be a very bad idea.

IMHO, they are keeping it subsonic because of the heat produced in supersonic flight. Keeping it harder to hit with IRAAMs.

I doubt we will see traditional control surfaces on it, I bet anything that it will rely on 3d TVC.

The problem is...that we are relying too much on stealth again. I think that by 2018 there will be significant improvements in anti-stealth systems.

Sounds like it cant hurt though.

Tim, I do believe that waynos and Canada are correct we had a thread on this recently. And this is not so much the next generation bomber as the interim one. It is not designed to replace the B-52, infact it is nowhere near it in terms of range and payload class regardless of the current mantra concerning PGM's, mini weapons and consequently smaller payloads. In reality the B-52 replacement wont be seen till at least 2030 and will probably replace all 3 current bombers eventually.

LEE.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by thebozeian]

I guess it depends what you call a B-52 replacement. If the aircraft is designed to match the B-52 abilities, then this is it, otherwise it is something to prevent the USA becoming a nation of 300 million people and only a few dozen long range bombers (B-1s and B-2s).

Nothing lasts forever, including B-52s, and they have to be replaced with something that trucks bombs, no matter how crude, and quickly.

Personally I don't believe that a true B-52 replacement can successfully be designed with higher than current in-service technology, starting now, and be in service, in numbers, by 2030.

And by 2030, as you point out, the B-1 and B-2 will also need to be replaced. Why is it that I can't see that being achieved?

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Uh-oh...this could be a very bad idea....

I doubt we will see traditional control surfaces on it, I bet anything that it will rely on 3d TVC.

The problem is...that we are relying too much on stealth again. I think that by 2018 there will be significant improvements in anti-stealth systems.

Sounds like it cant hurt though.

Sounds like your relying on 3d TVC with no back ups in the form of control surfaces like the B-2 has in place and a number of UAV's that are flying wings. While I agree TVC is important I think you miss the point when you point out the relyance on stealth but don't acknowledge tvc limitations. As me and Zaph have said to each other I wouldn't want to be on the plane that lost TVC and had been to that point relying on it.

Honestly alot of these discussions remind me of one had by people when the F-4 came out. So to wrap up I'll use your words if I may?

"Uh-oh...this could be a very bad idea...."

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
And by 2030, as you point out, the B-1 and B-2 will also need to be replaced. Why is it that I can't see that being achieved?

The B-2 (by that I mean the future upgraded version of that time) will not be replaced by 2030 nor will the B-52, they can still be an effective platform given a certain mission. The B-1 and B-52 and eventually B-2 will be replaced by a 'system of systems', I doubt we will see a one to one replacement of the bomber force. Our future bomber force will probably look something like this; A large number of medium bombers (this "interim" 2018 bomber), the current B-2 (upgraded) fleet, a moderate number of the "next generation exotic" heavy bomber (the planned 2037 bomber) a small number of "global strike" vehicles (see FALCON etc...) and conventional ICBM's (as well as any current or future "black" project). No doubt the number of conventional bombers will be less, however they will be much more capable and globally effective than our current fleet.

Westpoint23,

My point is that the USA has most of its Bomber eggs in the B-52 basket. While the B-1 and B-2 may be able to continue for quite some time with upgrades, the numerically greater B-52s only need to develop a career ending situation (such as spar corrosion, for instance) and the USA long range strike force will be reduced to a relative handful of aircraft, albeit highly capable aircraft. I feel that to include ICBMs as an asset in 'regional' conflicts such as currently exist would be publicly and politically unacceptable.

While this may be acceptable in peacetime, the increased usage of these assets in the apparently ongoing situation further shortens the lives of the airframes. Eventually even things such as engine pylon supports and undercarriage components must succumb to fatigue.

While Western allies are operating on peacetime economies, the fact is that the military is using assets at a wartime rate and it would be extremely difficult to convince any Western population that military budgets would have to be increased to wartime standards. The inevitable outcome must be an unacceptable attrition rate (in capabilities, or airframe life) in relation to a peacetime budget.

This problem is magnified, in my view, by the fact that, worldwide, it is taking in excess of 20 years to take a design from concept to operational readiness.

In my mind, at least, the figures just don't add up, and the USA and others will end up suffering from the lack of ongoing commitment to a B-52 replacement during the 80s and 90s. This in turn will put further pressure upon medium bomber assets (F-15E / Tornado, etc) through increased usage and the value of which is partly dependent upon 'in theatre' or at least 'near theatre' basing to be effective without massive tanker support (which itself has been at crisis point due to aged airframes for more than 20 years).

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by thebozeian
And this is not so much the next generation bomber as the interim one. It is not designed to replace the B-52, infact it is nowhere near it in terms of range and payload class regardless of the current mantra concerning PGM's, mini weapons and consequently smaller payloads.
[edit on 17-6-2007 by thebozeian]

Lee and other's,

What I posted is a newer On-Line article. The thread title was the artical title. I used the ATS "Breaking News" format, but posted to this forum because I felt it was a more approprate place for the artical. I didn't Invent the title, I copied it from the online article! This isn't truly "Breaking News" which is the main reason I didn't post it to that forum. I was looking for a way to post the latest update I could find on the topic. Sorry if you all aren't happy with my effort to contribute to this ongoing and important topic! I didn't expect you all to be so disappointed with me.

Now as for the topic at hand, I believe this is an inportant step forward and worthy of discussion here. While it's called the "interm bomber" it will still be part of the next-generation bomber fleet. I can't see the Air Force scrapping these bombers in 2037 when the new heavy bomber comes online. I see this new plane probably seving side-by-side with the next heavy bomber.

Tim

Sorry Tim if we jumped on you, your reasoning for starting another thread is fair enough. I guess we have all been so used to seeing some people looking for any excuse to post another thread we forget that sometimes there is a valid reason for doing it. No hard feelings

While Western allies are operating on peacetime economies, the fact is that the military is using assets at a wartime rate and it would be extremely difficult to convince any Western population that military budgets would have to be increased to wartime standards. The inevitable outcome must be an unacceptable attrition rate (in capabilities, or airframe life) in relation to a peacetime budget.

This problem is magnified, in my view, by the fact that, worldwide, it is taking in excess of 20 years to take a design from concept to operational readiness.

In my mind, at least, the figures just don't add up, and the USA and others will end up suffering from the lack of ongoing commitment to a B-52 replacement during the 80s and 90s. This in turn will put further pressure upon medium bomber assets (F-15E / Tornado, etc) through increased usage and the value of which is partly dependent upon 'in theatre' or at least 'near theatre' basing to be effective without massive tanker support (which itself has been at crisis point due to aged airframes for more than 20 years).

Winged Wombat, yes this is the essence of the problem. And as you eluded to with tankers, bad decisions have a "rippling snow ball effect".

Whilst the current official date that the B-52 will become innefective from attrition and fatigue is around 2037-8, this figure didn't take into account current wartime usage. The BUFF may well run out of hours well before then and as you point out development cycles have become ridiculously long. I do believe however that the plan is to get the interim bomber onto a much shorter cycle to meet the 2018 deadline.

Its sadly ironic that if the F-111 had not been killed off early in USAF service and had had a major upgrade in the 1998-2005 period the need for a medium sized interim bomber would be less urgent. This in turn would have taken pressure off the heavy bomber fleet allowing bomber design, funding and planning efforts to maximise next gen capabillity. In fact a major upgrade of the Ardvark would have been vastly cheaper than an entirely new design, that essentially is just a new stealthy, but very subsonic F-111 anyway. Add to this that the USAF would have been able to continue having it's own organic EA assets (EF-111's) and you then take pressure from the USN's Prowler/Growler fleet. Given that the EA-6B needs to be replaced urgently because of the need to cover both the USAF and USN wearing it out much quicker, it wasnt really a money saving exercise retiring the EF-111's at all.

Short sighted penny pinching in the 90's and incompetent planning is going to come back to haunt the USAF and its bomber fleet in the years to come. And unless the decision to increase spending is made coupled with improvements in the performance of contractors, development cycles and millitary chiefs shying away from last minute "gold plated" design changes, a once great USAF will continue to shrink.

LEE.

Indeed it seems that America has made bad decisions across the whole military aircraft spectrum, with the exception of the fighter role.

The reliance on advanced technology in the bomber role has resulted in equipment which even the might of the US economy can only afford in very small numbers. This may have been OK in the Cold War scenario, where ICBMs dominated the mutual deterrence theory, but makes little sense in the current world. The asset cannot be in two places at the one time, and eventually the technological advantages which make them effective will be be overcome and they will be no more effective than a Vickers Vimy.

It's easy to look back with 20/20 vision, but who could have predicted the current world situation 25 years ago. Perhaps it all goes back to the basic principle of war that you must plan for every eventuality and maintain a balanced and versatile force structure.

One could almost draw a parallel with the Romans. An empire which became rich through a strong military, but which lost the will to spend to maintain that military in adequate numbers (probably due to the self delusion of invincibility), ultimately resulting in the loss of the assets that made them rich in the first place. Time will tell!

Keep it simple and versatile and get it into service in ten years - which probably means 15 years with the inevitable slippages!

If the tanker fleet is desperately in need of replacement because nobody did it in the 70s and 80s then WHY NOT re-open the KC-135 line and build a couple of hundred of them with CFM engines - even if the jigs are no longer in existence, the drawings for an aircraft that worked, and needs no further development (and is still the benchmark for the role) must surely exist. (you'd probably be able to export more of them now as well, as the market for tankers is far greater than it was when the KC-135 was first built) At the same time, you can sit back and design something better, but at least while you're doing it, you have a credible capability with some airframe life. No loss and all gain for everyone concerned!

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

I believe the 2018 date will be met, this program has likely been thought of for some time now, even thought the USAF just went public with it. New programs and technologies in production, (F-22, F-35 etc...) as well as other "black" systems will contribute to a fast RD process. Also, with China emerging as the premier threat in the 21st century the US knows it cannot afford to wast any time. By leveraging "off the shelf" technology and current systems as well as building a relatively conservative design it is possible to reach IOC within a decade, as long as congress does not screw it up that is...

Hmmmm

I can't quite see why China is considered such a threat to the USA (yes, I know they are the only major power left other than the US, and getting stronger).

America is financing China's move into the 21st Century, my friend, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you. I think it is really as simple as that.

Let the Chinese run China without interference or 'moral indignation' and they will continue to let you spend billions of dollars there making them rich. The rest is paranoia!

I think we all know that the MIC needs enemies to continue to exist, and if there are non available, they will invent some.

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, with China emerging as the premier threat in the 21st century the US knows it cannot afford to wast any time. By leveraging "off the shelf" technology and current systems as well as building a relatively conservative design it is possible to reach IOC within a decade, as long as congress does not screw it up that is...

Right on Westpoint!

Even if everything does work as plan, the US is still in a jam when it comes to bombers right now. The problem being that we have worked ourselves into a corner where we are faced with two problems that call for different solutions.

Traditionally, the US has kept two bombers flying as a complimentry system, using a sort-of Hi/Low mix. In the case of the bombers, it is usually one heavy bomber like the B-52 or B-2 filling the high end of the spectrum, with a medium bomber like the B-47 or FB-111 for the low end of the spectrum. The catch is right now, we do Not have any medium bombers at All! What we really need is a new medium bomber that can fill the low-end, workhorse role, and a new Heavy bomber. This is where we're in trouble, because we're lacking one critical thing: $$$$$

All of these things cost money, and the Pentagon is feeling the Big Squeeze. Even with deficit spending, there is only so much money to go around. If the Air Force is planning to hold on to it's traditional Hi/Low Mix for the bomber fleet, this will have to be more than the "Interm" Bomber it is being sold as.

Seriously, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the "Intrem Bomber" lasts for a good 30+ years of service.

Tim

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... you can call it an "interim"all you want, along with the USAF and defense lobbyists who are using that term to dumb down congress... But the fact still remains that this bomber will be procured in large numbers and serve for decades to come.

That is what I posted in another thread regarding this "interim" bomber. Basically the USAF and the big defense contractors are using this term to ensure that the projects receives adequate funding from congress and that it does not threaten future planned bomber projects. This bomber will be a very capable system that will be procured in significant number and it will go on to serve just like any other bomber. There is nothing "interim" about it, if that were the case all bombers which were designed while a future bomber was being planned would have to be called "interim". That pretty much covers all current bombers in service.

Calling it "interim" and using a relatively conservative design in combination with a "we need it now or else we fall behind" plead works. This ensures that this program is funded and that it can be used a bargaining chip when 2037 comes around. It's not like it has not been done before, look at the Super Hornet. I'm sure that too was sold as an "interim" to the F-35 and as a slight Hornet upgrade when in reality both of those could not be more false.

From what everyone on these threads are saying about this "interm" bomber ( i agree there is nothing interm about it) it sounds like the long range strike plateform that was being talked about with the renewed interest in the FB-23 only a year ago. Its like the people that where pushing the program fell back got a new battle plan and pushed again. Also the fact that this is pushing for shuch a lofty target and the fact that alot of people are saying it wont be all that watered down makes me question that it will get fielding and tested so quickly. Yes its been done in the past but there are alot of hurtles in the gov now and no one who has been following aviation in the past 2-5 years needs to be told that. Westpoint I think in order for this to happen the way they claim you need a miricale.

On a side note was the F-18E/F fielded on time?

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

I do not think any miracles are required, just a non nonsense general attitude with a solid workforce behind it. We do not know how much work has already been done on this bomber behind close doors and within as of now classified projects and programs. As for the Super Hornet, it had one of the fastest development cycles of any new fighter. First requested by the USN in 92, flew in 95 and entered service in 99, on time and on budget.