LET'S TALK BOMBERS (by Riq Baldwin)

The Secretary of the Department of Defense recently requested from Congress permission to conduct another BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). Last week Congress understandably balked at it (but it is still being discussed). Because of fiscal realities presented by the current administration, the United States Air Force (USAF) and its sister services have to make some tough decisions. 

The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and some less critical future programs in order to preserve some essential programs so as to retain its capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. These “essential” programs include:

- Produce the KC-46 tanker
- Continue production of the F-35 fighter and life extension of the current F-16 fighter
- Develop new space launch capability; & advanced infra-red/ultra high frequency satellites;
- Pave the way for an advanced bomber.

Today, let’s talk bombers. During World War II, the United States built over 34,000 heavy bombers (B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying Fortresses, and B-29 Super Fortresses) that could go downtown and drop iron where the enemy, his leadership, his industrial base and his Mama lived. The last of these aircraft retired from USAF duty in 1960.

Since that time, the United States has built just under 3,400 long-range bombers to carry on the mission of their WWII-era brethren. Time and technology, however, always take their toll. The last of the 380 monstrous B-36 Peacemakers, which could fly intercontinental distances without refueling, retired in 1959. Over 2,000 B-47 Stratojets, capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, saw their last days in 1960. The B-58 Hustler, of which only 116 were built, was the world’s first supersonic nuclear bomber. They closed out their career in the Air Force in 1969.

Today, only 180 long-range bombers built by the United States since WWII remain in service. For those of you just out of high school, these would include 94 of your Grandfather’s B-52 Stratofortresses, 66 of your Dad’s B-1 Lancers and a whopping 20 modern era B-2 Spirits. Although these aircraft are a bit long in the tooth, (the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are roughly 50, 26, and 18 years old respectively) they do receive the best of care regarding maintenance and upgrades. The Air Force believes the B-52s and B-1s will be safe to operate through 2040 and the B-2s another 15 to 20 years after that.

However, the nemesis of the strategic-capable bomber has always been the potential adversary’s ability to acquire better defenses. Today, only the B-2 can be expected to get through a modern, well-defended airspace and survive while delivering gravity weapons. Against the same air defenses, the B-52 and B-1 would be most likely be used in a standoff role, launching cruise missiles and other self-propelled weaponry…which we’re running out of, by the way.

As time goes by, the B-2’s ability to transit over an enemy’s defended position will also go by the wayside. A quick perusal of the internet will turn up articles that brush on laser, ultra high frequency radar, passive detection, Doppler, line-of-sight and other interesting technologies that could make our current stealth capability inadequate in the foreseeable future. So we need something in the wings that can go deep, put any number of weapons on target, and still retain the flexibility of: (1) being able to retarget weapons while en route, (2) being recalled (bringing both the launch platform and weapons home), and (3) being used more than once.

In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Lt.Gen Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff of strategic plans and programs, alluded that of all the myths circulating about USAF’s plans for long-range strike, the biggest one "is that the nation doesn’t need a new bomber."

Lt.Gen Miller said that the new bomber is needed in the mid-2020s, a goal both he and industry officials believe can be feasibly initiated this year, provided the new design is based on extant technology. Miller does not want a repeat of the development of the B-2, where technologies that gave the aircraft its capabilities had to be developed in parallel with the airframe itself. That, combined with gearing industry for rapid production, then slowing that production to a trickle, exploded the price of each weapon system into the billion- dollar range.

For future reference, the new bomber program is called the LRS-B, for Long-Range Strike-Bomber. Despite the Air Force knowing that it needs the new weapon system in the relatively near future, it seems to be exercising some of its more tongue-in-cheek conventions in doing so. For example, “Flexibility is the key to success, and indecision is the key to flexibility” seems to reflect the fact that to this day, there is still no operational requirements document (ORD) specifying the LRS-Bs characteristics and capabilities, despite the bomber getting the go-ahead well over a year ago.

While I attended the USAF Academy, one of the tortured sayings we espoused was “anything worth doing well, is worth doing at the last minute”. This rule also has an interesting corollary; “if you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute”. Having worked in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, I can tell you with some certainty that the AF is working like mad developing more than one ORD (or an ORD with several options) for the LRS-B, so that when Congress gives them the opportunity, they will have the “flexibility” to make a very intelligent decision at the “last moment”.