Misplaced Pages

#935064

66-544: The LRS-B was the follow-on to the Next Generation Bomber (NGB) effort, whose spiraling costs due to numerous mission additions and requirements creep caused Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to cancel the program in 2009. On 19 May, 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

132-658: A 50-year lifespan. In September 2015, the USAF revealed that the LRS-B's development was much further along than had been publicly acknowledged, and more than usual before a contract award. Final requirements had been finalized since May 2013. Both competitors had mature proposals with prototyping activities and wind tunnel tests along with subsystems, although no demonstrator had been built. The designs are "very different" from each other with different teams on subsystems such as engines, electronic warfare suites, and communications systems; subcontractors will likely not be announced when

198-565: A bomber, the LRS-B will be under Air Force Global Strike Command , while ISR assets are managed by Air Combat Command 's 25th Air Force. In 2010, Andrew Krepinevich , director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, questioned a reliance on short range aircraft like the F-35 to manage China in a future conflict and promoted reducing the F-35 buy in favor of a longer range platform like

264-501: A bomber, the aircraft is to be part of a family of systems responsible for ground surveillance and electronic attack . The Obama Administration in its 2012 budget request asked for $ 197 million and a total of $ 3.7 billion over five years to develop the bomber, including modular payloads for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), electronic attack (EA), and communications. It shall be nuclear-capable, but shall not be certified as such until older bombers are set to retire. In 2011,

330-547: A company whose award would create jobs for constituents. In addition to competing with other USAF priorities, budgets may put the LRS-B at odds with other services' priorities such as the Columbia-class submarine . In April 2015, the Pentagon revealed that individual technologies for the LRS-B will be competed to enhance flexibility, increase competition, and drive down costs. This means even though one team will build

396-522: A competition was under way with a target delivery in the mid-2020s. On 27 October 2015, Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to build the new bomber. The design goals in January 2011 were: An August 2008 paper by Northrop Grumman highlighted the following trends and requirements: Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Related lists Massive Ordnance Penetrator The GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator ( MOP )

462-504: A contract award after that. Some public information includes that it will be operational in the mid-2020s, based on existing technologies, have a large payload, may possibly be optionally-manned, and is being designed to work with a "family of systems" that includes ISR, electronic attack, and communication systems. Early aircraft will be designed around fixed requirements with mature technologies that will be adaptable through open architecture for future sensor and weapons capabilities. Although

528-501: A disadvantage without direct human pilot awareness and vulnerable to communication disruption. In March 2011, the USAF decided to purchase 80 to 100 aircraft. Air Force Global Strike Command indicated that one requirement for the bomber is to carry a weapon of similar effect to the Massive Ordnance Penetrator . In addition to the strategic bombing , tactical bombing , and prompt global strike roles typical for

594-441: A high priority for future defense investment given the anti-access challenges our military faces." In July 2011, Joint Chief Vice Chairman James Cartwright called for a large UAV instead of a manned aircraft, including for the nuclear mission. Retired Air Force colonel and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst Mark Gunzinger has called for an optionally manned bomber, stating that purely unmanned bombers would be at

660-411: A lack of an "urgent threat". Prior bomber programs were hindered by a lack of funding, only 21 B-2 Spirits were produced out of 132 planned and fewer B-1 Lancers were built than were envisioned; both programs were scaled down due to spiraling per aircraft costs. Research funding was allocated, as stealthy technologies to counter anti-access/area-denial threats were spared from budget cuts. The USAF stated

726-502: A manned subsonic bomber at a May 2007 Air Force Association sponsored event. He later stated that a manned subsonic bomber provides the "best value" to meet the required range and payload performance by 2018. 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. USAF officials identified

SECTION 10

#1732781120936

792-442: 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. Some speculation suggested that the next generation bomber might be hypersonic and unmanned. 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

858-632: 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. The paper's recommendations were adopted as Air Force policy by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Edward C. Aldridge Jr. Internally, some Air Force officials also considered filling

924-450: A program office was being set up for the bomber. The USAF asked for $ 292 million for the program in its 2013 budget request. The program has also been referred to as "Long-Range Strike-B" (LRS-B). In 2012, former Pentagon weapons tester Thomas P. Christie speculated that the bomber program had been initiated so that the Air Force would have a sacrificial program to offer during anticipated defense budget shortfalls. The USAF seems committed to

990-492: A requirement" for the next-generation intelligence and strike platform. On 11 December 2009, Gates said that the Quadrennial Defense Review had shown the need for both manned and unmanned long range strike and that the 2011 budget would likely include funding for the future bomber. The USAF plans for the new bomber to be multi-role with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. As

1056-667: A specific military requirement for an ultra-large bomb, but has a concept for a collection of very large penetrator and blast weapons: the so-called "Big BLU" collection, which includes the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) bomb. Development of the MOP was performed at the Air Force Research Laboratory , Munitions Directorate, Eglin Air Force Base , Florida with design and testing work performed by Boeing . It

1122-568: 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. 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,

1188-493: Is a precision-guided , 30,000-pound (14,000 kg) " bunker buster " bomb used by the United States Air Force . The GBU-57 (Guided Bomb Unit-57) is substantially larger than the deepest-penetrating bunker busters previously available, the 5,000-pound (2,300 kg) GBU-28 and GBU-37 . Due to its size (6 meters length and a weight of over 12 tonnes ) it can only be carried by large bombers—for instance,

1254-526: Is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 Spirit , and will be guided using GPS . It is also planned to be deployed on the B-21 Raider . In July 2007, Northrop Grumman announced a $ 2.5-million stealth-bomber refit contract. Each of the U.S. Air Force's B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton MOPs. In March 2007, an initial explosive test of the MOP took place in a tunnel belonging to

1320-452: Is intended to perform any long range mission, rather than one specialized mission, which drove up the cost of the B-2. The USAF expects it to cost $ 1 billion each with development costs factored in, and aims for a per-aircraft cost of $ 550 million, considered reasonable for a limited production run military aircraft. On 25 October 2013, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced their teaming up for

1386-493: The 2003 invasion of Iraq , analysis of sites that had been attacked with bunker buster bombs revealed poor penetration and inadequate levels of destruction. This renewed interest in the development of a larger bunker buster, and the MOP project was initiated by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to fulfill a long-standing Air Force requirement. The U.S. Air Force has not officially communicated

SECTION 20

#1732781120936

1452-577: The Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and that the deliveries "will meet requirements for the current operational need". The Air Force had received delivery of 16 MOPs as of November 2011. In March 2012, there was an "operational stockpile" at Whiteman Air Force Base . In 2012, the Pentagon requested $ 82 million to develop greater penetration power for

1518-437: The B-2 Spirit . It is designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying an adversary's weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities. In 2002, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin were working on the development of a 30,000-pound (13,600 kg) earth-penetrating weapon, but funding and technical difficulties resulted in the development work being abandoned. Following

1584-575: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In October 2009, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had requested and obtained permission from the U.S. Congress to shift funding in order to accelerate the project. It was later announced that funding delays and enhancements to the planned test schedule meant the bomb would not be deployable until December 2010, six months later than

1650-472: The F-22 fighter aircraft to further persuade him. On 16 September 2009, Gates endorsed the concept of a new bomber but insisted that it must be affordable, stating: "What we must not do is repeat what happened with our last manned bomber. By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive – $ 2 billion each in

1716-502: The F-35 and F-22 to help a more affordable and versatile bomber complete its missions. 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. 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

1782-778: The House Armed Services Committee added language that would require two engine programs for the bomber; Carter objected that the addition would interfere with plans to reuse an existing engine. Reportedly, the two most likely engines are the Pratt & Whitney PW9000 engine, which uses a combination of Pratt & Whitney F135 and commercial turbofan technology, and a derivative of the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 . In May 2011, Air Force Undersecretary Erin Conaton announced that

1848-485: The 2012-15 timeframe in order to transfer into a developmental program. 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. In 2004–2006, the USAF Air Combat Command studied alternatives for

1914-420: The 2018 date. 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. 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

1980-452: The 2030s for a new fighter, with a follow-on bomber after that. With that stretch of time in between, the loser may be forced to leave the industry entirely; Northrop Grumman would likely not retain the infrastructure required for the next major undertaking, and Boeing's main aircraft field is now its commercial products. Industrial impact may cause any contract to be contested by Congress from representatives that receive campaign donations from

2046-624: The Air Force in the Court of Federal Claims over the selection of Northrop Grumman. At the 2016 Air Warfare Symposium, the LRS-B aircraft was formally designated B-21 . The head of the US Air Force Global Strike Command expects that 100 B-21 bombers is the minimum ordered and envisions some 175–200 bombers in service. A media report states that the bomber could also be used as an intelligence gatherer , battle manager , and interceptor aircraft . In November 2017,

Long Range Strike Bomber - Misplaced Pages Continue

2112-400: 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. In September 2007, several Air Force generals stressed that it was still their plan to field the bomber by 2018. In order to meet

2178-533: The Boeing–Lockheed Martin team, placing Northrop Grumman at a near half-billion-dollar disadvantage in the bidding; the new measure levels the tax benefit field by also applying them to prime contractors, as Northrop Grumman has no subcontractor and also has operations in Palmdale. With a target price of $ 550 million per aircraft, Defense News quoted a source with knowledge of the program predicting that

2244-452: The CBO estimated the total cost of the bomber to be $ 97 billion, $ 69 billion of which are attributed to development costs. Next Generation 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

2310-548: The F-35 with nuclear weapons in favor of the LRS-B. A 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that replacing the F-16 with the F-35 retains dual conventional and nuclear delivery capabilities for USAF fighters. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that upgrading the F-35 for nuclear deployment would cost $ 350 million over the next decade. Schwartz said that without financial support from NATO , where some nuclear-capable F-35s would be deployed, those funds should be transferred to

2376-417: The LRS-B is a top priority as it is believed that China will overcome the B-2's low-observable features by the 2020s. Where possible, existing technologies and proven subsystems will be used in order to keep it within budget, instead of developing new and riskier ones. Components such as engines and radars may be off-the-shelf or adaptions of existing models, such as derivative technologies of the F-35. The LRS-B

2442-486: The LRS-B may be smaller than the B-2, perhaps half the size, powered by two engines in the F135 power class. The target unit cost of $ 550 million is based on 2010 dollars and is $ 606 million in 2016 dollars. One of the program's main effects will be its impact on the industrial base; three of the country's five largest defense firms are competing. After the LRS-B, the USAF will not have another major attack aircraft program until

2508-417: The LRS-B request for proposals (RFP) was to be released by the end of June, the USAF hesitated to publicly announce it to keep the process fair and less likely to give sensitive information to "potential adversaries". Public announcements of future acquisition milestones are to be "released as appropriate." The USAF released its RFP for the LRS-B on 9 July 2014. By entering the competitive phase of acquisition,

2574-531: The LRS-B. At the same time, Congress cut funding for the B61 nuclear bomb , stripping $ 10 million from F-35 integration and $ 34.8 million for life extension; Schwartz stated that B61's life extension must proceed. On 20 February 2014, the USAF reasserted the bomber's need at the annual Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. It was stated it will be fielded in the mid-2020s, and between 80 and 100 of

2640-399: The LRS-B. Boeing will be the prime contractor. The two companies previously joined together for the program in 2008, but the partnership ended in 2010 when requirements shifted. Boeing believes that as the program had evolved, they can readdress their partnership to specifically address requirements. The team has Boeing's bomber experience and Lockheed Martin's stealth experience. At the time of

2706-652: The Next Generation Penetrator. In 2011, Global Strike Command indicated that one of the objectives for the Next-Generation Bomber is for it to carry a weapon with the effects of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This would either be with the same weapon, or a smaller weapon that uses rocket power, not unlike the World War II British/American Disney bomb used, to reach sufficient speed to match

Long Range Strike Bomber - Misplaced Pages Continue

2772-730: The Next-Generation Bomber; then Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne had rejected this plan in 2007. During debate on the New START treaty in December 2010, several senators raised the LRS-B as a reason to oppose or delay ratification. On 6 January 2011, Gates made a speech on the U.S. defense budget for FY 2012, which announced major investment in developing a long-range, nuclear-capable bomber, also to be optionally remotely piloted. He also said

2838-492: 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. 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. The Air Force

2904-469: The QDR. In June 2009, the two teams working on NGB proposals were told to "close up shop". On 1 March 2010, Boeing said that the joint project with Lockheed Martin had been suspended 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

2970-820: The Quadrennial Defense Review. In June 2009, the two teams working on NGB proposals were told to "close up shop". However, long range strike was a critical requirement for the USAF and a new bomber was still determined as a required delivery method. In order to make a follow-on bomber program for long-range strike politically viable, Schwartz and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley worked to ensure that it would exercise discipline in requirements definition and make greater use of proven systems and technology as well as off-board enablers to rein in costs; according to Schwartz, they also relented to Gates' insistence on ending production of

3036-644: The USAF is limited with what it is able to release, and few details were expected to be made public until the contract is awarded in the second quarter of 2015. The LRS-B is expected to replace the B-52 fleet, possibly replace a portion of the B-1 fleet, and complement the B-2 fleet. According to an Air Force study, the Boeing B-52 Stratofortresses and Rockwell B-1 Lancers currently in inventory will reach

3102-441: The aircraft "will be designed and developed using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity. It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service. The follow on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities—an area that should be

3168-485: The aircraft's production rate will probably remain steady and fairly modest over the course of the aircraft's production. In late September 2015, the contract award was again delayed. On 27 October 2015, the Defense Department awarded the development contract to Northrop Grumman. The initial value of the contract is $ 21.4 billion, but the deal could eventually be worth up to $ 80 billion. The deciding factor in

3234-399: The aircraft, other competitors will have the chance to compete for sustainment and upgrade features. Although a contract was planned to be awarded in early summer 2015, it was pushed back to September 2015 to ensure the optimal contractor was selected. Prolonging this part of the process is seen as a time and money-saver later in the acquisition to ensure the resulting bomber can be useful over

3300-412: The announcement, official details about the LRS-B were that it will likely be optionally manned and use stealth technology. On 30 January 2014, Northrop Grumman stated their intention to invest in developing needed technology for the bomber, such as stealth designs, mission management systems, and autonomous controls. In January 2014, General Schwartz said that the Pentagon should abandon plans to outfit

3366-496: The bombers will be procured. Lt. Gen. Burton Field clarified the 80 to 100 range is due to uncertainty over the price rather than a figure representing the minimum number of bombers needed to mitigate risk. Some USAF leaders expect the unit cost limit of $ 550 million per aircraft will be exceeded with additional equipment added to the airframe. The cost goal is to set design constraints to prevent extra requirements for capability growth desires and untested technologies that would increase

SECTION 50

#1732781120936

3432-457: The case of the B-2 Spirit —that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever built." On 5 October 2009, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Ashton Carter said that the DoD was still deciding if the USAF needed a new bomber and that, if approved, the aircraft would need to handle reconnaissance as well as strike missions. In July 2010, Carter said he intended to "make affordability

3498-595: The cost of production aircraft. The USAF intended to release a full request for proposals (RFP), a final RFP, and begin the competition for the Long-Range Strike Bomber in fall 2014. Two teams, Northrop Grumman and Boeing–Lockheed Martin, were working on pre-proposals for the competition. In June 2014, the USAF revealed that the LRS-B RFP would be released "soon," with proposals to be submitted by fall 2014 and evaluations completed in early 2015, with

3564-640: The end of their service lives by 2045. Northrop Grumman could base production in Florida if they won the contract, which would provide tax credits, while California passed a bill offering tax credits to the manufacturer if they build it in their state, which would mainly benefit the Boeing–Lockheed Martin team. On 14 August 2014, the California legislature passed a measure to apply tax benefits equally to prime and subcontractors. The previous measure only applied to subcontractors, meaning Lockheed Martin as part of

3630-424: The existing weapon. A 2013 report stated that the development had been a success, and B-2 integration testing began that year. In June 2010, USAF Lt. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove said that the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) munition should be about a third the size of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, so it could be carried by affordable aircraft. In December 2010, the USAF had a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for

3696-690: 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 . 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

3762-401: 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

3828-424: 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. The Department of the Air Force's contentment with

3894-437: The original availability date. The project has had at least one successful Flight Test MOP launch. In April 2011, the USAF ordered eight MOPs plus supporting equipment, for $ 28 million. In September 2011, the Air Force took delivery of 20 bombs, designed to be delivered by the B-2 bomber. In February 2012, Congress approved $ 81.6 million to further develop and improve the weapon. In November 2011, Bloomberg reported that

3960-480: The price more from being incorporated during development. Though the final cost may be greater than planned, a fixed price objective is expected to keep average procurement costs affordable. Rather than the price ceiling being too low to meet requirements, the USAF sees this arrangement as itself and the potential contractor being disciplined about the bomber's missions and roles. Research and development expenses are likely to be "significant", but not expected to be double

4026-512: The program, given a lack of other non-nuclear options to deal with "deeply buried and/or hardened targets," and committed two percent of their investment budget to the project, compared to three percent to sustain existing bombers. As of August 2013, the USAF believes that the LRS-B can reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2025. Reportedly, the main risk is funding, in light of the F-35 Lightning II 's acquisition difficulties and

SECTION 60

#1732781120936

4092-623: The selection of the Northrop design was cost. On 6 November 2015, Boeing and Lockheed Martin protested the decision to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Development costs have been estimated to be from $ 10 to $ 23 billion. On 16 February 2016, the GAO denied the protest, and Northrop Grumman resumed work on the project. Boeing-Lockheed Martin decided not to continue their bid protest, opting not to file suit against

4158-532: The size and age of the bomber fleet disappointed some members of Congress who believed a new aircraft would be needed before 2035. 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 . 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. The Air Force conceded that

4224-632: The tight schedule, the Air Force would initially pursue a basic model then improves its capabilities subsequently. 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. 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. Under their joint arrangement, Boeing,

4290-594: The winner is picked. The bomber seems similar to the B-2, but more advanced using improved materials for superior low observability, similar to or smaller in size, and will operate alone or as part of a strike package with other airborne assets. Conducting of tests and risk reduction this early in the acquisition process is in part because the program has been handled by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office since 2011, which has more freedom in how it procures technologies. To reduce risk,

4356-415: Was expected to announce late in 2009 its precise requirements for a new bomber that would be operating by 2018. 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. In April 2009, Defense Secretary Gates announced a delay in the new generation bomber project that would push it past

#935064