There will be no next-generation long-range bomber for the United States Air Force.
Let us look at what we already know:
The USAF has poor ability to set requirements, choose winners of bids and generally have an idea of what they are doing when procuring major weapons systems. They have a long track record of failure. CSAR, Tanker lease failure, Tanker rejection, Long-range bomber concept cancelled, C-27 fubar, light combat aircraft goof, F-35 and, I may have missed some.
USAF claims they can bring in the next-generation bomber but consider the following:
A new U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on the KC-46 tanker shows some interesting numbers. While it may succeed, consider that the USAF will spend over $50B to field: tankers. In comparison to a new long-range bomber design, these tankers are modest modifications of existing commercial aircraft at well above $200B each.
So how, in a difficult budget environment, is an institution that has severe trouble managing large military procurements, supposed to be believed that they can make this new long-range bomber fantasy work?
I don't believe it. And, until the USAF gets its act together, neither should you.
8 comments:
Thats because there is a total lack of accountability with all in the program structures.
The USAF needs the LRS-B to make up for the short legs of the F-35A series on day one/two strikes. Too much reliance on short ranged tactical jets have made the US vulnerable to A2/AD defenses. They had better make it work, or Chief of Staff heads should roll.
The F-35 was never designed for day 1 or 2 strikes (even though the marking pukes think that is so). That is the job of the F-22 vs high end threats.
Too bad no one followed up with the FB-22.
The Chinese did.
To Anon 3:59pm...
By the time the LRS-B is finally killed or maybe they stop after 5-6 units are built if it ever reaches production, the 'Chief of Staff' and other deciders making the decision making today will be long gone (probably in the private sector making a comfortable living) so it's irrelevant and a moot point. The then CoS will probably come out fuming of course, pointing fingers and demanding the acquisition process be changed once and for all, yada yada yada.. Fail.
But the attitude of the current CoS if you read some of his latest sentiments were unfortunately just plain unconvincing and seriously lacking in coherence and direction.
The seemingly cavalier and shoot from the hit, give it a good college try sentiment with respect to the Next-gen Bomber is just not a good example of strategic decision making and leadership though.
Paraphrased eg, "...we'll give it a good shot, with a procurement cap of about $500m per bird... nothing fancy, just a basic bomber... and if we can't make that happen, then heck, so be it, we'll have to cancel it".
That above example sir is what the US taxpayer, citizen, and our rapidly dwindling deterrence value have to put up with in terms of USAF leadership.
Personally, I'd write the thing off now and simply buy time in the interim until an assumed new Defense Leadership system and acquisition process could be formulated around the early 2030s.
'Buying time' could consist of pursuing new class of stealthy stand-off munitions for deterrence, pursuing a lager scale UCAV equipped with such next-gen munitions, converting B-1B into an upgraded and life-extended platform consisting of new engines, avionics, cockpit, EW and canopy.
I'd like to still advocate an FB-22 stopgap capability as well, perhaps as a merged Program with the proposed NGAD fighter to consolidate R&D, but I just don't think DoD/USAF will ever do anything related to the F-22 again as pure pride would not allow such a reversal in thinking and acceptance of previous miscalculations. imho.
Sadly, it is all about pride and reputations rather than the National Interest -
"I cannot and will not do anything to cause embarrassment etc. etc."
Sound familiar?
Tricky programme. Tricky to define. I think rapid strike against high priority mobile targets is the only justifiable goal. Anything else can be solved with good unmanned or stand-off ISR and very fast (= ballistic) long range effectors (think ArcLight) that limit the see-shoot-hit delay.
Supersonic it should be, hypersonic if possible, partially orbital as a wet dream (don't think technology is there yet, despite X-37B). And since mobile targets are not terribly hard, very precise but also small effectors (maybe without warhead) could work. Making a hole into a missile booster is enough, don't need to blow up the TEL.
Which could translate into a rather smaller airframe than one might expect. Maybe Hustler size.
The B-1, B-2, and B-52, are all said to be capable of operating into the 2040 decade with fairly low updating cost. Why not maximize our past expenditure by using these platforms, and spending some money on very fast missiles for them to use against heavily-defended targets? Otherwise, we already have many good munition types for them to use. The "next generation" bomber AND F-35 are unaffordable and unnecessary boondoggles. The only foreseeable adversary worthy of F-35 technology is China, and we'll never have a sustainable airfield close enough to the mainland for the short-legged fighter to be of any use. I'll bet the Navy would be loathe to place a carrier close enough to China for the B or C models to be effective. The F-35 sems to be just a payoff to Lockheed, or an expensive way to keep fighter design teams working.
Post a Comment