Home » Air » Lingering nervousness on the new bomber

Lingering nervousness on the new bomber

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 12:16 pm
Posted in Air

DoD’s top weapons-buyer, Ash Carter, flew out to Southern California last week to talk with America’s twin titans of aerospace, Lockheed and Boeing, according to a report by Reuters’ Andrea Shalal-Esa. On the agenda was the Air Force’s next-generation bomber, an incredible new super-aircraft that will be able to cruise at eight times the speed of sound, drop a bomb into a thimble, change Pepsi to Coke, cure the common cold, use sunlight for fuel and produce an exhaust of only rainbows.

Kidding, kidding — those were the original requirements. Now DoD and the Air Force say they’re dialing back their goals for the bomber so that the Pentagon can build it with as little risk as possible, although as Shalal-Esa wrote, the aerospace industry types are already nervous about this program, even though it represents billions of dollars of income for them.

As Shalal-Esa wrote:

One big challenge is that work on the bomber is likely to be classified, but funding for the program will be in the public domain, said one executive who was not authorized to speak on the record. Defense companies are also worried that the Pentagon may try to develop the new bomber on a fixed-price development contract, rather than the cost-plus contracts used in the past, according to a second industry executive.
Carter, meanwhile, is focused on ensuring that development of a new bomber doesn’t run into the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued most big weapons programs. He told lawmakers last month the Pentagon wanted to build “affordability” into big weapons programs from the start.
“The military services have worked and reworked the requirements for these programs to ensure that we do not find ourselves, after spending billions on development, with a system we can’t afford to produce,” he said in written testimony for the House defense appropriations subcommittee.
The Air Force said it was focused on keeping the new bomber affordable by constraining military requirements and adopting a streamlined management and acquisition approach. Setting a target for the new plane’s average procurement cost would allow officials to make the capability trade-offs needed to keep program costs low, the service said.

Fine — but with a classified program, how will anyone know whether any of this has succeeded?

Join the Conversation

	jrexilius May 18th, 2011 at 12:27 pm You can’t be seriously suggesting that the program as a whole be unclassified? I think a lot of scrutiny should be put into the procurement model for this but it seems excessive that we should make capabilities and objectives unclassified just to make sure we are pinching the pennies enough. Sometimes you have to work on the model and at some point trust the people in uniform to do their jobs. Yes there have been a lot of failures in the past, but also a lot of classified successes as well. Besides, little to nothing is classified about the F-35 and its a disaster.
	philewing May 18th, 2011 at 12:45 pm That’s a great observation. So the question is, would the F-35 program be doing better if the services kept more or all of it secret, and reporters, Congress and the public couldn’t make as much noise about it? Or does that public scrutiny actually help by forcing DoD to address cost/schedule problems that it might otherwise be able to cover up? The issue for the bomber is that whether the program succeeds or not, keeping it classified will mean the public can’t get the full story either way.
	@Earlydawn May 18th, 2011 at 12:57 pm God forbid we use a cost-plus contract, right?
	alex May 18th, 2011 at 1:05 pm They have the right idea for this bomber. The question is, can they avoid requirements creep? They should be able to build most of this thing from existing technologies since (many of which are classified I’m sure). Let’s just hope they are realistic about the cost up front though..the defense contractors too.
	Araya May 18th, 2011 at 1:37 pm The Problem are not just the Requirements, the Problem is the entire Acquisition and political system itself. The DOD has made absolutely impossible Requirements for many Programs like the FCS our EFV. And for other Programs like the F35 and the F22 the estimated cost was absolutely false. But the other big problem, possible the biggest problem of the US Military is the Bureaucracy and the illusion of 100% safety and efficiency of planed weapons. Why need for example the F35 thousands of tests to get ready for service them for other Countries (Russia, EU, China..) are one tenth of this number enough to declare a Fighter reedy for service, why a Weapon System like the F35 must can from the beginning everything and must be from the beginning such sophisticated ? This are for itself not the Problem, but is get a problem in combination with the extremely unstable Political System of the USA. A big ticket program like the F35 needs about 20 Years to become operational this means what is must survive about Ten Congress terms and four or five Presidential elections. As a result this the US Military was not enabling with the exception of the Virginia SSN in the last 20 Years to complete joust one big ticket Program. For example the Army has spent more them 100 Billion in the last 20 years for Programs who has never get operationally, programs like the Comanche, the Crusader, the expeditionary tank, the Entire FCS Program with is more them 44 planed Systems, the ARH70 Helicopter our now the JLTV and the Army was not even enable to replace the now 50 Year old and really inferior M16 with a better Assault rifle. Those US Military now start a program everyone expected only the time them is finally day. The DOD has lost in the last 20 Years is entire credibility and the broken Political System of the USA is also to blame for it. So it was spent more Money every Year them all other important Country of the World has spent combined but the US military has become smaller and weaker and older in this time. I fear was the Next Bomber program will die quickly with the remaining Programs like the F35 and the GCV in this panic financial climate.
	alex May 18th, 2011 at 1:41 pm I’m guessing that the all of the public scrutiny has been worse for the program in terms of cost. The level of micro-management on this program has probably resulted in an outrageous amount of overhead, even if it has helped the schedule.
	alex May 18th, 2011 at 1:47 pm All good points.
	sferrin May 18th, 2011 at 2:11 pm CYA and damage control (even if it’s only perceived and not actual) gets expensive.
	halcyon May 18th, 2011 at 2:29 pm I couldn’t agree more! Honestly the talk from the government here is good. A cheaper, more modern constructed, easier to maintain update to the current stealth bomber is really what we need. We also need aircraft as platforms where the technology is built to be upgraded over time. If we can’t buy more than say ~100 of these over the life of the aircraft then it isn’t worth the time. Let’s face it, it doesn’t make sense to view this as a replacement to the B2 but rather the B-52. If we are replacing the B2 we will end up with less than 20 and a 30–40 year wait.
	Macman1138 May 18th, 2011 at 2:31 pm I have great concerns about this administration’s commitment to the military.
	@Earlydawn May 18th, 2011 at 2:32 pm I’d just add that accepting risk would go a long way towards managing expectations too. Perhaps accept some level of less-than-perfect RCS reduction in exchange for stealth technologies that are lower maintenance and allow for a higher mission capable rate.
	halcyon May 18th, 2011 at 2:33 pm I don’t think the author is saying the project should be public just that if it is secret we won’t know if the government will maintain into action it’s serious talk about doing this program right.
	Oblat May 18th, 2011 at 2:35 pm The old excuse about requirements changes is just a joke. Where are all the new tougher requirements the contractors keep on claiming ? The requirements sure are changing though they are dropping capabilities like a rock as design failures are covered up. The JSF is projected to have 25,000 major design changes by the time it is finished — we have only seen 10,000 redesigns so far.
	Oblat May 18th, 2011 at 2:43 pm You can expect Boeing and Lockheed to try to stall the bomber as much as possible. They have no incentive to create a budgetary rival to the looting for the air-forces funds that the tanker and JSF programs effectively are. Only once the tanker and JSF programs have bled the treasuries dry in 30 years will they move. By then we wont be able to afford such an aircraft.
	phrank May 18th, 2011 at 4:32 pm Maybe instead of a huge plane they should do a medium bomber. I see these mods of F-22 into a FB-22. The thing it seems we keep doing is buying more than we need. Is the mission for the new bomber nuclear or dropping GPS bombs. I wonder how much of the cost in reshearch we have spent of F-22 could be used for a FB-22.
	Araya May 18th, 2011 at 5:19 pm The most decision of the politicians are not logical they are in the most time stupid and the F22 program is one of the best example for that. I don’t believe what the F22B there a real alternative to the next gen Bomber but a good Supplement for the Next Generation Long range Strike Platform. The entire F22 Program was a tragedy. The is the best Fighter was the world has ever seen and he is in production and in active serve and the cost of is developed are paid but he was kill In favor of a not so good and to developed Aircraft. The F22 had the potential to be a Foundation for a Fleet of different Superior Aircrafts for example a F22N for the Navy, a FB22 as a medium bomber our as a F22E as a replacement for the successfully F15E, but this possibility was lost why Gates has hate the F22 and why Obama has become President .
	Araya May 18th, 2011 at 5:19 pm @O-blat the USA can afford them he wills 2500 F35, but they cannot afford a social and Medicare system how cost in year more those 5–6 times more them the entire F35 Program over 30 Years. The USA was able to afford Mr. Obamas deficit orgy what has cost the United States in 3 Years more them George W Busch with two wars and his tax cuts over 8 Years. It is all a question of the priorities of a country, the USA can remain the real power fullest Country in the World but to do this he must reform is Claims System, I live in Europe and I know the problems of the welfare systems. The cost running and running and the quality drops more and more and the taxes grow and grow nevertheless to the end the State is only pain for welfare and claims. The European Countries are in resulting of this spiral today no longer in able to defend themselves against treatments they are not enable to beat a country like Libya an d they are not in able to defend their interests. I understand that you O-blat believe the Military has no right to existing why he eat a beat of your Money what you will spent for more and more progressive projects but you can kill the entire DOD with all other Security spending like Police, FBI and CIA and a Debt of 500–600 Billions remains. Socialism doesn’t works O-blat and I tell you this as a person how has experienced with socialism and I hope that the United States will never go this path.
	Araya May 18th, 2011 at 5:21 pm Sorry guys but i cannot understand why i cannot write Oblat a Message? Does anyone know the reason?
	alex May 18th, 2011 at 5:53 pm Use OTS tech would not mean it’s 30 years newer. The only thing that is 30 years old on the B-2 is the airframe. Naturally, a 30 year old airframe has its limitations though and cannot utilize all of the latest and greatest technology we have out there and so it is time to upgrade.
	alex May 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm The F-22 is is a tactical fighter/bomber. The B-2, and it’s replacement, is a strategic weapon. The B-2 can hit 80 different aimpoints with 500lb JDAMs, or twice that many with SDBs. Not to mention, it can fly 6000 miles unrefueld. The F-22 does not compare in terms of payload and endurance, and is in no way an alternative to a new long range strategic bomber.
	Dave May 18th, 2011 at 8:10 pm From what I read it seems he met with Northrop and not Boeing or Lockheed?
	bobbymike May 18th, 2011 at 9:17 pm Perfect and succinct and seconded by me
	John May 18th, 2011 at 10:23 pm Dude, seriously. Go do the math. Look it up. The tanker and JSF are grains of sand in the debt issue. Technically, you can’t afford these aircraft now.
	pfcem May 18th, 2011 at 11:26 pm On the contrary, there is more classified about the F-35 then is publicly released about it and despite what the naysayers want evryone to believe it is going rather well.
	pfcem May 18th, 2011 at 11:38 pm While there is a valid point to be made for the need of a new medium bomber, there is as much (if not more) need for a new heavy bomber. The REAL problem for our next bomber program however is how much effort to put into high capabiliy (i.e. B-1 & B-2) vs ‘simple’, low cost (i.e. B-52).
	Oblat May 18th, 2011 at 11:54 pm And yet they are the major programs for the airforce — who presumably will be paying for the bomber too as tradition demands.
	Oblat May 18th, 2011 at 11:56 pm >The B-2 can hit 80 different aimpoints with 500lb JDAMs So can a C-130.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 May 19th, 2011 at 12:38 am We have Bombers. WE do not need another.… The B-2 should be Scraped and Hung at the Front Gate along with JSF. What a Waste of Tax Payeers Money. If the Repulicans would allow for Tax Increases instead of Cuts we could afford additional platforms. We do not need additional Manned Plafroms to do the Job.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 May 19th, 2011 at 12:44 am WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER Bomber!!!!!!!!!! Stealth is DEAD. Stop Bullshiting the American People. the B-2 and JSF are worthless. WE have Great Bombers that can launch Stand Off Weapons from hundreds of miles. Once the GIG is integrated Correctly and someone would decide on a Fucking Wave Form we could utilize UAV targeting information. However, the Fucking Pentagon will not make a decision and they keep throughing Money and Funds at JSF a LO Nighmare. So instead of Connectivity we have nothing but a piece of shit and no-connectivity to anyone. Not even between JSF and F-22. That was Brilliant!!! All we are doing is Supporting Lockheed Marting and the State of Texas.
	Io205 May 19th, 2011 at 3:08 am Whether or not you want stealth. Fact is that there is a need for a new bomber. In a couple of years the present bombers will start to fall apart. It’s called metal fatigue, it’s normal and you can expect it. (I must also say here, the ground crew are doing a hell of a job keeping the old birds flying!!!! Well done) The discussion here (or in my opinion should be) is what kind of new bombers do we need to order. Full stealth, “modular” stealth, classic design etc.
	STemplar May 19th, 2011 at 3:41 am True to a certain point, but there are only 20 of them, and an old air frame is a substantial problem.
	STemplar May 19th, 2011 at 3:48 am Just plain lucky would be my guess. Don’t bother engaging him in an attempt to solicit an original idea from him on alternatives, he never has any. Honestly the way to deal with Oblat and the likes of Pukin dog is if people just didn’t respond to them at all. They never engage in any kind of real discussion, just trolls.
	Araya May 19th, 2011 at 5:52 am Hi STemplar i know this, in Europa many People like Oblat (for example the majority of the Population of Germany have comparable ideas like him) and you are surely right with what you write abaout people like him. But i cannot understand why i can not write this guy a simple and not offensive message/response. Is Oblat possible hear under a special protection? ^^
	Old 391 May 19th, 2011 at 7:28 am Aviod Requirements Creep. That is a major reason why there are cost overruns on a weapons system. If the government every got all the requirements they wanted in the first go, the cost would be cheaper. Then any cost overrun will be due to the manufacture.
	Dfens May 19th, 2011 at 7:29 am Just what we need, a second B-2 bomber. Let’s hope this one at least looks slightly different from the first one so we can pretend it fills a different role. The important thing is that Boeing or Lockheed get that free profit from the development program, not that they provide anything of value for the US taxpayer. Clearly you people are too stupid to be allowed to keep your money and should hand it over to these defense contractors as quickly as possible. They are obviously much smarter than you are. Hell, you practically thank them for taking it.
	Josh May 19th, 2011 at 10:03 am With the role the B-1B has filled I would hope they realize the next bomber, while being stealthy, must also be fast, have a high-payload, and be versitile. The B-1R concept comes to mind… obviously you wouldn’t base the new aircraft on a decades old design but the theory itself is still sound. It could also be done cheaper than the current DoD philosphy that every single weapons system must fill all roles and be able to win wars on its own.
	STemplar May 19th, 2011 at 3:29 pm I think it’s just a forum glitch, every now and then my posts have to be cleared by the editor for some reason.
	bigRick May 19th, 2011 at 4:09 pm From what I’ve been reading here and there, the “bone” B-1 is currently the most effective bomber platform the air force has right now. The B-52 is too slow and too large, the B-2 is too expensive to maintain and it’s availability rate is low, but the B-1 is the cheapest to fly and it’s availability rate is very high. Why doesn’t the air force simply keep the B-2 for “first day of war” stealth missions and design a modern replacement for the bone, if they truly think they need something “new?” Something that is very fast, can hug the nap of the earth, is fairly stealthy but not at the expense of maintainability, but most importantly it is cheap to fly and it’s always available (to fly)? To me it seems that “stealth” in and of it self is becoming less and less important in light of radar advancement (modern radars can track stealth platforms). Because you either flying high and slow (to avoid detection) with a stealth platform or you flying low and fast to avoid radar. If I was a pilot I think I prefer to fly the bone because it has speed to escape situations, but in the B-2 if your detected your screwed (too big, too slow). Don’t they say “speed is life“ Can some air force dude give me a clue here?
	Josh May 19th, 2011 at 5:43 pm You’ve pretty much nailed it. Other than that first big punch the first night of a war the B-2 is largely used to justify its existance (not a knock on the plane, it’s just unnecessary once we have air superiority). A fast heavy bomber capable of carrying multiple types of ordinance is far more useful to in both a strategic and tactical sense.
	pfcem May 19th, 2011 at 8:39 pm Yes we have bombers but they can not fly forever & need replaced with new bombers. Tax cuts result in increased revenues to the government, not tax increases.
	pfcem May 19th, 2011 at 8:42 pm Don’t be such a fool. Just because the ‘selected’ artists impression attached to the article looks somewhat like the B-2 in no way means the NGB is another B-2. The requirements have not been determined yet.
	pfcem May 19th, 2011 at 8:49 pm The NGB will in fact replace BOTH the B-1 & the B-2. Sorry but the ‘stealthy’ B-1B is an MUCH better bomber than the ‘fast” B-1A. Why is it most every current & near-term combat aircraft (& even surface combatants) have stealth as a significant design characteristic… Why have there been no new Mach 3+ fighters or Mach 2+ bombers…
	bigRick May 19th, 2011 at 10:39 pm stealth in the navy world isn’t so much an attempt to “hide” from radar because any large steel mass cannot be totally stealthy, but rather to disguise itself. In other words, if a 7,000 ton destroyer looks and acts like a fishing boat on radar then “targeting” the ship becomes a very difficult and costly thing to do. On the other hand, stealth on a air platform (fighter or bomber) simply means you give the enemy less time to react because they will figure out what you are (especially if you are going traveling very fast toward them). So stealth in the navy world is to confuse the bad guys, whereas stealth in air allows you go get a little closer before the bad guys “see” you. In the end, it all about tactics, If we can “see” our stealth airplanes now, then it won’t be long before the bad guys have the same ability.
	Matt1951 May 20th, 2011 at 8:47 am 200 new stealthy bombers to replace all our current bombers might make sense, to reduce long term maintenance costs. It should be subsonic, and have the latest missiles to get to the target. The bomber itself does not have to. Use current F135 or F136 engines, no new engine development. New stealth technology should be more maintainable at lower cost than B2 1970s technology. This bomber should go from concept to production in 10 years. Upgradeable to new avionics when available. Configure some for conventional, some for nuclear.
	VetOpsAnalyst May 20th, 2011 at 9:29 am “Affordability” and “optional pilot” are incompatible goals. With “optional pilot” we have all the costs associated with supporting a human being in the aircraft combined with all the costs associated with the capability to remotely control the aircraft. There is no concept of operations and no technology demonstrations of how an optionally piloted heavy bomber is supposed to operate in the battlespace, except for maybe in marketing science fiction cartoons. We’ve heard the “affordability” pitch in the most screwed up defense acquisition programs time and time again. Stop playing this sick joke on us. Wake up, smell the coffee, and take this hint on what the next bomber should be: We currently have 3 bombers with unique capabilities and weaknesses. Fix the weaknesses while not sacrificing the capabilities. You might need 2 distinct bomber programs to do this.
	Marauder1024 May 20th, 2011 at 12:22 pm I love the B-1R concept but I don’t think Rockwell preserved the jigs and tooling required to produce new B-1 derivatives. The cost of rebuilding the infrastructure would probably equal the cost of the infrastructure required to build a completely new design. IMHO, a stretched and widened YF-23 derivative would satifsy most of the requirements albeit with reduced payload or range. You’d get all the benefits of a relatively proven design which could utilize OTS avionics, engines and EW hardware (an AN/APG-77 derivative, 360 IRST + DIRCM, DEWS etc). Northrop and Boeing collectively have the industrial wherewithal and experience to do the F/B-23 while Lockheed is focused on the F-35. You’d probably also get a much quicker IOC than a clean-sheet NGB design.
	mattzweck May 25th, 2011 at 12:35 am if they make a new bomber they should make it advanced in technology. fast stealthy and a big bombing payload
	Alan June 1st, 2011 at 5:40 pm Article didn’t mention the one company that won the last bomber contract on a unsolicited bid, when the contract was ‘streamlined’ to go to Boeing and Lumpsuck, then survived the Air Force version of hiri-kiri by changing the ‘engine’ requirements forcing the same design…and of course the promise of buying 100. One of the key reasons why the B-2 was so expensive was the broken promise from the AF on purchasing quantities..sound familiar. Carter wants a fixed price 21st plane that won’t be operational until 2025 at the earliest. Wonder what penalties the winning company can impose on the DoD if they don’t buy the quantities they commit to in the beginning.
	alan June 1st, 2011 at 5:40 pm As for Boeing and Lockheed whom have teamed up and formed a joint venture for this bid, a streamlined acquisition and no competition on the engines smells like Old History not even re-written. And this time there is no Jack Northrop to save the Air Force and this country billions and still the A-12 fighter bomber which was terminated by Cheney because he wanted the Ospray, still in the courts for the past 20 yrs, on who pays that bill. In this case the loser in the next bomber competition might just be the real winner…watch as the promised Tanker costs for Boeing to go back to their tactics in D.C of driving congress increases to the program..all because they didn’t want to accept the fact that another team could do it better. It would serve the DoD best if Boeing just build planes, Lockheed just build spacecraft and Northrop Grumman provided other affordable solutions to the customer…imagine..no more F-35 debacle’s.…no more back door politics..just clean competition..where all of these companies are dependent on the same small mom and pop shops they were back in the 70’s because none of them can afford to produce on the contracts they’ve won.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Lingering nervousness on the new bomber

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments