Home » Air » What you are allowed to know about the bomber

What you are allowed to know about the bomber

By Philip Ewing Thursday, June 30th, 2011 12:13 pm
Posted in Air

AvWeek’s Amy Butler thought it was funny how so many industry types seemed to keep saying the same things about the Air Force’s beloved next-generation bomber. But, as she learned, there was a simple explanation: Everyone was saying the exact same things. That’s because the Air Force put out a list of approved talking points that summed up, as Butler wrote, What We Are Allowed To Know About the Bomber.

Forthwith, per her blog post, here they are:

PURPOSE:

• Provide industry executives the unclassified facts on the new penetrating bomber program.
FACTS:
• Based on Secretary of Defense direction, the Air Force (AF) is developing a new penetrating bomber.
• The new penetrating bomber will be a component of the joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities.
• The new penetrating bomber will be highly survivable, nuclear capable, and designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations
• The new penetrating bomber will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.
• The total annual budget by appropriation (i.e., RDT&E, Production) is unclassified.
• The Air Force plans to deliver the initial capability in the mid-2020s.
• The new program will leverage mature technologies and constrain requirements based on affordability
• The new program will focus on affordability: unit cost target set to inform design/requirement trades and ensure sufficient inventory.
• The Air Force is projecting to build a fleet of 80–100 aircraft.
• The new program will employ enhanced security measures and be protected by a Special Access Program.
• All other details are classified to protect operational advantages and the nation’s investment in critical technologies and capabilities.
• For further information, contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or the Program Security Officer (PSO)

So there you have it! Now you run along, little taxpayer — the grown-ups in the nice blue uniforms are just going to go ahead and take your money while you sit in the dark until they decide whether to show you their new airplane.

Join the Conversation

	legio1 June 30th, 2011 at 12:17 pm Something completely unacceptable is going on here but I can’t decide what. It could be that the officials in charge of this “program” really think it’s ok to hide basic facts from the people paying the bills. or It could be that this is all THEY know about the bomber. The first option suggest someone dropped the constitution in a burn bin. The second suggests that once again our government is about to wastes 10s of billions of dollars without a clue as to what they’re doing (but that’s ok since it’s for “national security”).
	Dfens June 30th, 2011 at 1:29 pm More of that no-risk free development profit for the aerospace contractors. Hurray! They stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars off this development while providing few if any actual flying bomber aircraft in return. But you taxpayers must love what they do, otherwise you’d pay them for results rather than process. As is typically the case, you won’t pay them any more to provide you with a good weapon on time and on budget, but you’ll be more than happy to pay them more to drag out development and screw you on the cost, then you’ll bitch about why they did that. Gee, I wonder… The never ending cycle continues, because fools and their money should be parted.
	legio1 June 30th, 2011 at 2:22 pm it’s called “democracy” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy) the people cannot intelligently support or oppose a program about which they know essentially nothing.
	Weaponhead June 30th, 2011 at 2:25 pm Why the surprise. The B-2 was even less forthcoming. In general, the US provides the most info of all militaries in explaining the use of tax dollars.
	@Earlydawn June 30th, 2011 at 2:59 pm Please cite an actual law that supports your assertion. Democracy does not equal total freedom of information, nor should the everyman have line-item judgment on every defense project.
	Usetobe June 30th, 2011 at 3:47 pm There is plenty of oversight…those with a need to know in OSD, the Administraton and those elected representatives on the appropriate committees get briefed in detail. Those of us without a need to know must trust our elected reps or would you ratther expose key classified technologies and special access programs for all the “armchair, wanntabe warriors” to pontificate on??
	anon June 30th, 2011 at 3:57 pm Optionally piloted has been done: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/inde…
	Engineer Economist June 30th, 2011 at 4:21 pm NOT EVEN CLOSE to the complexity of bombing targets with an optional pilot. This concept is not ready for an MDAP. They need to atleast have an ACTD before even thinking about putting this into an MDAP.
	charles222 June 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm Yeah, we didn’t know diddly about the atomic bomb, F-117, B-2, and just about any nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon delivery system while they were under development either and I’d agree with the sentiment about the US being by far the most forthcoming military power with what it’s tax dollars are being spent on. There is a gigantic “black budget” where the only people in the know outside the military is the Armed Services Committee, but that is the rationale behind having elected representatives.
	SMSgt Mac June 30th, 2011 at 10:21 pm We are not a ‘democracy’ . We live in a democratic Republic. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic) As others have so clearly expressed in this thread, the ‘right’ people are always in the know, not necessarily for the right reasons, but they are informed and make the big decisions. BTW: ‘Black programs’ have fewer watchers, but the watchers they get, tend to pay much closer attention.
	pfcem June 30th, 2011 at 11:50 pm No, development of the Next Gen Bomber has not even started yet. The USAF had not even recieved its 1st B-2 until Dec 1993 & IOC was not declared until Apr 1997. Developement of 6th Gen fighters has not started yet either. Technology demonstration phase is set to begin in 2013.
	@Earlydawn July 1st, 2011 at 12:40 am Are you consulted on every black budget project and covert program in the government? Do you feel that you should be?
	@7thwave July 1st, 2011 at 3:31 am America does not need to tell the public everything concerning national security…and that is a fact concerning new and advanced weapons systems now and soon to be in development. Would you tell the guy you were going to punch in the nose how hard you can hit…especially if you hit like a girl? I think not…especially when you would end up getting beat up fairly well because your enemy now knows your weakness and now can exploit it to his advantage. Democracy or not…there are some things you do not disclose. Especially when it could cost lots of lives on a battle field.
	Dfens July 1st, 2011 at 7:00 am Most commercial aircraft are optionally piloted now. Their flight management system will take off, climb within airspace constraints, cruise, descend, and land. If you want to change where they go in flight, air traffic control can send them an updated flight plan electronically. Oh yeah, scary technology. Hell, every airplane Airbus builds has a pilot in the left seat an a dog in the right. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
	I'mjustsayin' July 1st, 2011 at 7:41 am The issue is that a certain advanced persistent threat has a structured and long term effort to steal the US and DoD intellectual property underlying LO aircraft (B2, JSF, etc.), as well as a couple library of congress equivalents of other USG data (not to even factor in the data from multiple other countries we also KNOW about). They have broken into USAF and Contractor internal networks and stolen anything and everything … both to build countermeasures to existing and future systems as well as the speed the development of theirs. The only way to counter this non-US threat is to classify and/or SAP everything or to charter the USG to protect commercial networks with its classified capabilities (which has its own privacy issues.…). Is this a total NGB new start? Yes and no. My understanding is there was _extensive_ work done done under the previous approach (flying prototypes anyone?), but due to 1) a legitimate question of requirements creep/cost growth and 2) the results of an extensive damage assessment due to a number of public and non-public traditional espionage and APT efforts, the effort was restructured into its current form. The intent is NOT to circumvent congressional oversight (relevant committees in fact get detailed briefs in appropriate channels), but rather to protect the investment the American people are making from a Voledmort-like “APT” who cannot be named. I’m not saying this is a perfect solution nor that more transparency wouldn’t likely result in an overall more efficient procurement effort. Rather these are the realities the USAF is dealing with and the imperfect choices they have. My $.02.
	Tenn Slim July 1st, 2011 at 7:52 am Opine This is BS. The “New Penetrator” exists only on some USAF Program directors in box. IF we, the US Electorate have not learned anything from the past 2.5 years of ineptness, ideological driven wannabes, we need our collective BU.… kicked. Monitor, educate, investigate, promulgate the data. THEN comment. end Semper FI
	Rick July 1st, 2011 at 8:44 am Not sure I really understand most of you! Many of us either work for or are members or former members of the Department of Defense, but a great deal of what is here seems to be ANTI any program. Technology and threats change. If it didn’t we would have no aircraft and still be sailing with sails. At this point I’m sure the AF has not yet determined all of the requirements that must go into it’s next gen bomber. There will be those who ask why we need a bomber, manned or unmanned when we could place conventional warheads on ICBMs. The DoD will perform a capabilities gap analysis based on threats and missions, develop alternatives to fill the gaps and then select the solution that best fills the gaps. We must be prepared not only to fight / support the current warfare experience but look to all future threats around the world. AND THIS IS WHY THERE IS NOT MUCH INFO ON THE NEXT GEN BOMBER. Rick
	Charles July 1st, 2011 at 9:28 am First and foremost missile can be turned around bombers can. Second boomber as we have seen in Iraq and Afgran can be better support aircraft then fighters especially fast jets. They are nice to have but can they stay over target for hours bombers can and have (b-1 and B-52) Third and final bombers are not the first in missiles are bombers are the clean up people taking out target that are not destroied by missiles. Do we need them maybe, ? only time will tell but both Russia and China are engaged in an armes races why? Is the US about to invade either one of them, or are they looking to expand history tells us that those who are not prepared are the ones would pay the most. We don’t have to have the great thing on earth just get the job done.
	racoon1 July 1st, 2011 at 9:33 am I’m glad they are going to try to keep it quiet to some degree. It’s obvious to anyone that countries like China and Russia immediately get to work copying the planes once they know the details. And that is no benefit to U.S. citizens. However, it will make intelligence agents of those governments mad that they can’t read about it on this website. They might even blog their gripes here in the name of the U.S. citizens. Oh well, I guess they have to send the intelligence assignment back to the hacking department.
	Sdoow Nhoj July 1st, 2011 at 3:37 pm Republic. That’s correct. Republic. Not a straight, chaotic, racist, populist, class-ist, elitist, corrupt democracy. There’s a reason. It’s in the constitution. Try reading it, and following it. “‘Black programs’ have fewer watchers, but the watchers they get, tend to pay much closer attention.” Totally accurate statement. I was one of those sets of eyes before I retired. Thanks for the clarity, SMSgt Mac!
	Bob July 1st, 2011 at 4:50 pm What’s wrong with the B-52’s and the B-1 bombers? Can’t we fancy them up a bit and save some serious dough? Air Force already has too many toys. We need another bomber like we need another term for Obama; BOTH are serious, expensive, conflict of interest mistakes.
	Bronco46 July 1st, 2011 at 5:18 pm With our enemies working hard on detection measures for our current force; I hope that development is much farther along then the proposal stage. Here’s hoping this is just a misdirection ploy of some kind.
	Tyler July 1st, 2011 at 5:22 pm I’m glad they’ve stopped releasing our every weapons system plan in full detail for all to read. Secrecy is the best defense.
	Lem Genovese July 1st, 2011 at 8:09 pm Cost over-runs, modular upgrades with increasing costs due to macro-technology on a level heretofore unknown to the USAF procurement system, avionics packages rendered obsolete the minute a newer more stealthy technology gets developed and just another boondoggle for the DoD before the aircraft is ever tested in a combat zone. The concept of “all things to all people” has been an approach that is partially doomed from the start of R & D. Tried and true airframes need to be upgraded and modified to incorporate all the new bells and whistles. The Black Hawk helicopter took all the best attributes of the Huey and went overboard on redundant systems. Anytime your maintenance hours vastly outnumber your operational flight hours greater than 3 to 1, you’ve got a problem.
	Byron Skinner July 1st, 2011 at 9:47 pm Good Evening Folks, The AF is being rather stupid here. First off they are into a project that will take over 20 years before any tangible evidence of its existence will be able to be seen by the public. The last major project that took this route was Comanche and the speculation on both the pro and con became so wild that when a prototype did appear there was widespread disappointment in Comanche by its supporters and Rumsfeld ended up dumping it. To start with the small amount that is projected (80–100) to be bought will find little support in the vocal support for the B-3. These butternuts have vivid visions of wave of bombers going over Europe in WW II and they want it for their generation too. Without strong public support the B-3 is, as it ought to be, just a dream of the want-a-be Bomber Mafia Generals. Without high expectations of new technology the butternuts will lose interest. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Robert Little July 2nd, 2011 at 1:01 am You ever fly a B-52? Ever fly IN one? It’s as stealthy as the World Trade Center prior to 9/11, and of absolutely zero utility against an opponent with decent capabilities. If the AF is looking beyond the B-2, the question is why?
	GunnyJames July 2nd, 2011 at 2:43 am Penetrate what?
	Cocidius July 2nd, 2011 at 12:15 pm CHINA
	Cocidius July 2nd, 2011 at 12:24 pm I agree with most of what you’ve said. However when we start looking at the massive and long term funding that’s necessary to support the Area 51/Groom Lake test facility things start to look a little less clear.
	VF 143 Pucken Dog 01 July 3rd, 2011 at 3:46 pm WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER MANNED BOMBER!!!! STEALTH IS DEAD!!!! Do we really believe we would need a Bomber to Launch or Strike inland targets at this point in Modern History?????? Someone is Smoking Dope and Senior Leadership once agian is listening to the Integrators.….. Hell, what is another 22 Trillion Dollars on Wall Street!!! The NGB need to be terminated, the same with JSF, F-22 and B-2. We have enough Long-Range Missiles, Joint Stand-Off Strke Weapons to take out every Moving and In-place target in the World. This is way off the Radar. Stop the insanity!!!! Lets purchase the weapons and capability that makes since not this CRAP.
	VF 143 Pucken Dog 01 July 3rd, 2011 at 3:49 pm You are FULL Of Shit.… any misslie manned or other wise can be disarmed in-flight. Go Back to School.
	VF 143 Pucken Dog 01 July 3rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm The F-117 was RETIRED in November 2008 and is NOW Sitting in the DAVIS-MONTHAN Bone-yard. Stealth is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why we continue with the F-22, JSF and B-2 Programs is beyond me. Bring and Air-Condtioner and some Bondo.
	darksidius July 3rd, 2011 at 5:53 pm I disagree the need of a new bomber is vital for AIR FORCE, with new 5th gen fighter in China and Russia and another new weapon you MUST launch new programs like this bomber. Because a day if a dictator take one of this country you must pray to see the new classified plane of the Air force to save your life. And this day you think luckily to live in a country who spent ” the insanity dollars” to save you. Think about that and not just the monney they spent. Good job AIR FORCE you are in the right way.
	STemplar July 4th, 2011 at 12:02 am Is this incarnation 10 for you or what? You really do need to give it a rest.
	Jeff July 4th, 2011 at 1:29 am I think we should regard this program for what it is… a less than black, black project. In another time this would have been a black project… but in this more open time, where we have less immediate enemies this program is taking a middle ground approach standing somewhere in the gray between a black project and a conventionally budgeted program. I’m not sure what to think of this approach but it is what it is.
	MorbiusIX July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 am JSFMIKE, Yes the F-22 is late 70’s thought & 80’s technology that has taken almost 30 yrs to bring online Funny thing is durning the Century Series Fighters period mid 50’s to late 60’s how many acft different types of acft were beingR&D T&E and produced sa compared today and during an active Space Program to boot so exactly what is on the drawing board these days
	pfcem July 5th, 2011 at 2:37 am No, the F-22 is 1990’s technology. The ATF RFP (Request For Proposal) was released in 1986, the Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics YF-22 was selected as the winner in 1991 & THEN the development of what became the production F-22 began — the 1st EMD (Engineering Manufacturing Design) F-22 rolled out in 1997.
	pfcem July 5th, 2011 at 3:07 am They can not fly forever & the older they get the MORE expensive it becomes to keep them flying. No you can not “fancy them up a bit” and save money. We needed a new bomber program the day the B-2 program was cut from 75 to 20.
	WarPony July 5th, 2011 at 8:36 am Actually, it’s a Constitutional Republic founded upon law — where, no man is above such law. Or, at least that is what WE are suppossed to be! When you hear talking heads from the MSM, and politicians, call US a democracy, they obviously don’t know what Country they are allowed to speak freely about. Perhaps, they are working for a “UN”-type of democracy, akin to the World Government they so hope to implant. Fat chance, we have the First Amendment as long as we retain the Second. Happy 235 years United States~! May your banner yet wave.
	WarPony July 5th, 2011 at 8:42 am Actually, the Comanche was flying special ops back in ’98. It was another “Apollo mission” — where they sink billions in a program (Comanche supposedly started in ’98 to be operational in ’06) only to cancel it in ’05. Guess it provides more dough for black ops? I bet there are Comanches still operational, and, like this article, the “general public” isn’t on the “need-to-know” list. And, that is just fine with me.
	WarPony July 5th, 2011 at 8:46 am Actually, eufrrprc — they’re all bankster-controlled by the European Oligarchs. Ask Fogh Rasmussen, NATO chief honcho, former European Prime Minister, former Danish Prime Minister, and, “repair man” for the NWO. Onward through the FOGH~!
	Jim July 6th, 2011 at 3:01 am Well, shoot. They did it with healthcare.…
	jaykthnx July 7th, 2011 at 12:22 am he’s saying that bombers can turn around in-flight for another pass on the target. every single missle ever developed is a single-use weapon. there’s nothing left to turn around afterb the first pass. please, don’t be such a tool.
	Eagle077 July 7th, 2011 at 9:33 am This turkey is still in the “Death by Viewgraph” stage and the preparatory pertubation phase. “Utilize mature technology”, what a laugh. That’s code for designed today and obsolete at roll-out. Just like one of our snazzy new fighters it’s avionics load is 4 generations of technology old. Tell me that you can “penetrate” with this bird using an Iphone “App” and I’ll be impressed. UNtil I hear something like that, I think the taxpayer is being penetrated.
	galloglas July 7th, 2011 at 9:37 am It’s big, stealthy, black and un-manned. It will fly to the outer edge of the atmosphere almost sub orbital perhaps even orbital and come down loaded with smart weapons anytime, anyplace and deliver bubble gum and kick a$$. The bubble gum delivery mechanism is still non functional at this date.
	Ash July 16th, 2011 at 7:42 pm Stealth is not dead. The technology still provides a level of survivability that non-stealth aircraft do not enjoy. F-117 was retired because it was first generation stealth and more survivable aircraft have come online. The F-22 and the B-2A.

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

What you are allowed to know about the bomber

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments