Inside Defense
Aug. 20, 2009 -- The Pentagon is considering a modified commercial wide-body aircraft packed with cruise missiles as a possible low-tech replacement for the Air Force's aging B-52 bomber fleet, a previously unreported option being floated as part of a wider assessment of how the Defense Department might modernize its long-range strike capabilities, according to DOD sources.
A “tiger team” formed earlier this year to examine the underlying need for a new long-range strike aircraft is looking at the option of a so-called “arsenal airplane,” according to Pentagon officials. The team was set up after Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April canceled the fledgling Next-Generation Bomber program.
At issue is a fundamental question about the composition of the future bomber fleet: How much of it must be capable of penetrating sophisticated enemy air defenses; and what, if any, portion can operate like the B-52 does today -- at a safe distance from enemy air defenses.
At Gates' direction, the team is focusing on examining the need for a new bomber, drawing up options for aircraft capable of providing long-range, penetrating, persistent aircraft, systems that would likely be stealthy, supersonic and carry a hefty price tag.
“One of the issues that has come up is: Would we want the entire bomber force to be that aircraft?” said a source familiar with the tiger team's efforts. “Or in time, when the B-52 is replaced, do you go with a stealthy aircraft or an arsenal plane, a commercially derivative plane that can drop bombs?”
Any decision made this fall about what the B-52 replacement might look like will not begin impacting defense budgets for decades, officials said. The Pentagon plans to continue flying the venerable eight-engine bomber until at least 2035.
However, the budget implications for such a decision are being debated. A key issue is the cost of the total capability -- the aircraft plus the munition. Sources say that when a price tag for the cruise missiles is tallied along with the aircraft’s, the total cost could approach amounts comparable to a stealthy, penetrating bomber.
By considering a modified commercial bomber, the Pentagon is dusting off a concept for an arsenal aircraft that first surfaced during the height of Cold War.
Gates has tasked the tiger team to examine if there is a strategic need for long-range strike capability. In addition, according to sources, the group is examining: What does such a capability need to be able to do to be strategically relevant? What are the operational challenges that it needs to be able to address? What are options in terms of platforms and munitions for achieving that?
David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development and head of the Quadrennial Defense Review analysis and integration cell, told reporters earlier this summer that the tiger team “is reexamining both the nature of that [long-range strike] mission and opportunities for accomplishing that mission technologically and conceptually.”
The team is expected to deliver its report to Gates in the early fall.
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review directed the Air Force to field a new long-range strike aircraft by 2018, accelerating its bomber modernization plans by nearly two decades in an effort to quickly enhance the service's effectiveness across the Asia-Pacific region.
But in April, Gates terminated the Air Force's Next-Generation Bomber program, directing the Pentagon to reexamine both the requirement and available technologies and noting that any decision on a new program will be made in the context of the QDR and the Nuclear Posture Review, as well as follow-on negotiations with Russia over a new strategic arms reduction pact.
Meantime, the Air Force included a classified $140 million request in its unfunded requirements list to continue the bomber effort in fiscal year 2010 (DefenseAlert, June 5).
This year, the tiger team was established “to explicitly relook the requirements and concepts for long-range, penetrating strike and [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], recognizing that a manned bomber may or may not be the right answer,” Ochmanek said on June 28.
Still, Pentagon officials acknowledge the need for some type of long-range strike platform for potential future conflicts, he noted.
“There's recognition of the importance of being able to locate, characterize and attack targets in a hostile air defense environment,” Ochmanek said. -- Jason Sherman
8202009_aug20a