2037 bomber controversy

2037 bomber
General information
Issued byUnited States Air Force
Statusprojected
History
SuccessorsNext-Generation Bomber
Long Range Strike Bomber

The 2037 bomber was a short-lived 1999 United States Air Force proposal to modernize and extend the service life of the U.S. bomber fleet and defer the introduction of a replacement "capability" (a strategic bomber or some future equivalent platform) until 2037. The plan was criticized by lawmakers and Pentagon officials, some of whom believed the existing fleet was in danger of becoming outmoded and overstretched.[1] Amidst this controversy, Air Force officials revised this plan in 2001 to put forward an accelerated timeline for a new bomber. Accordingly a Next-Generation Bomber program was started with the goal of introducing a bomber in 2018, but this was canceled in 2009. This program was restarted as the Long Range Strike Bomber which resulted in the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, currently expected to enter service in 2026–2027.

B-2 production termination and looming bomber gap

In 1998, a Congressional panel studied the merits of re-starting B-2 Spirit production, which had ended prematurely at 21 aircraft, far short of the originally planned 132 stealth bombers. The panel nonetheless endorsed ending production in favor of re-allocating resources towards B-2 upgrades or developing technology for a future new-build aircraft.[2]

1999 Long Range Bombers projection

A few weeks later Congress ordered the Department of the Air Force to update its bomber roadmap, last reviewed in 1992. The resulting Long Range Bombers white paper released in March 1999 projected that a new "capability" would be needed to be fielded in the 2037 time frame. The paper estimated that due to mishap attrition and other factors other than useful service life, 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 end of service life. It predicted it would need to begin retiring B-1s at the end of their service life around 2038.[3][2][4] For the B-52 Stratofortresses, the report estimated the service would be "unable to maintain our requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044." The Air Force's near-term strategic bombing needs could be met through service extensions and technology enhancements offering "a tenfold increase in bomber lethality" compared to 1992, according to the paper.[2] According to that roadmap, a Mission Area Assessment would have to be completed by 2013 with an acquisition program beginning in 2019 in order to support initial operational capability (IOC) in 2037. [3]

The white paper did not identify the replacement "capability" as a bomber or any specific type of aircraft because, according to the report, "technological advances may lead us to a configuration or platform that in no way resembles today’s bomber aircraft."[5]

The Department of the Air Force's contentment with the size and age of the bomber fleet disappointed some members of Congress who believed a new aircraft would be needed before 2037.[2] 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.[6] 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.[7]

The Air Force conceded that a new bomber would be needed earlier when it updated its service life projections in November 2001.[8] In addition to acknowledging the threats discussed in the QDR report, 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 identified the possibility for the Air Force to begin its acquisition program in 2012–2015 to support IOC in the 2025–2030 timeframe.[8] The paper's recommendations were adopted as Air Force policy by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Edward C. Aldridge Jr.[9]

Legacy

The Department of Defense continued to advocate for a later bomber introduction date. In its Nuclear Posture Review delivered in December 2001, the DOD claimed the Air Force was aiming to introduce its next bomber in the 2040s; internally, this gap still caused concern and some Air Force officials expressed support for complementing the existing strategic bomber fleet with an "interim" strike capability fulfilled by "regional bombers", such as the proposed Lockheed Martin FB-22, Northrop Grumman FB-23, or Boeing B-1R.[10][11][12] Not until the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review did the DoD formalize its intent to bring the project forward almost two decades.[13][14]

The Air Force next began the Next-Generation Bomber program with a target service entry date in 2018, but this was suspended in 2009. Work resumed under the Long Range Strike Bomber program (LRS-B), which resulted in the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider.[15][12]

Debates persist within the Air Force ranks about the 2037 bomber and the future of long-range strike. The Air Force's interest, or lack thereof, in a follow-on bomber to the LRS-B has not been publicly divulged. In 2007, defense industry analyst Rebecca Grant called the bomber a "mythical beast" and lamented the Air Force's continued fixation on it.[16][17]

See also

References

  1. ^ Hebert, Adam J. (August 2007). "Great Expectations" (PDF). Air Force Magazine. 90 (8). The Air Force Association: 34. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-07. Retrieved 28 April 2021. The controversial 1999 bomber roadmap proposed delaying the start of a new acquisition program until 2019 and not fielding that bomber until 2037
  2. ^ a b c d Tirpak, John A. (1 June 1999). "The Bomber Roadmap". Air Force Magazine. Retrieved 29 April 2021.
  3. ^ a b U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers (PDF) (Report). U.S. Air Force. 1 March 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 April 2023. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
  4. ^ Grant, Rebecca (February 2007). Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long-Range Strike (Report). Air Force Association. pp. 11, 17, 29.
  5. ^ Warwick, Graham (24 March 1999). "Bomber roadshow". FlightGlobal. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  6. ^ Axe, David (19 May 2014). "Will the $55 billion bomber program fly?". Center for Public Integrity. pp. V, 27. Retrieved 20 April 2021. the Air Force believed it could wait until 2037 for a new bomber. But in 2001, a Defense Department strategy review warned that another world power could launch a surprise attack on a U.S. ally that U.S. ground and naval forces could not prevent
  7. ^ 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (PDF). Department of Defense. 30 September 2001. pp. 30–31. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  8. ^ a b U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper (Report). U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense. November 2001. p. 27. Retrieved 28 April 2021 – via Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037
  9. ^ Watts, Barry D. (April 2005). "Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options" (PDF). Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments: 15. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  10. ^ Tirpak, John A. (October 2002). "Long Arm of the Air Force" (PDF). Air Force Magazine. 85 (10): 28–34. ISSN 0730-6784. OCLC 5169825. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  11. ^ "YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid". Flight International. 13 July 2004. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012.
  12. ^ a b Murch, Anthony (7 March 2008). "The Next Generation Bomber: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
  13. ^ Hebert, Adam J. (March 2008). "Issue Brief". Air Force Magazine. 91 (3). The Air Force Association: 22. ISSN 0730-6784. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 28 April 2021. In its 1999 "Bomber Roadmap", the Air Force famously declared that it had no need for a new long-range strike aircraft until 2037. It soon wavered but did not change course by much. Then, early in 2006, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review set a new goal: USAF, the QDR decreed, will have a new bomber ready for combat in 2018
  14. ^ Jeremiah Gertler (14 April 2016). "Air Force B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber" (PDF). Ars Technica. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 20 April 2021. Prior to 2006, the Air Force had indicated that its fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers would suffice until 2037 [...] The 2006 QDR's call for a new bomber that would enter service in 2018 thus accelerated Air Force plans for fielding a new bomber by almost 20 years.
  15. ^ Hebert, Adam J. (1 November 2004). "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry". Air Force Magazine. Vol. 87, no. 11. pp. 26–31. Retrieved 30 December 2015. (PDF version)
  16. ^ "U.S. Air Force: No 2009 Money for Next-Gen Bomber". Defense News. 2007.[dead link‍]
  17. ^ Weinberger, Sharon (10 December 2007). "Future Bomber: No Money, No Problem". Wired. Retrieved 19 April 2021. Saving future technologies (like supersonic speed, death beam weapons, and unmanned flight) for the quasi-mythical 2037 bomber.