Early prototype design.
Posted on 06/13/2006 5:53:58 PM PDT by aculeus
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior Pentagon officials are moving ahead to develop a long-range strike weapon or bomber, a key recommendation in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review that could mean billions of dollars in new business for contractors, a source familiar with the process told Reuters on Tuesday.
Defense Department and Air Force officials agreed in principle on Monday that they needed to start work soon if they wanted to meet the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) goal of having the new weapon ready by 2018, said the source, who asked not to be identified.
The Air Force's Air Combat Command, which provides the bulk of U.S. combat air power, began an analysis of alternatives for the project last October that is expected to take a year.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. and Chicago-based Boeing Co. are likely competitors in any future competition. It could well be the only new major weapons program the Air Force embarks on this decade.
A long-range bomber, or strike system, could be manned or unmanned and involve a mix of missiles, rockets, lasers and other munitions, according to defense experts.
"They had a meeting yesterday. They're going to go ahead with a new long-range bomber," said the source.
Lockheed said its Skunk Works unit, which works on cutting-edge programs, is already designing several concepts "that may meet Air Force requirements for this new aircraft," said company spokesman Tom Jurkowsky.
Boeing said it would also be part of the race.
"Boeing is looking at all the options and will definitely compete in any new program," said spokesman Erik Simonsen.
The analysis of alternatives would help the Pentagon decide how to proceed, but defense analysts said the Air Force clearly favored development of a new bomber rather than a new missile or other alternative.
The target date for the new bomber's deployment had been 2037 but was moved up 19 years in the QDR, the roadmap for U.S. strategy that Congress requires the Pentagon to prepare.
The United States is keen to forestall any military challenge from China. Beijing has threatened to use force against U.S.-equipped Taiwan and is searching for oil supplies worldwide.
Defense analysts said the Pentagon had set an ambitious target of 2018, which could indicate that classified work on a new bomber had already progressed fairly well.
"Getting a new bomber into the field by 2018 will be a very challenging proposition, given how much time it takes to select a design, award a contract, and then bring the plane into production," said Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.
"It's a fast track," agreed one senior Air Force official, who asked not to be named.
Richard Aboulafia of the Virginia-based Teal Group, said work on the new program could be politically motivated to help ease concerns of some lawmakers that the Pentagon was spending too much on fighters, while allowing its bomber fleet to languish. Some lawmakers are facing close election contests in November, he said.
Boeing might have the best chances to build a new bomber, Aboulafia said. He cited its experience with the B-1 bomber, its role as a subcontractor to Northrop Grumman Corp. on the B-52, and the fact that its key fighter program, the F-18, would be ending production around 2013.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Just as long as the darn things aren't designed to cost $5 Billion each so that the Pentagon builds 3 and then calls it a day.
Welcome to Free Republic.
You won't find many here searching for "Total World Supremacy", just a very strong defense.
Put me in the "total world supremecy" column.
The C-130 comes very close and is still in production. So, as time goes by, the C-130 will most probably surpass the Buff in longevity.
Yeah, me too, and I'll take a side order of "Ruthless Global Domination"...
Ditto
Just as long as the darn things aren't designed to cost $5 Billion each so that the Pentagon builds 3 and then calls it a day.
Bingo--you hit the nail on the head. We have this idiot mentality in this country of spending billions to get a weapons system perfected and then buying a ridiculously low number. I think the worst offender was the Seawolf Sub--thought we only bought 2 or 3 of those. The Dems try their darndest to limit production and then have the nerve to complain about the high unit cost. [The reason most often given is that the weapon currently in development is already "obsolete".]
Personally, it might be smart to open up the assembly line and build new & improved B-52s. Retro cars are all the rage now--why not retro bombers? True its not stealth, but think of all the $$ we'd save. With stand off weapons, stealth is overrated anyway.
The C-47/DC-3 trumps 'em both. Still in service around the world.
Early prototype design.
The BUFF's role is to carry a ton of CALCM's (or ALCM/ACM should the unthinkable ever come) and launch them from a safe distance. If necessary, it could also be used for carpet bombing enemy troops. And now, thanks to the JDAM, it can also be used in the CAS role.
"She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid."
"You won't find many here searching for "Total World Supremacy", just a very strong defense."
BWA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! I'm sure there will only be a few people who disagree with you there. "Few" meaning "lots," of course.
If its not ready by 2012....then forget it.
If what's not ready, the bomber? We don't really need a bomber anyway. What we need is a good old fashioned genetically-based biological weapon. You can bet the labs in the midEast are already working on how to kill whitey. If only we had one of those for putting liberals out of their misery...maybe we should find the gene for yellow backbones. ;^)
Yes, you are correct, but not with the US military (at least to my knowledge).
Put a cruise-missile dispenser on some C-130s and call it a day
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.