Thomas Withington takes an in-depth look at the history and development of the bomber and its future progress and use.
Strategic bombers were originally conceived during World War II to enable the allies to undertake massive bombing raids against targets in Germany and Japan. During World War II, the US led the world in designing such aircraft, and Boeing’s B-29 Superfortress was the most technologically superior bomber to fly.
After the war, such aircraft became an essential part of America’s nuclear deterrent. They could deploy a large nuclear payload, for example Boeing’s B-52 Stratofortress, could carry two B-53, eight B-61 or eight B-63 thermonuclear devices internally. Unlike intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), bombers had the added value of being able to be either recalled or retargeted if necessary once underway.
Recent operations over Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan by the United States Air Force (USAF) illustrated that a large bomber force still forms an essential part of any air expeditionary operation, as these aircraft can hit ‘time-critical’ targets such as ballistic missile sites early in the conflict. Also, because of their range and capacity to refuel in mid-air, they can operate from bases well beyond the theatre of operations. The large payloads carried by such aircraft allows them to deliver an array of weapons which can be tailored to specific targets like command and control (C2) facilities and communications nodes. For example, witness the ‘bunker-busting’ munitions delivered by B-2 Spirit bombers in Afghanistan.
However, the USAF long-range bomber fleet is facing a serious crisis. Its aircraft are ageing rapidly, and the force urgently needs new planes. The B-1B Lancer is expected to remain in service until 2016, whilst the B-2 will continue until 2037.
There are plans to keep the B-52H in service until 2040. However, the aircraft originally joined the USAF in May 1961, which means that it will be around 80-years-old when it is decommissioned. The continuing presence of the B-52H in the bomber fleet, has led to accusations that “this approach to combat is comparable to General Schwarzkopf using Rickenbacker’s Spad biplane to fend off the Iraqis in Desert Storm”. The USAF believes that it will be necessary to initiate a programme to design and construct a replacement aircraft for the bomber fleet no later than 2013.
Any further procurement of new B-2 and B-1B aircraft seems very unlikely. In 1990, the Department of Defense decided a total of 132 B-2s would be purchased for the USAF. However, due to cost concerns, the B-2 production schedule was capped at 20 aircraft in 1992, with the last aircraft being delivered in 2000. Northrop Grumman, the B-2’s manufacturer, estimated the cost of re-starting production has risen by $1bn. This adds further costs to an aircraft, which is literally worth its weight in gold. The
B-1B is an older aircraft the Lancer programme dates back to the early 1980s, and the aircraft probably has 15 years of airframe life. The costs of restarting B-1B production would also be considerable.
The age of the B-52 and the cost of reactivating the B-1B and B-2 production lines could make it cheaper for the USAF to commission a new aircraft. Several designs are on the drawing board, and plans are already afoot to develop a new manned bomber, using lessons learnt from the B-2 Spirit.
A study by the RAND Corporation in 1999 proposed a ‘manned light bomber’ concept aircraft. This plane would use ‘off-the-shelf’ technology, i.e. innovations to be fielded shortly on platforms such as the joint strike fighter. This would go some considerable way in reducing costs, as new components and technologies would not have to be exclusive to a single type of aircraft.
The RAND study stated the aircraft should have a Mach 2 capability and an un-refuelled range of 3,250 nautical miles. It should weigh between 290,000-350,000lbs, have a maximum payload of 15,000-20,000lbs, and be able to undertake missions with support from both the current US tanker fleet and up to 100 air superiority fighters. A force of 85-100 of these aircraft could match the daily ordnance delivery rate achieved by the USAF during Operation Desert Storm 560 tons per day. However, the ‘manned bomber concept’ is still a paper project, and there are no available prototype drawings or details on the dimensions of this aircraft.
Air Combat Command the division of the USAF which is in charge of the long-range bomber fleet has already initiated a project called the ‘future strike aircraft’ study. It has commissioned Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to develop concepts for an aircraft to replace the B-2. Unsurprisingly, the Pentagon has said it will call any future bomber the B-3. Military sources have suggested that Northrop Grumman’s design for the B-3 will utilise the ‘flying wing’ concept, which is already fielded on the B-2. The B-3 would travel at similar ‘high-subsonic’ speeds. However, its payload will be larger and it will have a longer range. Very few details exist regarding the B-3, suggesting it is already under development and is therefore classified.
A second manned bomber project called HyperSoar has also been muted. The aircraft would be a hypersonic platform, that would perform global reconnaissance and strike missions. It would be of a similar size to the B-52 and would travel at speeds in excess of Mach 10, while carrying twice the B-52’s payload. HyperSoar would use a skipping motion to ‘bounce’ of the earth’s surface for propulsion, in much the same way that a thrown pebble bounces off the surface of a lake. HyperSoar’s altitude would allow it to operate above anticipated, future, surface-to-air missile envelopes, while its range would enable it to fly from anywhere on earth without mid-air refuelling.
The project is the brainchild of the Physics Directorate and the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the University of Maryland’s Department of Aerospace Engineering. The total development costs for HyperSoar have been estimated at US$10bn, which is roughly the same as the cost to develop the Boeing 777.
However, HyperSoar is still many years from fruition and hypersonic technology is still very much in its infancy. Many of the technologies essential for such an aircraft, like ‘Scramjet’ engines and special heat-resistant surfaces are years from development. Then they would still have to be tested and proven. It is therefore doubtful whether HyperSoar could be completed by the USAF’s anticipated deployment date for a new bomber of 2013.
Unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) are being considered as another possibility. One project called StrikeStar is an unmanned aircraft weighing 24,000lb, with a 4,000lb payload and a 105ft wing span. The aircraft would have an operational range of 17,000 nautical miles, allowing it to be based well away from the area of operations. It would have a cruising height of 65,000ft, and a maximum altitude of 80,000ft. The aircraft could be stored in a hangar until required, configured for a mission and then launched. It would not place any air crew at risk, and could operate at a very high altitude, cruising above bad weather and current SAM missile threats. The platform could also be configured for other duties including reconnaissance.
The second UCAV concept is a joint US $131m project between the USAF and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), that has produced the X-54A technology demonstrator. The aircraft will be tested over the next two years, and could be in service by 2010. It has a stealthy appearance and could deliver around 1.5 tons of weapons at targets 1,000 miles away from base. The X-54 uses some of the technology already being fielded on precision munitions, such as global positioning system (GPS) navigation and radars and video cameras to undertake its mission.
However, questions remain as to whether the payload sizes of StrikeStar and the X-54A would be adequate given the much larger payloads already carried by the existing US bomber fleet.
The recent air operations over Afghanistan have illustrated that long-range bombers are still crucial to any air war. However, the B-52’s age, coupled with the excessive costs of manufacturing additional B-1 and B-2 aircraft means there is an urgent need to procure new long-range bombers for the future. While several projects are under consideration, time is pressing, and the USAF has stipulated that any new platform would have to be deployed by 2013. The long lead time necessary for developing aircraft like long-range bombers means that any decisions to be taken about such aircraft have to be made sooner rather than later.
