US Air Force's B2 Replacement

[Indus Falcon]

Air Force Seeks Proposals for $55 Billion Bomber Program
By Jonathan D. Salant - Jul 10, 2014

The U.S. Air Force said today it has asked contractors for proposals on a new long-range strike bomber, setting up a competition between Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)and a Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT).-Boeing Co. (BA) joint venture.

The Air Force has said it may build as many as 100 of the bombers, at a cost that may top $55 billion, to replace the aging B-2 stealth bomber built by Northrop. The service said in an e-mailed statement that it expected to choose the bomber’s developer “in the spring 2015 time frame.”

Calling the bomber “a top modernization priority,” Air Force Secretary Deborah James said in the statement, “It will be an adaptable and highly capable system based upon mature technology.”

The Air Force has described the bomber as crucial to its ability to reach far-flung, heavily defended targets around the world. When research and development costs are included, the price per plane may rise from $550 million to $810 million, according to calculations by three defense analysts cited by Bloomberg News.

The Air Force’s five-year plan released in March proposed spending $11.8 billion to develop the new plane.

The cost will draw close scrutiny in an era of declining defense spending, as the Pentagon faces the budget-cutting process called sequestration. The Air Force’s track record also is being questioned after soaring costs for the B-2 and Lockheed’s F-35 fighter jet, the most expensive U.S. weapons system, which is now being built.

Best Credentials
The competing contractors for the bomber both issued statements arguing that they had the best credentials to win the contract.

“Northrop Grumman’s design, production and sustainment of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, the bomber most recently produced for the U.S. Air Force, positions the company well for” the long-range bomber program, Randy Belote, a spokesman for the Falls Church, Virginia-based contractor, said in an e-mailed statement.

The team formed by Chicago-based Boeing and Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed issued a statement saying: “We have been part of the bomber community for more than 80 years, going back to the earliest days of bomber development. We have the breadth and depth of proven technologies and talent, plus the infrastructure and scale that matches the importance of this mission.”

Air Force Seeks Proposals for $55 Billion Bomber Program - Bloomberg

 

[Indus Falcon]

Northrop favors California over Florida for building bomber
By Richard Burnett, Orlando Sentinel
July 9, 2014

Florida's hopes of becoming the manufacturing site for the stealth bomber of the future appear to have been dashed by California, though the Sunshine State may still capture a share of the multibillion-dollar business.

Northrop Grumman Corp.has decided to build the next-generation bomber at its Palmdale, Calif., factory if it wins the $50 billion contract, a senior Northrop official told California lawmakers last week. A Northrop win would mean at least 1,500 new jobs in Palmdale and $420 million in tax breaks.

The decision, disclosed by Northrop aerospace-services chief Tom Vice, apparently would eliminate Northrop's Melbourne operation as a potential site for the advanced-bomber-program headquarters and the many airframe manufacturing jobs it would create.

But the Melbourne unit appears to be in line for a major consolation prize if Northrop eventually wins the contract, which experts say could be awarded as early as 2015.

Northrop said this week that the California decision would not sidetrack the previously announced $500 million expansion of its Melbourne aircraft-engineering and design operation. That plan calls for about 1,300 new jobs during the next four years to handle existing programs. An additional 1,500 jobs could be created during five years if Northrop wins new contracts, such as the stealth bomber deal.

Northrop has repeatedly declined to comment on the bomber-contract bid, citing its classified military work. The company is competing with the team ofBoeing Co.andLockheed Martin Corp.to build the successor to the B-2 stealth bomber, a program Northrop won more than 20 years ago.

In general terms, however, Northrop has said its Melbourne operation will perform engineering-and-design work on its entire "portfolio of aircraft programs," including the E-2D Hawkeye radar plane — which the company already builds — and its pending bid for the next-generation Joint STARS combat-surveillance aircraft.

"Northrop Grumman remains fully committed to the state of Florida, as we continue to grow our operations here," spokesman Tim Paynter said in a prepared statement. "The pending California [tax break] legislation has no impact on the company's commitment to and growth in Florida."

It is not clear, however, to what extent Melbourne was in the running for an even bigger expansion as the manufacturing headquarters for the long-range stealth bomber. In May, when Northrop announced its latest plan for theBrevard Countyoperation, some local leaders said it could help Florida wrest the factory work away from California.

"The development and assembly of America's long-range strike aircraft in Melbourne is a new beginning for the Space Coast," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said at the time, citing a briefing he had received from Northrop officials. Nelson later clarified his remarks, noting that Melbourne would instead do engineering-and-design work on the future B-2 aircraft.

California officials want to make sure that's all Florida would do, so state lawmakers have fast-tracked a proposal that would give a $420 million package of tax breaks to Northrop if it wins. The state already has approved a similar deal for the Boeing-Lockheed team, which also would build the aircraft in Palmdale.

By comparison, Northrop has received approval for about $40 million in state and local incentive money to expand its Melbourne operation.

"Other states are luring what is ours and trying to take it from us," said California state Sen.Steve Knight, quoted by the Los Angeles Times. "If California is not competitive, then shame on us."

Despite California's actions, Florida still offers the better, lower-cost option for Northrop's aircraft work, said Ryan Brown, a spokesman for Nelson.

"California's so-called incentives aside, thePentagondoesn't concern itself with where a plane is built, but how and at what cost," Brown said in a prepared statement. "In this case, one of the prospective bidders already has a facility in place and it happens to be in Florida. We'll continue to watch this situation with more than a keen interest."

When it comes to incentives, it is tough for Florida to compete with California, which is trying to salvage an aerospace industry devastated by defense budget cuts in the 1990s, said Roger Handberg, a defense expert and political-science professor at the University of Central Florida.

"They obviously see the future bomber contract as a last-chance opportunity to keep their industry alive," he said. "Florida is attempting to move into the big leagues, and I am not certain that the state understands the competition despite our brave rhetoric."

Defense expert Loren Thompson said California was the logical choice to manufacture the new bomber because it has a long-running classified Air Force complex in Palmdale where Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed already have factories.

"But it would still make sense for Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin to do much of the work in a less expensive state like Florida," said Thompson, an executive with the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank. "Even if California offers a heftier package of incentives to the companies, Florida's efforts could still reap thousands of jobs."

Northrop chooses California over Florida for building new bomber - Orlando Sentinel

 

[Indus Falcon]

Budget Highlight: Air Force Long Range Strike Bomber
by Jeremiah Gertler, July 2, 2014

In early July, the U.S. Air Force is expected to issue a Request for Proposals to design, develop, and build a fleet of 80-100 new long-range strike systems to be fielded in the mid-2020s. Although long-range strike systems are typically thought of as bomber aircraft, the more general description is used because it is not yet clear whether the proposed Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is to be a single platform or a group of smaller systems working in concert.

Most of the current U.S. bomber fleet is composed of 76 B-52 Stratofortresses, which average 50 years in age, and whose ability to penetrate modern air-defense systems is increasingly challenged. The 80-100 LRS-Bs would replace the B-52s and likely some of the 63 B-1s still in service (with an average age of 28 years.) The B-52s and B-1s are currently projected to remain in service through 2040, which would be consistent with a mid-2020s introduction of the first LRS-Bs.

The Long Range Strike Bomber program began in FY2012, replacing the Air Force Next Generation Bomber program, an earlier effort to develop a manned bomber. While it will initially be deployed as a manned aircraft, LRS-B could eventually become optionally manned, with the aircraft operated remotely for some operations. Air Force officials have stated that LRS-B would be manned for nuclear missions.
Development Profile

The RFP may be less than it seems, however. As Figure 1 shows, the projected LRS-B budget increases more than 10-fold in the current Future Years Defense Program, from $258.7 million in FY2013 to $3,451.2 million in FY2019. Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS's assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets. Such prior development would also help explain how the Air Force intends to get the system from a Request for Proposals to initial operational capability in about 10 years, when equally or less-complicated systems like the F-22 and F-35 have taken more than 20.

Figure 1. Long Range Strike Bomber Funding

Source: DOD budget submissions for FY2014 and FY2015.

If there has in fact been considerable prior development, the Air Force will be challenged to construct a truly competitive RFP. Two competitors have declared an interest in the program: a team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. Although Northrop is reportedly building a large, classified UAV, whichever competitor may have done the bulk of any such preliminary LRS-B development is likely to have an advantage in the production contract.

Cost

The Air Force has pegged the new bomber's price tag at $550 million each, excluding development (i.e., the cost of building each at full-rate production, known as "unit recurring flyaway" cost). While standing by that cost, Air Force officials have observed that capping the cost now or in the future is likely to result in limiting some of the LRS-B's capabilities or restricting the quantity produced. These tradeoffs are typical of a budget-constrained development program. Some analysts indicate that including development, each LRS-B could cost $810 million. These figures appear not to include any prior classified funding.

Even at the lower estimate, development and funding of LRS-B will take up a substantial portion of the bomber budget, which also includes modernization and update programs for the existing fleet of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s in the coming years. This could pose a particular challenge if LRS-B development proves more expensive than projected, as is not uncommon in aircraft programs. Given a constrained budget topline, growth in LRS-B could put pressure on maintaining and improving legacy bomber fleets. This maintenance is required to ensure today's bombers remain effective and to avoid a capability gap until LRS-B comes along.

CRS will continue to follow this program, and expects to issue an "In Focus" paper and eventually a full report following publication of the RFP.



CRS Insights: Budget Highlight: Air Force Long Range Strike Bomber

 

[Mujahid Memon]

Ageing B-2s!!, what about B-52s?

 

[gambit]

Ageing B-2s!!, what about B-52s?

What about the B-52 ? A replacement does not mean we are going to mothball the B-2. A replacement means the B-2 can, and probably will, be relegated to secondary defense duties. The new bomber will be the one taking the most difficult targets.

 

[SQ8]

What about the B-52 ? A replacement does not mean we are going to mothball the B-2. A replacement means the B-2 can, and probably will, be relegated to secondary defense duties. The new bomber will be the one taking the most difficult targets.

Provided its built in numbers and does not end up much like the B-2 its designed to complement. After all, the B-2 itself was supposed to be built in the hundreds

 

[holysaturn]

Bombers cannot survive in an a high threat environment nor can they alter the course of war as they never have till now,heck they are even vulnerable to mig-21s if detected. The costs will rice and I bet not more than 30 will be procured.Remember B1,B2 initially these numbers but finally produced far less. This is just a money making ploy by greedy generals,congressmen,industrialists.