Not sure what happened to the old "Bomber" thread...could of sworn I posted in it just a few months ago.

--------------------------------------

Lawmakers Slam B-52 Retirement Plan

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | March 03, 2006
link

The chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee this week expressed dismay over the Air Force’s proposed plan to retire nearly half of its venerable B-52 bomber fleet, saying such action could leave the service hamstrung to carry out long-range strike missions.

Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ike Skelton (D-MO) also chided Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and service Secretary Michael Wynne for the service’s progress on a new long-range strike platform, which likely will not be ready for at least another decade.

“The problem with deep strike is we’ve got darn few of any systems,” Hunter said during a March 1 committee hearing.

Inside the Air Force first reported in January that the Pentagon, as part of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, would reduce the B-52 force from 94 to 56, and use the expected cost savings to fully modernize the Air Force’s remaining B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers (ITAF, Jan. 13, p1), which make up the service’s deep-strike inventory. The high-profile document was obtained, in draft form, by InsideDefense.com.

In total, the service has approximately 160 bombers. The early retirement plan, if approved by Congress, would shrink the arsenal to 122 bombers. However, the Air Force’s FY-07 budget request pitches a plan that would trim its B-52 fleet to 56 aircraft. The service is banking on saving $680 million in its procurement accounts and reducing its B-52 personnel ranks by 3,924 airmen.

Service budget documents show the service plans to retire 18 B-52s in the coming fiscal year, and 20 more the following year.

Hunter said that the Air Force’s long-range strike capability “largely resides on backs of these ancient B-52s,” adding the problem is compounded by the service’s past resistance to begin a new bomber program.

The chairman said if the Air Force plans to rely on a “tiny contingent” of B-2s for long-range strike “you still are cutting it very close and if you have some attrition of those tiny numbers, then we’re in what I would call real trouble.”

Wynne replied that one of the key rationales for retiring the B-52 is the aircraft has been relieved of some of its assigned missions due to age, even though the “utilization rate” of the bomber has been “relatively light” over the past 15 years.

The service secretary added officials are looking at the bomber as a possible standoff platform. In the testiest portion of the hearing, Hunter shot back with his view that the service’s vision of making the B-52 a standoff platform is flawed. “If you ain’t got ‘em, you can’t put anything on them,” he said.

Overall, Hunter said the service’s approach could be problematic should the military engage in shooting war similar to Vietnam, pointing out that 15 B-52s were shot down during a single operation -- “Operation Linebacker” -- over the span of a few weeks.

“We know we need to start the wheels turning to get a new bomber,” the service secretary said, eliciting a sharp response from Hunter.

“Well the problem is we haven’t started those wheels . . . we’re not close a new bomber at this point, right?” the chairman asked.

“I’d say that’s true,” Wynne replied.

Asked when he saw a new bomber coming on-line, the Air Force secretary said officials are targeting 2016 to 2018 “for long-range strike, which is, de facto, our new bomber.”

For his part, Hunter expressed some worry about that time line, saying: “That’s a long time.”

Another notable QDR-directed change was to terminate the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems program. Since then, Air Force and Pentagon officials have said the service plans to lean heavily on lessons gleaned from its J-UCAS work as it begins developing a new long-range bomber (ITAF, Feb. 10, p1). Top uniformed Air Force officials have said the service is mulling whether the new effort will be composed of a family of aircraft or a single plane -- as well as the possibility that the new bomber might be unmanned.

To that end, Air Force officials expect to launch a broad study this year that will articulate a list of requirements for a next-generation long-range strike program.

Skelton, the committee’s top Democrat, inquired if there was any ongoing research and development for a new bomber.

Moseley said the service has penciled in close to $6 billion over the future years defense plan -- which spans from FY-07 to FY-11 -- to conduct a three-phased classified study of a new long-range strike platform. Phase one will examine continued modifications and enhancements of the existing B-1, B-2 and B-52 fleets; during phase two the Air Force will pump about $1.6. billion into this “long-range strike portfolio,” he said. The service has around $275 million set aside for phase three, which will examine needs “out beyond 2025 and 2030,” the four-star stated.

In terms of a new bomber, “it looks like the door isn’t even cracked open yet,” Skelton said. In his opening statement, the ranking member said “a great deal of new capability can be achieved by continuing to modernize” the B-2. Noting the stealthy bomber may not address every requirement contemplated in the 2005 QDR, it can be “upgraded to satisfy a large percentage of [those] requirements,” which, he said, would give the Air Force persistence in an anti-access environment.

The air chief pointed out that before he was sworn in as service vice chief in 2003, there were 24 studies examining bombers. Since then, he said, the Air Force has whittled that number to one or two studies, while also setting up bomber program offices at Langley Air Force Base, VA, and Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

“I’m committed to a new bomber because it’s not just long-range strike, it’s survivable strike,” the four-star told the committee. “These existing airplanes provide us persistence at range, they don’t necessarily provide us survivable strike at this range.”

Though Hunter agreed with the air chief’s assessment that a new bomber is needed, he stressed that retiring the B-52 could bring problems.

“What I’m worried about is you’re doing this because you’re out of money,” the chairman opined. Nearly halving the bomber fleet leaves but two options, according to Hunter: Accept the risk and hope that the additional aircraft are not needed; or put more funding into modernization work.

The latter approach, however, “may take some desk pounding,” Hunter predicted, prompting Moseley to reply: “Mr. Chairman, you’re signing our song.”

Air Force Eyes Future Bomber 'Fly-Off'

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | March 10, 2006
Link

Senior Air Force officials could commission a fly-off to determine which industry platforms are best suited to meet the service's need for a new long-range bomber by 2018, Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley told Inside the Air Force this week.

The air chief hinted he and other service leaders are mulling an accelerated acquisition plan for the next-generation bomber platform similar to the 1970s approach that led the Air Force to purchase F-16 aircraft. Air Force brass feel such a strategy could allow them to field a new bomber sooner than a Pentagon-mandated 2018 benchmark, Moseley said March 7 during a brief interview.

“I'm willing to look at some creative ways to give [industry] an amount of money and say, ‘You guys come back in X number of months and see what we got.' Let's fly these babies off and see what we end up with,” Moseley said following testimony before the House Appropriations military quality of life and Veterans Affairs subcommittee.

The Air Force is in the early stages of what likely will be a multibillion-dollar effort to develop a new long-range bomber in response to a direction in the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review to field a new platform by 2018. In his comments this week, however, Moseley hinted senior Air Force officials are mulling ways to put a new bomber in the air before that much-discussed benchmark.

“2018 is a mark on a wall,” the air chief said. Moseley told ITAF that he and service Secretary Michael Wynne “have some ideas that we're going to play with and chat with some folks to see if there's not some way to jump-start that.”

Air Force officials might soon engage with industry “by asking them some questions about what they think they can do,” he said. Though such queries often are made by the services in the form or requests for proposals or information, the four-star said those questions could be asked in a more informal manner.

He used the development program that led the air service to purchase the Lockheed Martin-made F-16 fighter as an example. According to Moseley, the Air Force at that time issued such a solicitation to industry, gave competitors a time frame under which to respond and then held a fly-off between General Dynamic's F-16 design -- which later went to Lockheed Martin when GD sold its aircraft manufacturing business -- and Northrop Grumman's F-17 aircraft.

“The department went out to General Dynamics and Northrop, said, ‘Here's X amount of money, you guys come back in 30-something months, tell us what you've got and we'll fly it off,'” Moseley said. “They did it . . . we flew it off, took the F-16 and look how successful it's been.”

Though the lengthy RFI-RFP-contract award process is a more-traditional means of identifying a list of potential solutions and eventually buying a platform, the four-star called such an accelerated acquisition approach “an exciting way to do it.”

An accelerated strategy “gets people in the game, that gets people building things,” he told ITAF. “And you fly ‘em off and you get to actually compete” the actual airframes “and you take the best of breed.”

ITAF reported earlier this year that the Pentagon, as part of the 2005 QDR, had opted to terminate the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems program (ITAF, Jan. 13, p1). Since then , Air Force and Pentagon officials have said the air service plans to lean heavily on lessons gleaned from its J-UCAS work as it begins developing a new long-range bomber. Top uniformed Air Force officials have said the service is mulling whether the new effort will be composed of a family of aircraft or a single plane -- as well as the possibility that the new bomber might be unmanned.

To that end, Air Force officials expect to launch a broad study this year that will articulate a list of requirements for a next-generation long-range strike program. The study will be the service's first step as it transitions technical lessons gleaned from the J-UCAS program into the new effort (ITAF, Feb. 10, p1).

The 2005 QDR, delivered to Congress Feb. 6, directed the Air Force to end its J-UCAS program and begin work to field the new long-range strike platform by 2018. The Navy, meanwhile, plans to continue moving forward with plans for its half of the unmanned vehicle program.

Asked by ITAF to pinpoint his top requirement for the futuristic bomber platform, Moseley said the new aircraft “has got to have range and persistence, but it's got to be survivable.”

Though the ability to fly long distances before releasing its payload will be a key requirement for the new bomber, “just getting there is not the full equation,” Moseley said. “You've got to be able to survive [an enemy's] threat array. You've got to be able to orchestrate yourself with the rest of the systems,” he added, “Whether they're space or they're other air-breathing” platforms.

Seems to me I read on another site, I believe FAS Military Analysis, that the Air Force had a contingency plan to use Boeing 747s as cruise missile carriers in a worst-case scenario.

This isn't the exact article I had in mind, but it does provide a very thorough overview of options currently being considered to keep the USAF long range strike threat viable. The main emphasis here is on UCAVs and "airborne aircraft carriers" but most if not all of the major options currently proposed by the USAF and private industry are covered.

Narrowing the Global-Strike Gap

Thanks for sharing the link Bill.

Upgrade Multiplies B-2 Weapon Capacity

(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued March 28, 2006)

PALMDALE, Calif. --- Northrop Grumman Corporation has completed an upgrade of the U.S. Air Force's B-2 stealth bomber that allows the aircraft to deliver five times its previous capacity of independently targeted, “smart'' (GPS-guided) weapons.

The company delivered the 54th and final smart bomb rack assembly (SBRA) earlier this month to the Air Force's 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., home of the B-2 fleet. A SBRA-equipped stealth bomber can deliver 80 500-pound smart weapons, each targeted against a different aimpoint.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the B-2, which remains the only long-range, large payload aircraft that can penetrate deep into protected airspace. Combined with superior airspace control provided by the F-22 Raptor and global mobility provided by tanker aircraft, the B-2 ensures an effective U.S. response to threats anywhere in the world.

The SBRA upgrade program enhances the B-2's ability to respond to current and emerging worldwide threats as a key element of the military's network-centric warfare concept.

“We are increasing the B-2's capability and flexibility in areas such as weapons loads; precision targeting and retargeting; communications for better situational awareness and mission updates; and airframe maintainability,'' said Gene Fraser, vice president and B-2 program manager at Northrop Grumman's Integrated Systems sector. “In this way, the B-2 will provide even greater effects for joint force commanders.''

Northrop Grumman was awarded a $131 million Air Force contract in 2001 to develop the SBRA system, including substantial modifications to hardware and software on the B-2. In 2003, Northrop Grumman was awarded another contract to begin conversion of 45 existing B-2 bomb rack assemblies to the new configuration (in addition to nine that were converted during the development phase of the program). The total value of the production work was $31.7 million. All bomb rack conversions were delivered to the Air Force on or ahead of schedule.

Northrop Grumman was responsible for development, validation and production of the SBRA system and integration of the GBU-38 (JDAM-82) 500-pound smart weapon on the B-2. The JDAM is produced by The Boeing Company, which also designed and fabricated the B-2 SBRA hardware kits for the SBRA conversion under a subcontract to Northrop Grumman.

Bad idea retiring the B-52s early to pay for the future IMHO.

--------------------------------------


'Fly-Before-Buy' for Future Bomber

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | John T. Bennett | March 31, 2006
link

The Pentagon’s next six-year spending plan will spell out the Air Force’s desire to get a first-hand glimpse of the platforms that eventually will square off to become its new long-range bombing aircraft, service Secretary Michael Wynne said this week.

“We intend to come forward in the [fiscal year 2008] president’s budget with a hard plan to essentially offer a fly-before-buy option so that we can in fact lock in a 2017 initial operational capability,” Wynne told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee March 29.

The Pentagon, as part of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, opted to terminate the Air Force’s portion of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program (ITAF, Jan. 13, p1). Meanwhile, the Navy is moving forward with its part of the program. The QDR also ordered the air service to field a new long-range bombing aircraft by 2018.

Since that decision became public, Air Force and DOD officials have said the air service plans to rely heavily on lessons gleaned from its J-UCAS work as it begins developing a new long-range strike program. Service officials are mulling whether the embryonic program ultimately will field a family of bombing aircraft or merely a single plane. Those same officials have expressed resounding interest in the possibility of developing an unmanned bomber.

To that end, service officials expect to launch a broad study this year that will articulate a list of requirements for a next-generation long-range strike program. The review will be the service’s first try at transitioning technical lessons taken from its J-UCAS work into the new strike program (ITAF, Feb. 10, p1).

Wynne’s mention of including plans for a fly-off of the field of platforms that likely will soon emerge for the multibillion-dollar long-range bomber contract meshes with comments made by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley during a recent interview with ITAF.

Moseley told ITAF earlier this month that senior service officials might opt to commission a fly-off to determine which industry platforms are best suited to meet the service’s need for the new long-range bomber by 2018 (ITAF, March 10, p1).

“I’m willing to look at some creative ways to give [industry] an amount of money and say, ‘You guys come back in X number of months and see what we got.’ Let’s fly these babies off and see what we end up with,” Moseley said March 7 following testimony before the House Appropriations military quality of life and Veterans Affairs subcommittee.

“2018 is a mark on a wall,” the air chief said. Moseley told ITAF that he and service Secretary Michael Wynne “have some ideas that we’re going to play with and chat with some folks to see if there’s not some way to jump-start that.”

Air Force officials might soon engage with industry “by asking them some questions about what they think they can do,” he said. Though such queries often are made by the services in the form of requests for proposals or information, the four-star said those questions could be asked in a more informal manner.

An accelerated strategy “gets people in the game, that gets people building things,” Moseley said. “And you fly ‘em off and you get to actually compete” the actual airframes “and you take the best of breed.”

Asked by ITAF to name his number one requirement for the futuristic bomber platform, Moseley said the new aircraft “has got to have range and persistence, but it’s got to be survivable.”

Though the ability to fly long distances before releasing its payload will be a key requirement for the new bomber, “just getting there is not the full equation,” the four-star said. “You’ve got to be able to survive [an enemy’s] threat array. You’ve got to be able to orchestrate yourself with the rest of the systems,” he added, “Whether they’re space or they’re other air-breathing” platforms.

In addition, the Air Force’s FY-07 spending plan calls for its B-52 fleet to be trimmed from 94 to 56, which has drawn the ire and concern of some on Capitol Hill. The reduction would be achieved by retiring a number of the B-52s earlier than anticipated.

“If there is no long-range strike capability on the drawing board until 2016, why would we cut the most versatile long-range bomber from our fleet now without anything on the drawing board now or, it seems like, in the near future?” subcommittee member Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) asked Air Force leaders during this week’s session.

Burns told Wynne and Moseley during the hearing he is “just sort of concerned” about the plans to retire the 38 B-52s earlier than first intended.

Wynne responded by stating Air Force officials, after conducting a strike-focused analysis, “think that we have an adequate supply of B-52s with the reduced number.”

Later during the same session, panel member Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) asked Moseley if he would prefer keeping more than 56 in the active inventory.

“If I had my druthers, I’d build a new bomber,” the air chief replied. “I would build a new bomber so I can penetrate airspace and maintain persistence, and I can deliver this effect -- whether it’s opposed or unopposed airspace.”

Why cant the B-1 do everything that the B-52 can? it cant fire cruise missles?

quote:

Originally posted by jessmo24:
Why cant the B-1 do everything that the B-52 can? it cant fire cruise missles?

It can launch cruise missiles, it always could, I believe.

In the early 1990's the the B-1B did not have very good conventional capabilities, but that has corrected.

Common Airframe for New Bomber, Gunship?

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Martin Matishak | April 14, 2006
link

Air Combat Command officials are examining whether the Air Force's next long-range bomber and its future gunship could be based on the same airframe, Inside the Air Force has learned.

With both next-generation aircraft tasked with carrying out “global persistent attack” missions -- coupled with ever-tightening defense budgets -- Air Force officials plan to study whether developing a common baseline airframe is feasible, Lt. Col. Steven Knutson, Air Force Special Operations Command's test, technology and experimentation division chief, told ITAF April 3.

The initial capabilities document for AFSOC's AC-130 gunship replacement has been designated a “foundation document” for the analysis of alternatives ACC is conducting on the military's future long-range bomber, he said.

Prior to the release of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review in February, the Office of the Secretary of Defense told U.S. Special Operations Command its “numbers for a gunship are so small that you need to look at the possibility of joining up with ACC and using [the] platform” the Langley, VA-based command will eventually pursue for the new bomber, Knutson said.

If Air Force and Pentagon officials eventually opt to use the same aircraft and modify them into bombing and gunship variants, the two platforms would have some similarities, but “not all the sensors and the munitions” would be used on both, Knutson told ITAF. Air Force officials are merely studying whether they could build a new gunship out of “the basic platform that ACC is going to develop,” he added.

ITAF reported earlier this year that the Pentagon, as part of the QDR, had opted to terminate the Air Force's portion of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program (ITAF, Jan. 13, p1). Meanwhile, the Navy is moving forward with its part of the program.

Air Force and Defense Department officials have said the air service would not merely sweep its J-UCAS involvement under the rug. Blue-suited officials say they plan to rely heavily on lessons gleaned from the service's J-UCAS work as they begin developing a new long-range strike concept. Service officials also have said they are mulling whether the embryonic program ultimately will field a family of bombing aircraft or merely a single plane and they have expressed resounding interest in the possibility of developing an unmanned bomber. The QDR directs the Air Force to field a new bomber by 2018.

To that end, service officials expect to launch a broad study this year that will articulate a list of requirements for a next-generation long-range strike program. The review will be the service's first try at transitioning technical lessons taken from its J-UCAS work into the new bombing program ( ITAF, Feb. 10, p1).

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne recently testified that the Pentagon's next six-year spending plan will spell out the service's desire to get a first-hand glimpse of the platforms that eventually will square off to become its new long-range bombing aircraft (ITAF, May 1, p1). That first-hand look likely will come in the form of a fly-off.

Meanwhile, ACC is in the nascent stages of the bomber analysis of alternatives, Lt. Col. James Pillar, ACC's chief for next-generation long-range strike, told ITAF in am April 11 e-mail. He noted that while an AOA of this magnitude normally would take two years, ACC officials want to shorten that time line. They think a shorter process is possible because of a “proliferation of data” from previous long-range strike studies, coupled with information gathered by industry and service labs focused on developmental and existing platforms, weapon system improvements and other related concepts, Pillar said.

One example is AFSOC's AC-130 replacement initial capabilities document. In addition to that document, the military's “Joint Strike Enable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” ICD also has been dubbed a foundation document for the bomber AOA, Pillar said. Other documents that likely will contribute to the long-range strike analysis are: the “Global Strike and Global Persistent Attack Concept of Operations” and the “Global Strike Joint Capabilities Document.”

There also have been numerous studies since “early 1995 related to long-range strike conducted by the Air Force, [Institute for Defense Analyses], the RAND Corp.'s Project Air Force and, most recently, the Congressional Budget Office,” Pillar noted. “These are used as reference material and points of departure for further analysis.”

However, since OSD has yet to formally green-light the AOA, a delay in its completion is likely, Pillar said. That had been slated for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, he told ITAF, adding the likely delay also will push back subsequent long-range bomber work. Those efforts were initially set for the second quarter of next fiscal year.

Once completed, ACC will brief the Air Force Requirements for Operational Capability Council and could eventually merge the programs as a “budgeting decision,” according to Knutson.

He said those working on the bomber AOA were given two missions that the future platform must be able to perform: global strike and global persistent attack, which long has been the primary mission of AFSOC's gunship.

AFSOC's gunships “are one of the premier platforms to do that because we can find, fix and finish the targets,” Knutson said. “We're working hand-in-hand on that global persistent attack mission with ACC on what we think ACC needs to go to on their sensor suite, and the munitions that they need to have.”

The testing division chief continued that “if there's not the commonality between the platforms and the budget constraints force us to, we can't have a gunship of the future.”

If that scenario plays out, “ACC, the Marine Corps and the Navy -- with their different platforms -- will have to pick up that mission of close air support for troops . . . that AFSOC would normally perform.”

Knutson said the Air Force might develop two variants of the potential bomber-gunship aircraft. “There might be one that's a lot faster,” and another that is “slower because with persistence you need to have a little longer loiter time.” The latter would be a requirement for the gunship, which would need to travel at slower speed to gun down targets on the ground.

Still, “I think there will be a lot of commonality between these two platforms,” he said, adding a handful of AFSOC personnel are assisting ACC's long-range strike program office with the bomber AOA.

Air Force leadership directed the start of a “Next-Generation Gunship” AOA several years ago. Even though the AC-130 has seen extensive action in the global war on terrorism, its Employment in threat environments has become increasingly limited. The specialized close air support aircraft is not well-suited to defend itself against ground-based and aerial threats, and has had to operate at growing distances from combat action, according to service officials.

The service previously hoped to field a gunship replacement around 2015 due to future threats over the next 10 to 20 years could preclude AC-130 use in many regions.

However, after the OSD directive that incorporated the AFSOC study into ACC's research, the plan changed for the new gunship to lag two years behind the future bomber. Therefore, when that aircraft reaches initial operating capability in 2018, the Next-Generation Gunship likely will reach that same benchmark in 2020, according to Knutson.

In the meantime, “there's spirals and modifications to the B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s along with F-16s, [Joint Strike Fighter] and F-22As that will help us out to give our ground forces the support they need,” the testing chief noted.

The RAND-conducted gunship AOA, which wrapped up in 2003, set forth a gamut of “enabling technologies,” with the biggest being making the follow-on aircraft unmanned, Knutson stated. Senior Air Force officials have said the next-generation bomber also could be unmanned.

Before reaching that benchmark, AFSOC officials want to determine if gunship crews can remotely control an unmanned aerial vehicle's sensor ball.

“First we're just trying to control it from the gunship and how we would employ that because that's new to us,” Knutson told ITAF. From there, officials will determine whether or not they can launch and recover a UAV from the gunship. The final step, according to Knutson, would be for the gunship itself to be unmanned and capable of launching and recovering other, smaller UAVs.

Officials are looking for technologies “both in munitions and the sensors, along with the [Global Information Grid] of the future and how are we going to take those pictures from an off-board sensor and put them on current gunship and then whenever the next platform for the future,” Knutson stated.

The 2003 AOA also directed AFSOC to explore placing a variety of munitions on the replacement gunship, including directed-energy weapons, Knutson said. He noted that while SOCOM is the lead on the Advanced Tactical Laser technology demonstration effort, that system takes up the entire cargo bay of a C-130 airlifter.

“Technology really needs to miniaturize laser capability or directed energy, whether it's a microwave or a laser, to where we can actually employ it from greater standoff” distances on the Next-Generation Gunship, Knutson told ITAF. He added AFSOC is currently performing experiments in conjunction with the Air Force Research Laboratory's directed energy directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, to explore ways of shrinking the technology.

Another munition the RAND study asked the service to look at is putting a new kind of weapon, dubbed a “very small munition” (VSM), on the new gunship, according to Knutson. “We're looking at something probably in the 50-inch [length], with a 10-pound warhead capability that could reach reach the distances we're looking at,” he said, adding the study's parameters called for the munition to go 15 nautical miles in 65 seconds.

Another requirement for the VSM is it should be two-thirds the size of a Hellfire missile, Knutson said.

The existing H-model gunships are equipped with both a 40 mm and 105 mm cannon and a 25 mm gun, according to an Air Force fact sheet. The U-models lack the 25 mm gun. Both models have their weapons mounted on the left side of the plane.

For the new gunship, “105 [mm cannon] is not going to be the munition we'll be shooting” on the new model, AFSOC's testing chief said. His command is exploring options that would allow the VSM to be fired off the top, bottom, or both sides of the follow-on aircraft, he stated.

The next-generation munition would be dispensed via a “Coke machine-type rack,” according to Knutson. “You [would] have an internal rack -- in order to make it low-observable -- and in that Coke machine rack you could have a VSM that is for personnel, [or] you could have a VSM [tailored to take out] buildings,” he said. “You would, just like a Coke machine, select which one of the munitions with which characteristics that you want for the targets that you're going after.”

That system is currently under development, Knutson added.

AFSOC has 13 U-model gunships, with four more on the way, and eight H-models, according to the test division chief. Command officials envision having some number of the existing models around for future missions, as well as fleet of the AC-130 replacements that he said likely would number “between 24 and 30, initially.”

Program Slashes Maintenance Time for the B-2 Fleet

(Source: US Air Force; issued April 17, 2006)

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio --- A critical material scale-up problem that directly affected the operational maintainability of the Air Force’s B-2 Spirit fleet has been solved, thanks to engineers from the Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, working with the B-2 Systems Group and material processing experts.

Through this effort, Alternate High Frequency Material, or AHFM, configured aircraft have shown much lower maintenance manhours per flight hour and have maintained a fly rate more than double the rest of the fleet.

“To date, four AHFM B-2 bombers have been delivered to the Air Force,” said Doug Carter, program manager. “The rest of the fleet will be modified with AHFM progressively as they undergo periodic depot maintenance.”

To improve the B-2 fleet mission capability rate, a major effort was initiated by the B-2 System Group to remove tape covering access panel gaps and fasteners and replace it with AHFM. This material exposes the gaps and fasteners for easy removal and replacement of access panels, without any material restoration required. Successful flight tests demonstrated the effectiveness of the AHFM design, but upon material scale-up for fleet-wide implementation, consistent batch-to-batch performance could not be obtained.

Consequently, the fleet-wide AHFM implementation was postponed due to the high risk associated with the material performance. With the threat of cancellation, experts from the Manufacturing Technology Division initiated a $2.8 million AHFM Rapid Response Process Improvement, or RRPI, program within weeks to solve the B-2 System Group’s primary maintainability problem. This team rapidly identified AHFM manufacturing problems and implemented solutions.

The successful program gave the B-2 Systems Group and Air Combat Command the confidence to implement AHFM fleet-wide, both increasing mission capability rate and decreasing maintenance manhours per flight-hour by 50 percent. The program resulted in a significant increase in aircraft availability and cost savings.

“In fact,” added Mr. Carter, “AHFM is projected boost the (mission capability) rate by 15 percent, which is equivalent to providing the Air Force with an additional six to seven B-2 aircraft.”

In addition, the AHFM RRPI program developed and validated a repeatable manufacturing process that enabled material transition to the B-2 fleet. Key factors that were inhibiting consistent batch-to-batch production were identified . AHFM was re-implemented within six months of the RRPI initiation. The B-2 Systems Group was able to proceed with fleet-wide implementation.

Production of AHFM-like materials had previously been done in modest quantities by small specialty material manufacturers. Throughout this program, the Manufacturing Technology team demonstrated the capability to manufacture material in large quantities (500-gallon batches) that consistently meet tight performance specifications. This has enabled the manufacturer to reliably deliver material on-time and on-budget, reducing aircraft downtime.

"This program is just one example of how the Manufacturing Technology program routinely helps the Air Force field advanced capability while simultaneously reducing cost and cycle time,” said John Mistretta, chief of the Manufacturing Technology Division.

The AHFM RRPI program enhanced the fleet’s high-priority maintainability program and improved material delivery schedule and production cost. The program reduced the material production schedule from 26 weeks to 12 weeks and implemented an improved test method that saves eight days per batch.

Maintenance actions previously requiring a week of aircraft downtime for repair now require as little as 30 minutes. The results of this program have caught the attention of other weapon system program offices.

“Lessons learned from this program are being applied to the production of new weapon systems, thereby saving the Air Force additional dollars,” Mr. Carter said.

-ends-

Maintainers Keep B-2s Soaring During Deployment

(Source: US Air Force: issued June 12, 2006)

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam --- Maintaining the world’s most advanced multi-role bomber isn’t an easy job. It requires Airmen work long hours to ensure every inch of airframe is ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Anything less would jeopardize the safety of the aircrew, or in the case of this unique aircraft, compromise the stealth capabilities key to its global strike mission.

This mission doesn’t change just because the unit is deployed. If anything, it puts additional demands on the Airmen responsible for the maintenance of the B-2 Spirit bomber.

“Some of the unique challenges of performing aircraft maintenance at Andersen are operating at a base other than Whiteman (Air Force Base, Mo.) and supporting the aircraft with parts that are in the states,” said Master Sgt. Kelly Costa, 36th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron lead production superintendent.

Sergeant Costa is one of 207 B-2 maintainers who are deployed here from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman. The B-2s are deployed to Andersen to help promote regional security and preserve regional stability while providing the U.S. Pacific Command with a continuous bomber presence in the region.

There’s wasn’t a lot of time to get settled in, either. Within days of arrival, maintainers had to ensure the aircraft were ready to participate in Polar Lightning, a 4,500-nautical-mile mission to a training range in Alaska.

Fortunately for the maintainers, this wasn’t their first deployment to Andersen. Lessons learned from previous deployments made a smooth transition possible. “We brought more material and equipment that we didn’t have last year,” said Senior Airman Monty Williams, a 36th EAMXS aircraft structural journeyman who works low observable maintenance on the B-2. “Our work is unpredictable; we can’t bring our entire support section from our home station.”

Fortunately for the maintainers, they are used to ensuring the aircraft are always ready to go, so that aspect of the job hasn’t changed much from what they do every day at Whiteman.

“Operations tempo has not changed since our folks are used to a high tempo,” Sergeant Costa said. “Our maintenance folks are well-trained professionals who know how to perform their job but have to deal with the challenges of equipment and lack of equipment they are used to.”

Security can be a challenge, too. Having one of the world’s most advanced weapons systems requires a different level of security than other aircraft. “Security is something you get used to, and eventually you do not think of it as a hindrance but rather standard operations,” said Capt. James Temple, 393rd Aircraft Maintenance Unit officer in charge.

“The biggest disadvantage with security is that not every B-2 maintainer has the clearance to work on the aircraft without an escort," Captain Temple said. That leaves a limited pool of personnel to work certain types of maintenance jobs.”

The B-2 also has special safety considerations. “Working around aircraft is an inherently dangerous business but as professionals we are able to significantly reduce that risk by using the proper equipment and following technical data,” Captain Temple said. “The B-2 poses a unique safety hazard because all the doors have blade seals. These thin metal strips seal the gap when doors, such as the weapons bay doors and landing gear doors, close. Over time they sharpen and can easily cut maintainers who are not careful.”

Even with all the challenges, the B-2 maintainers love their job, whether it is at home or at a deployed location.

“The best part about being a B-2 crew chief is working on my jet all night so it can make its next day sortie,” said Senior Airman Cory Cahill, 36th EAMXS. “Our mission is to keep the jets ready to go whenever, wherever.”

-ends-

quote:

“The biggest disadvantage with security is that not every B-2 maintainer has the clearance to work on the aircraft without an escort," Captain Temple said. That leaves a limited pool of personnel to work certain types of maintenance jobs.”

Wow! i wonder if the raptor and the F-35 will have this level of security also?

Good question.

I wonder if it has anything to do with whether the aircraft is categorized as being a "strategic asset" or not.