Next-Generation Bomber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from New Generation Bomber)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the next-generation USAF bomber. For next generation Russian bomber, see PAK DA.
Next-Generation Bomber
Boeing/Lockheed Martin "2018 Bomber" concept image
Role Stealth bomber
National origin United States
Status In development
Primary user United States Air Force
Unit cost
no more than $550 million[1]
Developed into Long Range Strike Bomber

The Next-Generation Bomber (NGB; formerly called the 2018 Bomber) was originally a program to develop a new medium bomber for the United States Air Force. The NGB was originally projected to enter service around 2018 as a stealthy, subsonic, medium-range, medium payload bomber to supplement and possibly—to a limited degree—replace the U.S. Air Force's aging bomber fleet (B-52 Stratofortress and B-1 Lancer). The NGB program was superseded by the Long-Range Strike-B (LRS-B) heavy bomber program.

On 24 June 2010, Lieutenant General Philip M. Breedlove said that the term "next-generation bomber" was dead and that the Air Force was working on a long-range strike "family" that would draw on the capabilities of systems like the F-35 and F-22 to help a more affordable and versatile bomber complete its missions.[2] On 13 September 2010, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said that long range strike would continue cautiously with proven technologies and that the plan to be submitted with the 2012 budget could call for either a missile or an aircraft.[3][4] The bomber will be nuclear-capable, but not certified for nuclear use until later. On 24 February 2012, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley announced that a competition was under way with a target delivery in the mid-2020s.[5]


2018 Bomber[edit]

The sinking of ex-USS Schenectady as a test during Operation Resultant Fury in 2004 demonstrated that heavy bombers could successfully engage naval targets on their own. This led to the requirement for a new bomber that could survive against modern defenses.[6][7] In 2004–06, the USAF Air Combat Command studied alternatives for a new bomber type aircraft to augment the current bomber fleet which now consists of largely 1970s era airframes, with a goal of having a fully operational aircraft on the ramp by 2018.[8] Some speculation suggested that the next generation bomber might be hypersonic and unmanned.[9] However, these were put to rest when US Air Force Major General Mark T. Matthews, head of ACC Plans and Programs stated that available technology indicates a manned subsonic bomber at a May 2007 Air Force Association sponsored event.[10] He later stated that a manned subsonic bomber provides the "best value" to meet the required range and payload performance by 2018.[11] The 2018 bomber was expected to serve as a stop-gap until the more advanced "2037 Bomber" entered service.[12]

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), directed the Air Force to develop a new long-range precision strike capability by 2018. Since then, the Air Force and Strategic Command have decided that the best initial option is to pursue a manned bomber to be designated B-3.[13][14]

USAF officials expect the new bomber to have top-end low-observability characteristics with the ability to loiter for hours over the battlefield area and respond to threats as they appear. Major General David E Clary, ACC vice-commander, summed it up by saying the new bomber will be expected to "penetrate and persist". Deployment of cruise missiles is another issue for the new bomber. The B-52 is the only aircraft currently in the Air Force inventory allowed under treaty to be armed with nuclear cruise missiles. Major consideration was paid to operation readiness and flexibility. In 2006, the program expected that a prototype could be flying as early as 2009.[15] In September 2007, Air Force generals stated that even though the development schedule for the bomber is short, it could be fielded by 2018.[16]

On 25 January 2008, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced an agreement to embark on a joint effort to develop a new US Air Force strategic bomber, with plans for it to be in service by 2018.[17] This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions, including advancements in network-enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.[18] Under their joint arrangement, Boeing, the No. 2 Pentagon supplier, would be the primary contractor with about a 60% share, and Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, would have around a 40% share, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans.[19] Northrop Grumman, another major defense contractor, received $2 billion in funding in 2008 for "restricted programs" – also called black programs – for a demonstrator that could fly in 2010.[20] On 1 March 2010, Boeing said that the joint project with Lockheed Martin had been suspended.[21]

The Air Force was expected to announce late in 2009 its precise requirements for a new bomber that would be operating by 2018.[22] In May 2009, testimony before Congress, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mentioned that the Pentagon is considering a pilotless aircraft for the next-generation bomber role.[23] Then in April 2009, Defense Secretary Gates announced a delay in the new generation bomber project that would push it past the 2018 date.[24] This was caused not only by budget considerations, but also by nuclear arms treaty considerations.[25]

Long-range strike[edit]

On 19 May 2009, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said that the USAF's focus in the 2010 budget was on "Long-range strike, not next-generation bomber" and will push for this in the QDR.[26] In June 2009, the two teams working on NGB proposals were told to "close up shop".[27]

On 16 September 2009, Defense Secretary Gates endorsed the concept of a new bomber but insisted that it must be affordable.[28] He said, "I am committed to seeing that the United States has an airborne long-range strike capability – one of several areas being examined in the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review. What we must not do is repeat what happened with our last manned bomber. By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive – $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 – that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever built."[29] On 5 October 2009, Ashton Carter said that the DoD was still deciding if the Air Force really needed a new bomber and that if the program was approved the aircraft would need to handle reconnaissance as well as strike.[30] And in July 2010, he said he intended to "make affordability a requirement" for the next-generation intelligence and strike platform.[31]

On 11 December 2009, Gates said that the QDR had shown the need for both manned and unmanned long range strike and that the 2011 budget would most likely include funding for the future bomber.[32] The Air Force plans for the new bomber to be multi-role with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.[33] As a bomber the LRS-B will be under Air Force Global Strike Command, while ISR assets are managed by the 25th Air Force of Air Combat Command.[34]

Andrew Krepinevich has questioned the reliance on a short range aircraft like the F-35 to 'manage' China in a future conflict and has called on reducing the F-35 buy in favor of a longer range platform like the Next-Generation Bomber, but then-United States Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne rejected this plan of action back in 2007.[35][36][37][38][39]

Further developments[edit]

During the debate on the New START treaty in December 2010, several senators stated the project as a reason to oppose or delay its ratification.[40][41][42]

On 6 January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a speech on the U.S. defense budget for FY 2012, which announced major investment in developing a long-range, nuclear-capable bomber, also to be optionally remotely piloted. He also said the aircraft "will be designed and developed using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity. It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service. The follow on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities — an area that should be a high priority for future defense investment given the anti-access challenges our military faces."[43] In July 2011, Joint Chief Vice Chairman James Cartwright called for a large UAV instead of a manned aircraft, including for the nuclear mission.[44] Retired Air Force colonel and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst Mark Gunzinger has called for an optionally manned bomber, stating that purely unmanned bombers would be at a disadvantage without direct human pilot awareness and vulnerable to communication disruption.[45]

In March 2011, the Air Force intended to purchase from 80 to 100 of the aircraft.[46][47] The Global Strike Command has indicated that one requirement upon the bomber is to carry a weapon of similar effect to the existing Massive Ordnance Penetrator.[48][49] In addition to the strategic bombing, tactical bombing, and prompt global strike roles typical for a long-range bomber, the aircraft is to be part of a family of systems to be responsible for ground surveillance and electronic attack.[50] The Obama Administration in its 2012 budget request asked for $197 million and a total of $3.7 billion over five years to develop the bomber, which is to include modular payload options for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), electronic attack (EA), and communications.[51][52] The bomber is to be nuclear capable, but shall not be certified for the role until older bombers are set to retire.[53][54][55]

In 2011, the House Armed Services Committee added language that would require two engine programs for the bomber; Ashton Carter objected that the addition would interfere with plans to reuse an existing engine.[56] Reportedly, the two most likely engines are the Pratt & Whitney PW9000 engine, which uses a combination of Pratt & Whitney F135 and commercial turbofan technology, and a derivative of the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136.[57][58] In May 2011, Air Force Undersecretary Erin Conaton announced that a program office was being set up for the bomber.[59]

The USAF asked for $292 million for the program in its 2013 budget request.[60] The program has also been referred to as "Long-Range Strike-B" (LRS-B).[61] In 2012, former Pentagon weapons tester Thomas P. Christie speculated that the bomber program had been initiated so that the Air Force would have a sacrificial program to offer during anticipated defense budget shortfalls.[62] The USAF seems committed to the program, given a lack of other non-nuclear options to deal with "deeply buried and/or hardened targets,"[63][64] and committed two percent of their investment budget to the project, compared to three percent to sustain existing bombers.[65]

As of August 2013, the Air Force believes that the LRS-B can reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2025. Reportedly, the main risk to the program is funding, particularly in light of the F-35 Lightning II's acquisition difficulties and the lack of an "urgent threat". Prior bomber programs have been hindered due to lack of funding, as only 21 B-2 Spirits were produced out of 132 planned and fewer B-1 Lancers were built than were envisioned; both programs were scaled down due to spiraling per aircraft costs. Research funding has been allocated, as stealthy technologies to counter anti-access/area-denial threats were spared from budget cuts. The Air Force has said the LRS-B is a top priority as it is believed that China will overcome the B-2's low-observable features by the 2020s. Where possible, the use of existing technologies and proven subsystems will be undertaken in order to keep the program within budget, instead of developing new and riskier ones. Components such as engines and radars may be off-the-shelf or adaptions of existing models; derivative technologies of the F-35 may also be adopted. The LRS-B is intended to perform any long range mission, rather than have any one specialized mission, which drove up the cost of the B-2. The Air Force expects the plane to cost $1 billion each with development costs factored in, and aims for a per-aircraft cost of $550 million, which is considered reasonable for a limited production run military aircraft.[66]

On 25 October 2013, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced they would be teaming up for the Long Range Strike Bomber program. Boeing will be the prime contractor. The two companies previous joined together for the program in 2008, but the partnership ended in 2010 when requirements shifted. Boeing believes that because the program had evolved since then, they can readdress their partnership to specifically address Air Force requirements. The team has Boeing's bomber experience and Lockheed's stealth experience. Northrop Grumman has the most recent experience with the stealthy B-2. At the time of the announcement, the only official details about the LRS-B were that it will likely be optionally manned and use stealth technology.[67] Although Northrop Grumman has not officially announced that it will compete for the LRS-B contract, on 30 January 2014 they revealed they intend to spend money on developing new technology that the bomber would need which could include stealth designs, mission management systems, and autonomous controls.[68]

In January 2014, former Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that the Pentagon should abandon plans to outfit the F-35 with nuclear weapons and give the role to the LRS-B. A 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that replacement of the F-16 with the F-35 would retain dual conventional and nuclear delivery capabilities for Air Force fighters. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that upgrading the F-35 for nuclear deployment capabilities would cost $350 million over the next decade. Schwartz said that without financial support from NATO, where some nuclear-capable Lightnings would be deployed, those funds should be transferred to the LRS-B effort. This occurred at the same time that Congress cut funding for the B61 nuclear bomb, stripping $10 million from F-35 integration and $34.8 million for service life extension. Schwartz believes that life extension for the B61 must continue but that the weapon should be deployed from the LRS-B instead of the F-35.[69]

On 20 February 2014, the US Air Force reasserted the need of the bomber at the annual Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. It was stated the bomber will be fielded in the mid-2020s, and the service will procure between 80 and 100 of the bombers. Lt. Gen. Burton Field clarified the 80 to 100 range is due to uncertainty over the price rather than a figure representing the minimum number of bombers needed to mitigate risk.[70][71] Some Air Force leaders expect the unit cost limit of $550 million per aircraft will be exceeded with additional equipment added to the airframe. The cost goal is to set design constraints to prevent extra requirements for capability growth desires and untested technologies that would increase the price more from being incorporated in the development process. Though the final cost may be greater than planned, having a fixed price objective is expected to keep average procurement costs for production aircraft affordable.[72] Rather than the price ceiling being too low to meet requirements, the Air Force sees it as them and the potential contractor being disciplined about the bomber's missions and roles. Research and development expenses are likely to be "significant," but not expected to be double the cost of production aircraft.[73]

The Air Force intended to release a full request for proposals (RFP), a final RFP, and begin the competition for the Long-Range Strike Bomber in fall 2014. Two teams are working on pre-proposals in preparation for the competition, believed to be Northrop Grumman and a team between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.[74] In June 2014, the Air Force revealed that the LRS-B RFP would be released "soon," with proposals to be submitted by fall 2014 and evaluations completed in early 2015, with a contract award after that. Some public information about the program includes that it will be operational in the mid-2020s, based on existing technologies, have a large payload, may possibly be optionally-manned, and the bomber is being designed to work with a “family of systems” that includes ISR, electronic attack, and communication systems. Early aircraft will be designed around fixed requirements with mature technologies that will be adaptable through open architecture for future sensor and weapons capabilities.[75] Although the LRS-B RFP was to be released by the end of June, the Air Force hesitated to make its release in a public announcement. Not releasing information in the current acquisition stage is seen as keeping the process fair and less likely to give sensitive information to "potential adversaries." Public announcements of future acquisition milestones will also be "released as appropriate." A single contractor will be downselected in late spring 2015.[76]

Competitive phase[edit]

The USAF released its request for proposals to industry for the LRS-B on 9 July 2014. By entering the competitive phase of acquisition, the service is limited with what it is able to release, and few details are expected to be made public until the contract is awarded in the second quarter of 2015; what is known is that the platform must be adaptable with a large payload and based upon mature technology. The LRS-B is to replace the B-52 fleet, possibly replace a portion of the B-1 fleet, and be complemented by the B-2 fleet. Northrop Grumman could base their efforts in Florida if they won the contract, which would provide tax credits, while California passed a bill offering tax credits to the manufacturer if they build it in their state, which would mainly benefit the Lockheed-Boeing team.[77][78] On 14 August 2014, the California legislature passed a measure to apply tax benefits equally to prime and subcontractors. The previous measure only applied to a subcontractor, meaning Lockheed as part the Lockheed-Boeing team, allowing them to use their facility in Palmdale, California and leave Northrop Grumman at a near half-billion-dollar disadvantage in the bidding. The new measure levels the tax benefit field by also applying them to prime contractors, as Northrop Grumman has no subcontractor and also has operations in Palmdale.[79]

As of January 2015, the only unclassified information on the proposed LRS-B is that production is targeted at 80-100 planes, it will replace the B-52 and B-1 bomber fleets, it will be stealthy, mature technologies will be used rather than launching new developments, although it will have an open architecture for future features, and IOC is planned for the mid-2020s with certification to carry nuclear weapons approved two years later; optional manning is still being discussed. With a target price of $550 million per aircraft, a source with knowledge of the program predicted the LRS-B may be smaller than the B-2, perhaps half the size, powered by two engines in the F135 power class. This has led to concerns that the price figure may hurt the bomber's capabilities by producing the lowest cost plane without enough judgment given to performance. One of the main effects of the program will be its impact on the industrial base, as three of the country's five largest defense firms are competing. After the LRS-B, the Air Force will not have another large attack aircraft program until the 2030s for a new fighter, with a follow-on bomber after that. With that stretch of time in between, the loser may be put out of the military attack airframe industry entirely; Northrop Grumman would likely not retain the infrastructure required for the next program 15 years later, and Boeing's main aircraft field is now based on its commercial products. Industrial impact may cause any contract to be contested by Congress from representatives that receive campaign donations from a company whose award would create jobs for constituents. In addition to competing with other Air Force priorities, budgets may put the LRS-B at odds with other services' priorities like the Ohio Replacement Submarine.[80]


The design goals in January 2011 were:[81]

An August 2008 paper by Northrop Grumman highlighted the following trends and requirements:[85]

  • Airfields available for American use have declined since the Cold War.
  • Hostile cruise and ballistic missiles could shut down the few available airfields.
  • Fewer fighter aircraft will be available to escort the bomber force.
  • Advanced fighter aircraft and surface to air missiles are being made available to potentially hostile states.
  • The current USAF bomber force is small and largely outdated.

See also[edit]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
Related lists


  1. ^ Butler, Amy. "Can USAF Buy A $550 Million Bomber?" Aviation Week. 5 April 2012.
  2. ^ "Leader says future bomber won't go solo". Air Force Times. Jul 2010. 
  3. ^ "Air Force secretary: 'Make hard choices now'". Govexec. Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  4. ^ "State of the Air Force" (speech). US: U.S. Air Force. 2010. Archived from the original on Jul 19, 2012. 
  5. ^ Reed, John. "AFA: New bomber program 'underway'." DoD Buzz. 24 February 2012.
  6. ^ "Affecting the Strategic Battlespace with Effects-Based Public Affairs", Air chronicles (Air force), Spring 2006 .
  7. ^ "Bombs Away: How the Air Force Sold Its Risky New $55 Billion Plane", Wired, Mar 2012 .
  8. ^ Grant 2007, pp. 17–20.
  9. ^ Grant 2007, pp. 6–7.
  10. ^ Warwick, Graham. "USAF says next bomber will be subsonic and manned". Flight International, 3 May 2007.
  11. ^ Warwick, Graham. "Speed bump: USAF sets modest goals for new bomber". Flight International, 12 June 2007.
  12. ^ "RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. 22 December 2009. Retrieved 30 March 2010. 
  13. ^ "Why the US Wants a New Bomber", The Diplomat, 6 May 2012.
  14. ^ Ehrhard, Tom. "An Air Force Strategy for the Long Haul". Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 17 September 2009.
  15. ^ Hebert, Adam J (October 2006). "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends". Air Force magazine. Retrieved 30 March 2010. 
  16. ^ "Senior Air Force Generals To Skeptics: We Can Field A New Bomber In 2018". Defense Daily, 26 September 2007.
  17. ^ Boeing, Lockheed to work on new bomber, UPI, Jan 25, 2008 .
  18. ^ Boeing and Lockheed Martin Team for Next Generation Bomber Program (press release), Boeing, 2008 .
  19. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed team up on bomber project", The Star .
  20. ^ "Ultra Stealth", Aviation Week, 26 May 2008 .
  21. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed Put Bomber Partnership on Ice". Defense news. 1 March 2010. Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  22. ^ "Boeing, Lockheed to team up against Northrop for bomber contract", Seattle Times (NW source) .
  23. ^ "Gates says next-generation bomber might fly without pilot", Congress Daily (Government Executive), 14 May 2009 .
  24. ^ Gates sees more changes to US weapons in 2011, Reuters .
  25. ^ "USAF Bomber Grounded by More than Budget", Aviation Week .
  26. ^ Schwartz: Service needs long-range capability, Air Force Times, May 2009 
  27. ^ RL34406, "Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service, 18 September 2009
  28. ^ "Gates endorses new U.S. bomber project". Reuters
  29. ^ Speech, Defense link 
  30. ^ "Carter: DoD, White House Crafting New Presidential Helo Specs". Defense News
  31. ^ "Carter Pushes Efficiency With Contractors At Farnborough". Aviation Week. 2010-07-23. Archived from the original on 2010-07-23. 
  32. ^ Entous, Adam (11 December 2009). "Gates sees funding for new bomber in fiscal 2011". Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  33. ^ Fulghum, David A. "New Bomber To Focus Heavily On ISR". Aviation Week, 17 December 2009.
  34. ^ "Air Combat Command to host new ISR Numbered Air Force". (Air Combat Command Public Affairs). 14 July 2014. Retrieved 14 July 2014. 
  35. ^ Clark, Colin. "Strategy, What Strategy?", 29 June 2010. Retrieved: 3 July 2010.
  36. ^ Kosiak, Steve and Barry Watts. "US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-term Choices." Retrieved: 3 July 2010.
  37. ^ Wolf, Jim. "Air Force chief links F-35 fighter jet to China." Reuters, 19 September 2007. Retrieved: 3 July 2010.
  38. ^ "Us Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices" (PDF). Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  39. ^ Wolf, Jim (20 September 2007). "Air Force chief links F-35 fighter jet to China". Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  40. ^ Kyl, Jon (8 July 2010), The New Start Treaty: Time for a Careful Look, The Wall Street Journal 
  41. ^ Trinko, Katrina (20 December 2010), McConnell on new START: 'A Flawed, Mishandled Treaty', National Review 
  42. ^ "New Start votes expected Monday as GOP leaders decry process", The Cable, Foreign Policy, 2010-12-20, Thune is interested in this issue because South Dakota, his home state, stands to benefit greatly from production of Boeing's Next Generation Bomber, which is meant to replace the aging fleet of strategic bombers being limited under New START 
  43. ^ Gates, Robert M, Statement on Department Budget and Efficiencies, The Pentagon date= Thursday, 6 January 2011: Office of the Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense 
  44. ^ Tirpak, John A. "Confessions of a 'Bomber Hater'." Air Force Magazine, 15 July 2011.
  45. ^
  46. ^ Reed, John. "Air Force Hopes to Buy 80 to 100 Next Gen Bombers." DoD Buzz, 30 March 2011.
  47. ^ Erwin, Sandra. "Air Force Chief: We Will Not 'Overdesign' the New Stealth Bomber." National Defense Industrial Association. 9 February 2012.
  48. ^ Trimble, Stephen. "Penetrate faster, harder with new AFRL weapon." Flight Global, 20 February 2011.
  49. ^ "A Slimmer MOP". AirForce Magazine, Daily Report, 25 June 2010.
  50. ^ Majumdar, Dave (30 January 2010), Air Force can use savings for bomber, fighters, Air Force Times, retrieved 31 January 2010 
  51. ^ Majumdar, Dave. "Budget shrinks; acquisition programs outlined" AirForce Times, 15 February 2011.
  52. ^ Shane, Leo. "Budget breakdown: Air Force." Stars and Stripes, 14 February 2011.
  53. ^ "Conventional First". 13 September 2011. Retrieved 6 November 2011. 
  54. ^ Majumdar, Dave. "New Bomber Won't Be Nuclear-Capable at First: USAF Chief." Defense News, 2 November 2011.
  55. ^
  56. ^ Bedard, Paul. "Pentagon, Obama Bomb House Bid To Revive Jet Engine." US News, 24 May 2011.
  57. ^ Reed, John (2010-09-15). "P&W Pitches Engine For Long-Range Strike". Defense News. Retrieved 2013-02-25. 
  58. ^ "Next Gen Bomber Linked To Self-Funded F136". Aviation Week. 2011-05-04. (subscription required)
  59. ^ Majumdar, Dave (2011-05-11). "DoD OKs USAF Bomber Program Office". Defense News. Retrieved 2013-02-25. 
  60. ^ Munoz, Carlo. "DoD Fast Tracks New Bomber; 'Planning Number' is $550 Million Per Plane." Aol Defense. 15 February 2012.
  61. ^ Butler, Amy. "Amid Cuts USAF Cautiously Funds F-35, Bomber." Aviation Week. 13 February 2012.
  62. ^ Axe, David. "Why Can't the Air Force Build an Affordable Plane?" The Atlantic. 26 March 2012.
  63. ^ "U.S. Air Force Is 'Committed' To Long-Range Strike Bomber."
  64. ^ "Air Force Wants A Bomber That Balances Cost With Capability."
  65. ^ "Sec. Donley: Why The Air Force Can't Delay Modernization."
  66. ^ "Budget Pressures Seen as Biggest Risk to Long Range Bomber Program"., September 2013.
  67. ^ Boeing, Lockheed Team on Long Range Strike Bomber -, 25 October 2013
  68. ^ Northrop to ‘position’ for future bomber work as LRS-B progresses -, 4 February 2014
  69. ^ Mehta, Aaron (17 January 2014). "Schwartz: Move away from nuclear F-35". Gannett Government Media. Retrieved 17 January 2014. 
  70. ^ USAF Defends Need for New Long-Range Bomber Defense News, 20 February 2014
  71. ^ "Next Generation Bomber Survives Budget Tightening". Defense tech. 22 April 2013. 
  72. ^ General: 'Of course' new Air Force bomber will be more than $550M per plane -, 5 March 2014
  73. ^ Air Force Keeps Bomber Price Tag at $550 Million -, 12 March 2014
  74. ^ MEHTA, AARON (26 February 2014). "James: USAF Expects Long-Range Bomber RFP in Fall". Gannett Government Media. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  75. ^ RFP for bomber coming soon, Air Force's top buyer says -, 13 June 2014
  76. ^ Bomber RFP News to Stay Hidden -, 27 June 2014
  77. ^ Air Force sends next-gen bomber requirements to industry, few details made public -, 10 July 2014
  78. ^ USAF launches competition for new bomber -, 11 July 2014
  79. ^ Northrop Bomber Team Relieved Over California Legislation -, 15 August 2014
  80. ^ Shrouded in Mystery, New Bomber Makes Waves -, 19 January 2015
  81. ^ a b c d e f g Majumdar, Dave. "U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers." Defense News, 23 January 2011.
  82. ^ Grant, Greg. "Air Force chief describes future bomber." Government Executive, 31 October 2007.
  83. ^ "U.S. Air Force: No 2009 Money for Next-Gen Bomber". Retrieved 6 September 2011. 
  84. ^ Majumdar, Dave. "New bomber could conduct long-range missions." AirForce Times, 12 February 2011.
  85. ^ The 2018 Bomber: The Case for Accelerating the Next Generation Long-Range Strike System


External links[edit]