Air Force’s stealth bomber plans called unrealistic

The Air Force's plans to procure a new stealth bomber by 2018 appear to be unrealistic, because the technology doesn't exist and development costs would be prohibitive, according to an independent assessment.

The author of the assessment, Clark Murdock, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the Air Force's commitment to fielding the new bomber is "at best, uncertain," and that the service's effort to push for the new plane "lacks conviction and credibility."

"Fielding a penetrating bomber by 2018 is probably not doable, because the technology is not mature enough," said Murdock, "and almost certainly not affordable, because . . . trying to field immature technology will lead to skyrocketing costs."

CSIS convened a group of defense experts last month to contribute to the assessment during a two-day workshop.

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review directed the Air Force to field a follow-on to the B-2 stealth bomber by 2018. In October 2007, at a Government Executive event, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley said his service was committed to fielding the new bomber under that timeline using largely off the shelf components. "We can make 2018 because we've asked industry to look at using the existing engines, existing sensors, existing weapons, weapons bays, just like we built the F-117 in the late '70s and early '80s," he said.

Moseley said the Air Force has only 21 B-2s, and its 97 B-52 and 67 B-1 nonstealthy bombers would not survive against modern air defenses. He said a new bomber is needed to penetrate "fifth generation" air defenses, consisting of exported Russian-built modern jet fighters and integrated air defenses equipped with new surface-to-air missiles.

Participants in the CSIS assessment agreed with the Air Force that the threat posed by the latest generation air defenses largely has relegated the current bomber fleet to "stand-off" engagements, outside an enemy's defenses. The challenge, participants said, is not only to penetrate modern air defenses to strike high-value targets deep inside enemy territory, but also "persistence," the ability to remain above defended areas to track down and destroy mobile targets such as ballistic missiles.

"Most of the participating experts believed that a future bomber could be built that could penetrate dense, modern defenses. Few, however, believed it could be done by 2018," the report said.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the value of bombers capable of carrying large payloads and remaining aloft for hours to provide on-call fire support to ground forces. In the near term, the Air Force should buy a cheaper, nonstealthy, high-payload bomber for counterinsurgency missions, Murdock said.

The service should then devote the resources to developing a more advanced stealth bomber capable of penetrating next-generation air defenses in the mid-2020s, when the needed technology is available and more affordable, Murdock said.