The Air Force is looking for a new heavy bomber but they aren't going to get what they proposed (via my Jane's email summaries):
The chief weapons buyer for the US military said that in late 2007 he rejected a US Air Force (USAF) plan to develop a new long-range bomber by 2018, saying he thought the USAF's requirements and cost estimates for the classified programme were not realistic. "To be honest with you I didn't think that was achievable and was not inclined to sign that paper," John Young, the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) top acquisition official, said after a 3 June Senate hearing on Capitol Hill ...
It seems as if the debate is moving toward a crew-optional long-range bomber of some sort. But do we really need something more than a cheap bomb-hauler to loiter high over a battlefield and drop bombs and missiles that others direct? Why not just adapt an airliner hull for this mission--perhaps using whatever we decide to use as our new tankers--rather than develop an expensive penetrating bomber. We use our B-52s far more than our B-2s these days. The Air Force should slap together a bomb bus at minimal cost and move on quickly to the real issue.
I wish the Air Force would take the opportunity to move beyond the air-breathing assumptions of what the Air Force should seek. I want the Air Force to aim high, and so would like the Air Force to see their next-generation heavy bomber be more of a hybrid aircraft/spaceship.
Why not build a craft that can take a crew of two all the way into space for at least partial orbit capability? Give it the ability to both fire weapons at ground targets, at air targets for self defense, and at space targets. Give them the ability to deploy satellites or function as a recon platform themselves. Heck, put a laser on it to shoot down ballistic missiles, too. Think of it as a really big X-15. Maybe carried to high altitude by a mother ship before launching.
Lord knows it would be expensive. But we'd certainly not need them in numbers greater than our B-2s (about 20). Really, these would be "ships" rather than planes.
I freely admit I have no idea how grossly expensive this could be. Or how treaties would impact our ablity to deploy a space bomber. On the other hand, maybe we've thought through these issues.
But I would like the Air Force to stop arguing with the ground forces about controlling battlefield UAVs and get on with their real mission of controlling the air and space above us.
Aim high.
