Long Range Strike Bomber & Long Range Standoff Weapon Take Financial Hits in new Budget

The most significant cut to Air Force coffers is a $230 million decrease in funds for the Long Range Strike-Bomber due to repeated delays in the contract award. The Pentagon finally broke its silence on the next-generation bomber last week when Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Northrop Grumman beat out a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin team for the contract. LRS-B is expected to cost about $100 billion overall.

So, the LRSB lost $230M. I thought they were protected so long as they met the deadline?

Lawmakers also made a $20.5 million cut to the Long Range Standoff Weapon, planned to arm LRS-B and the rest of the Air Force’s bomber fleet. LRSO can be armed with a conventional or nuclear warhead, and will replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile carried by the aging B-52 bombers.

link.

I don't hear anything about the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

I guess my question is why are these new weapons necessary? We have the B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers. And the ALCMs seem to do the job. What requirements do these new weapon systems meet that the existing systems don't?

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

that's classified.

I would assume they wanted one the above mentioned a/c to fulfill a new specific task, was told that modifying or retasking would take more out of the budget than contracting a new airframe.

a reply to: DexterRiley

The B-1 had less than a 50% mission capable rate in 2014, the B-2 was up to 57% and is facing billions on required upgrades, the B-52 was at 73% mission capable and is almost completely unable to penetrate a modern defensive ring, tendering it only capable of launching cruise missiles while staying out of range of defenses.

To update the B-1 and extend the life cycle, which it's well over, they're looking at roughly $3B for the existing fleet. The Air Force looks impressive as hell on paper, but our most numerous bomber is into the third generation of pilots from the same family flying them.


Our current top of the line cruise missile is subsonic, non-stealthy, and fairly easily shot down, as demonstrated several times in the last conflicts.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is also why the army is seriously looking at replacing the H60 fleet with new aircraft.

The current M model program only extends the fleet into the 2030s, after that the next generation aircraft will begin replacing the hawks.

Same goes for the Apache.

Kiowas are already out.

CH47s have a little longer due to the F program, but that will also end in the first half of this century.

The notion that we should keep flying machines designed in the 1950s and 60s, and in many cases, operating since then, is ridiculous.

a reply to: anzha

They were always losing some money, the question was how much. If they had awarded on time then the lost money would have been able to be spent within the FY. Because they delayed they weren't going to be able to, due to time lost to potential protests and getting production up and running.

The decision was on time to avoid losing more money. Every month they delayed was going to cost them somewhere around $100M.

a reply to: projectvxn

I was surprised at the MC rate for the B-52 until I realized they've already had damn near everything replaced except engines.

It's incredible what they've managed to do with such old aircraft, but they're at the point now where upgrades aren't going to be feasible anymore, and other nations are catching up. Hell the F-15 is looking at everything but the fuselage being replaced in the coming years to fly until 2040 when the 6th Gen fighter will replace it.

a reply to: DexterRiley

b52 while a great platform are aging and ancient they will be sticking around tell 2055? putting them at about 100 year life of service (pretty respectable) i think there are around 76 left serving?

b2's are no where as numerious as the b52s were and im sure zaph can correct me if im wrong but i think they were designed to be a stop gap until this new program came along .but they are capible and much more modern then the 52's i think we have 20ish of the b2?

the b1 comes close to 52 numbers at 60+ aircraft and i honestly dont know too much about them

www.forbes.com... one of the reasons we are beefing up the bomber fleet now or at least trying to

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

The B-1 is amazing on paper. Anyone that's been around this forum any length of time has seen me bitch about what a pain in the ass they are in reality.

The B-2 was going to be the main bomber for years to come but cost overruns and developmental issues limited the numbers to 21. One crashed on Guam, leaving 20 still flying. They have had problems with the skin, which is vital to their stealth for most of their life span.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is partly true. However it's also true that the so called "peace dividend" reduced the need and the funding for the B-2. The B-2 never left LRIP. No wonder it was so expensive per unit and no wonder, with so few flying, that it's so expensive to operate.

If a plan is to be created it must be executed all the way. Obviously then the original underpinnings must be sound. In the case of the B-2 neither was true, now here we are today creating LRS-B to fill in the gap.

a reply to: anzha

The LRS-B didn't loose $230 million. It was late getting out of the gate so they won't need that money right away. A year from now they'll be spending billions on the program, don't worry. It's a smart cut.