In a memorandum by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown to President Carter on 11 September 1978, Secretary Brown mentioned a new bomber "B-X", with "range and payload comparable with that of Backfire". Was he referring to what would become the B-2? Or something entirely different?
3. B–X. A new bomber, of range and payload comparable with that of Backfire, but more effective, because of recent very significant technological advances, of which you are aware. This bomber would be greatly superior to the Backfire (and the B–1) in ability to penetrate air defenses because of a combination of low detectability features, improved countermeasures and improved defensive systems. It would be particularly effective in combination with a cruise missile attack because the “fixes” to the Soviet air defense required for the cruise missiles would be at cross-purposes with those required for the bomber (and vice versa). As you are aware, we could start full-scale development of such a bomber as early as 1979 and achieve IOC by 1984. Juxtaposition with B–1 could pose some political problems, but also has some potential for political justification—as you know, we had it in mind when the B–1 was cancelled.5
He also mentioned a "reusable" cruise missile, which is hard to imagine. Perhaps only its warhead is dropped and the rest of the cruise missile comes back?
7. Tactical cruise missiles of radius in the 1000-km category, with terminal guidance (10-foot accuracy or better), carrying conventional warheads, and reusable—to reduce costs greatly. Needs a bit more thought about targets (I am pushing the concept hard) but could soon be ready for full-scale development.8
3. B–X. A new bomber, of range and payload comparable with that of Backfire, but more effective, because of recent very significant technological advances, of which you are aware. This bomber would be greatly superior to the Backfire (and the B–1) in ability to penetrate air defenses because of a combination of low detectability features, improved countermeasures and improved defensive systems. It would be particularly effective in combination with a cruise missile attack because the “fixes” to the Soviet air defense required for the cruise missiles would be at cross-purposes with those required for the bomber (and vice versa). As you are aware, we could start full-scale development of such a bomber as early as 1979 and achieve IOC by 1984. Juxtaposition with B–1 could pose some political problems, but also has some potential for political justification—as you know, we had it in mind when the B–1 was cancelled.5
5. Carter wrote “no” in the right margin next to this paragraph.↩
He also mentioned a "reusable" cruise missile, which is hard to imagine. Perhaps only its warhead is dropped and the rest of the cruise missile comes back?
7. Tactical cruise missiles of radius in the 1000-km category, with terminal guidance (10-foot accuracy or better), carrying conventional warheads, and reusable—to reduce costs greatly. Needs a bit more thought about targets (I am pushing the concept hard) but could soon be ready for full-scale development.8
8. Carter wrote “MIRV’s?” in the right margin next to this paragraph.↩
