US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[DrRansom]

Quellish - what you're saying is that low observable shaping becomes ineffective in ground clutter?

 

[Gridlock]

Quellish - what you're saying is that low observable shaping becomes ineffective in ground clutter?

Logical, if you consider what LO is designed to counter. Once you start bouncing radar off hills, moving trucks etc you're gonna need a *much* bigger computer.

 

[sferrin]

Quellish - what you're saying is that low observable shaping becomes ineffective in ground clutter?

Logical, if you consider what LO is designed to counter. Once you start bouncing radar off hills, moving trucks etc you're gonna need a *much* bigger computer.

And have it on the aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

On the bright side it gives you all sorts of fun options if you have a directional jammer and a terrain database.

 

[Jeb]

I'm just daydreaming what a B-2 flying a low-altitude profile like a B-1B would look like.

 

[Steve Pace]

I'm just daydreaming what a B-2 flying a low-altitude profile like a B-1B would look like.

The B-2 doesn't fly close air support (CAS) missions like the B-1 does so I suppose it would like like a large bat that just flew out of the Bat Cave. -SP

 

[bring_it_on]

This is as low as I have seen them in a video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tib4_wb4-Z0

 

[FighterJock]

This is as low as I have seen them in a video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tib4_wb4-Z0

I would have thought that it would have been a rather bumpy ride for the crew, considering that the B-2 is more used to high altitude flight.

 

[Jeb]

This is as low as I have seen them in a video..

Thanks! That very first blink of a shot where it's in a bank going behind terrain is really cool.

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force Official: LRS-B Award May Be Months Away - September 29, 2015 InsideDefense

An award for the Long-Range Strike Bomber program could still be a few months away, according to a top Air Force acquisition official.
"My hope is within the next couple of months," Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the service's military deputy for acquisition, said when pressed during a Sept. 29 House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee hearing to indicate when the long-awaited award may come.
The Air Force had expected to award an LRS-B contract in April and then pushed that date to August. More recently, service officials have been saying the award would come in September or October. Bunch's comments this week indicate the Air Force may continued to stretch the award date.
"We have details that we still have to work through to make sure we're doing it fair and to make sure we're going with the process," Bunch said. "You have to get the start right. If you get the start right, you set the program up for success right away. That's the part we're trying to focus on."
Northrop Grumman is competing against a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team for the contract to build between 80 and 100 aircraft to replace the Air Force's aging bomber fleet. Analysts estimate the program could cost as much as $90 billion.
In his written opening remarks at the hearing, committee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) stressed his concern that the delay in awarding an LRS-B contract will lead to further program reductions.
"I am concerned about the continued delay in the LRS-B award that in my estimation is costing the USAF approximately $100 million a month and will undoubtedly result in reduced LRS-B FY-16 funding authorizations and appropriations," his opening remarks stated.
Committee staff members told reporters following the hearing that the $100-million-per-month estimate was derived from the Air Force's FY-16 budget request, which called for $1.2 billion for the program in the coming fiscal year.
The initial four-month award delay from spring to summer prompted the House Armed Services Committee to propose a $460 million reduction to LRS-B in fiscal year 2016, a move that staffers confirmed was upheld in the FY-16 defense authorization bill conference report released Tuesday.
That $460 million reduction, however, was formulated when the committee was anticipating an August award. Additionally, although the conference report does not propose additional cuts to the account for the continued award delay, some staff members speculated that appropriators may have an opportunity to make deeper cuts to the program in their spending legislation. -- Courtney Albon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBBEv1bwqJY

I think they won't announce through the CR..

PEO Profile - http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/105268/randall-g-walden.aspx

 

[bobbymike]

Family of systems of which LRS-B will be only a part?? My curiosity has peaked

 

[Sundog]

I hope they do take their time to get it right. As an engineer, I've always said, "Do you want it fast, or do you want it right?" Not that anyone wants to get it wrong, but the devil is in the details and going through all of the details takes time.

 

[Talon_38C]

This is the closest to the ground I ever saw it. It damn near made me spill my coffee.

 

[bobbymike]

LRS-B Announcement Coming

—Brian Everstine 9/30/2015

​The Air Force is still avoiding a strict deadline for the awarding of a contract for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, but officials told members of the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday they expect the announcement within a “couple months.” Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the military deputy in the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, told lawmakers the contract could be announced within months, but the program is one that “needs to go slow in order to go fast.” The Air Force must work in a “fair and deliberate” way with contractors to make the right decision for a bomber that will be the cornerstone of the military’s nuclear triad for decades, he added. The contract was initially expected in the spring, but has been continually delayed. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the HASC seapower and projection forces panel, said the delay has cost the Air Force hundreds of millions of dollars, and more of the cost will be moved into later years. “I am concerned about the continued delay in the LRS-B award that in my estimation is costing the USAF approximately $100 million a month and will undoubtedly result in reduced LRS-B FY16 authorizations and appropriations,” said Forbes in his opening remarks.

Aging Bombers Affect Fleet Readiness

—Brian Everstine 9/30/2015

​The mission capable rate of the Air Force’s entire bomber fleet has been low because the service has such a small fleet, which is why the Long-Range Strike Bomber is so important to keep the service capable, Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told lawmakers on Tuesday. Rand, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, said the service has just 159 total bombers, with its newest aircraft a 25-year-old B-2, meaning large-scale maintenance is a constant need and one that negatively impacts the overall readiness of the fleet. “At any time there’s going to be a number of your aircraft in heavy maintenance depot status doing modernization,” Rand said. “The 50 percent available rate is a result of that small number.” For example, the Air Force at any time usually has just 11 B-2s available for operations. Of the aircraft that are on flightlines, the mission capable rate of the bomber fleet is comparable to other weapons systems in the Air Force, Rand said. “The long-range strike capability is something our nation has to have,” Rand said. “To do that we have to modernize our current fleet, we have to acquire a new LRS-B, and I think we are on the path to that.”

 

[FighterJock]

LRS-B Announcement Coming

—Brian Everstine 9/30/2015

​The Air Force is still avoiding a strict deadline for the awarding of a contract for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, but officials told members of the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday they expect the announcement within a “couple months.” Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the military deputy in the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, told lawmakers the contract could be announced within months, but the program is one that “needs to go slow in order to go fast.” The Air Force must work in a “fair and deliberate” way with contractors to make the right decision for a bomber that will be the cornerstone of the military’s nuclear triad for decades, he added. The contract was initially expected in the spring, but has been continually delayed. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the HASC seapower and projection forces panel, said the delay has cost the Air Force hundreds of millions of dollars, and more of the cost will be moved into later years. “I am concerned about the continued delay in the LRS-B award that in my estimation is costing the USAF approximately $100 million a month and will undoubtedly result in reduced LRS-B FY16 authorizations and appropriations,” said Forbes in his opening remarks.

Aging Bombers Affect Fleet Readiness

—Brian Everstine 9/30/2015

​The mission capable rate of the Air Force’s entire bomber fleet has been low because the service has such a small fleet, which is why the Long-Range Strike Bomber is so important to keep the service capable, Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told lawmakers on Tuesday. Rand, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, said the service has just 159 total bombers, with its newest aircraft a 25-year-old B-2, meaning large-scale maintenance is a constant need and one that negatively impacts the overall readiness of the fleet. “At any time there’s going to be a number of your aircraft in heavy maintenance depot status doing modernization,” Rand said. “The 50 percent available rate is a result of that small number.” For example, the Air Force at any time usually has just 11 B-2s available for operations. Of the aircraft that are on flightlines, the mission capable rate of the bomber fleet is comparable to other weapons systems in the Air Force, Rand said. “The long-range strike capability is something our nation has to have,” Rand said. “To do that we have to modernize our current fleet, we have to acquire a new LRS-B, and I think we are on the path to that.”

From what I can make out from the statements above, I think that it is going to be December before any anouncement will be made about the LRS-B contract award.

 

[Ian33]

I am concerned about the continued delay in the LRS-B award that in my estimation is costing the USAF approximately $100 million a month and will undoubtedly result in reduced LRS-B FY16 authorizations and appropriations,”

This is agony. Absolute agony.

$100 million a month.... Speechless.

 

[bring_it_on]

Well he could have broken it down into seconds

 

[Ian33]

Well he could have broken it down into seconds

Yeah, that wouodve made me cry. Seeing that the delay will reduce the number of airframes produced is also frankly mind boggling.

 

[bring_it_on]

How will the delay in a down-select influence the number of units procured?? It simply extends the program by a few months given the EMD funding that was allocated to the program would/could not be spent since that phase hasn't begun as was expected. The $100 Million a month is for FY16 i.e. Oct to Oct.

 

[Ian33]

How will the delay in a down-select influence the number of units procured?? It simply extends the program by a few months given the EMD funding that was allocated to the program would/could not be spent since that phase hasn't begun as was expected. The $100 Million a month is for FY16 i.e. Oct to Oct.

B-1.
B-2.
F-22.
F-35.

Delayed programme equals less airframes purchased as prices rise and political will falters. Then all the old stock has to be upgraded and flown for sixty years in a farcical attempt to claw back even a modicum of credibility.

 

[quellish]

This is agony. Absolute agony.

$100 million a month.... Speechless.

Hill Math.
$1.2 b requested for the year, divided by 12 months = "You're spending $100m a month!"

 

[Ian33]

Still makes me sit back and scratch my head wondering where and why the NGB effort got so much cash then was squashed dead.

I'm seriously hoping the F22 folks are wrong and this effort isn't going to get canned.

 

[bring_it_on]

How will the delay in a down-select influence the number of units procured?? It simply extends the program by a few months given the EMD funding that was allocated to the program would/could not be spent since that phase hasn't begun as was expected. The $100 Million a month is for FY16 i.e. Oct to Oct.

B-1.
B-2.
F-22.
F-35.

Delayed programme equals less airframes purchased as prices rise and political will falters. Then all the old stock has to be upgraded and flown for sixty years in a farcical attempt to claw back even a modicum of credibility.

Those delays were something that were technical and development related. In this case the acquisition teams are taking some extra time and going over the submissions so that the right vendor is down selected. It has no bearing on the overall cost of the EMD phase of the program or the per unit price specified in the RFP. Of course if there are technical reasons further down the road there would be some pressure placed to reduce the spending but a delay in acquisition down-select has absolutely no contribution when it comes to determining the numbers procured, or an increase in the price of the contract. That money is not going to be spent hence is being cut form the budget because the delay means that that money cannot be spent in the first few months of the fiscal year. It will simply be spent down the road.

 

[quellish]

Still makes me sit back and scratch my head wondering where and why the NGB effort got so much cash then was squashed dead.

I'm seriously hoping the F22 folks are wrong and this effort isn't going to get canned.

It wasn't. The current program has the same PE code, even though it was marked as "new start" in like 2010. The "new" program was a SAP but relatively easy to follow because it was still the same money going to the same things.

 

[Ian33]

Awesome.

Then I consider my view point and will change it accordingly. Thank you.

That said, still agony waiting. Been too long without a new manned airframe to admire. The F117 reveal seems to be a life time ago.

 

[bring_it_on]

This is agony. Absolute agony.

$100 million a month.... Speechless.

Hill Math.
$1.2 b requested for the year, divided by 12 months = "You're spending $100m a month!"

Yup Thats why I said that Congressman Forbes may as well have calculated it right down to an hourly cost of developing a Long Range Strike Bomber in this early phase. of course the "MONTHLY" cost would rise to 300+ Million a month. What Randy Forbes also fails to mention is that the $1.2 Billion FY16 has been reduced given delay in down-select.

 

[bring_it_on]

While they'll still be funding some of the work and particularly the acquisition team and funding its work, that amount won't be as large. Of course the two teams have to fund themselves to keep the lights on for teams that must be awfully large.

 

[Steve Pace]

Maybe they're waiting for Halloween to give a Trick or a Treat to the team of Boeing/Lockheed or Northrop Grumman. -SP

 

[Dragon029]

I was curious... $100 million per month is (for a 30 day month) $38.58 a second.

 

[bobbymike]

Acquisition Changes Could Impact LRSB


—Jennifer Hlad 10/1/2015

​The Long-Range Strike Bomber could be one of the first programs subject to a National Defense Authorization Act provision, which gives more acquisition responsibility to service chiefs and secretaries, Senate and House Armed Service Committee aides said. The proposed National Defense Authorization Act contains dozens of provisions to reform the defense acquisition process, with a goal of increasing accountability, establishing alternative acquisition pathways, gaining access to non-traditional parts of the industrial base, streamlining systems and processes, and improving acquisition workflow, a SASC aide told reporters in a background briefing on Capitol Hill. One of those provisions would give service chiefs and service secretaries greater responsibility and decision authority for service-specific acquisition projects initiated in Fiscal 2017 or later, the aide said. But, if the cost of those programs overran established baselines, services would be required to pay three​ percent of any cost overruns on post-Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 programs to a fund controlled by the Defense Department’s office of acquisition, technology, and logistics. The fund will be used for risk reduction and prototyping. If costs continued escalating, the program responsibility would be transferred to AT&L, the aide said. The White House has said the President will veto the legislation.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2015/October%202015/The-Future-of-Long-Range-Strike.aspx

 

[bring_it_on]

Although not directly related to the LRS-B, but this could potentially impact some of the M&A talk being suggested by aerospace market analysts in the post-LRS-B-award timeframe.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/30/kendall-seeks-congressional-action-against-prime-mergers/73102994/

 

[quellish]

Well...

Develop radio frequency/electro-optical/infrared sensor technology for rapid and accurate target detection and identification capability.


Develop data fusion algorithms and crew interface techniques for multi-platform sensor cueing/management and net-centric operations.


Develop blended wing aero-control and structural load databases to characterize aero-propulsive efficiency.


Determine large-scale composite airframe manufacturing approaches.


Demonstrate acoustic suppression and enhanced weapon separation technology.


Develop lightweight thermal structures components for air platform concepts.


Conduct small-scale wind tunnel experiments of tailless aero-configurations.


Validate performance of engine inlet and nozzle flow path components for variable cycle propulsion.


Demonstrate high temperature engine core components.

...and that was just 2006/2007. Since then capabilities to support maturing the above (and more) have been expanded and new players got involved. Rapid Capabilities Office became involved and brought with them the Air Vehicle Survivability Evaluation Program.

 

[marauder2048]

In that case someone would have bleeped up the requirements. Industry initiative is a wonderful thing but if you ain't got the spec locked up better than that at this stage, it's time to start over.

But LRS-B doesn't exist in a vacuum; the lesser known LRSW effort that accompanied the earlier LRSA effort (where Boeing's concept was in fact a Mach 2.0 cruiser with a 6000 nmi range) is still kicking; the wide range of propulsion options the Air Force is entertaining
for LRSO is interesting in that regard.

Do you have any detail on this?

Sorry for the delay in replying; it would have saved some debate. Boeing's LRSA effort cruised at 60,000+ ft. I thought the LRSA effort was well known 'round
these parts? Quite a few of the sub-systems were matured in the public domain.

On the LRS-B award delay, I'm wondering if the restructuring of AETP and the attendant delay is playing some role; AETP was supposed to have been
awarded 4Q FY2015 to a single competitor but the AF has decided (wisely, IMHO) to carry two teams forward and the proposals were only just submitted.

 

[DrRansom]

I have heard nothing about LRS-A.

The only bomber programs I know of are 2018 bomber (which started tailless supersonic cruising variants) that morphed into NGB (super flying wing) which became LRS-B. I guess now the existence of a LRS-A is obvious.

 

[Dragon029]

I thought the B stood for Bomber? LRS-A = Long Range Strike Attack?

 

[marauder2048]

LRSA -> Long Range Strike Aircraft, which considered everything from commercial freighters as cruise missile carriers to unmanned Mach 2 - 4 cruisers.

 

[Steve Pace]

Acronyms, Acronyms... Where would the military be without acronyms? -SP

 

[DrRansom]

When was LRS-A considered?

 

[sferrin]

Sorry for the delay in replying; it would have saved some debate. Boeing's LRSA effort cruised at 60,000+ ft. I thought the LRSA effort was well known 'round
these parts? Quite a few of the sub-systems were matured in the public domain.

Yes, there is all kinds of notional artwork floating around from the time but you sounded as though you had a very specific design in mind. Do you have any detail/artwork/something-that-says-this-specifically-is-Boeing's-design?

 

[bring_it_on]

Some old (2009-2011) but informative articles from Inside Defense and Defense Daily..

Pentagon: Long-Range Strike Study To Relook Power Projection Concept

The Defense Department's ongoing long-range strike study will re-examine the "whole concept of power projection," according to a Pentagon official.

The study is in the early stages, but the goal is to produce insights by early fall, in time to influence the Office of the Secretary of Defense's review of the services' fiscal year 2012 program objective memorandum (POM-12) submissions, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development David Ochmanek told Inside the Pentagon.

"We're looking at the portfolio of long-range strike capabilities," Ochmanek said, including "supporting elements of that, whether it's penetrating [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]; survivable command and control communications; weapons and munitions; base infrastructure -- really the whole concept of power projection is being relooked at."


There are no early takeaways from the study yet, Ochmanek said in an April 21 interview.

"No, we're still at the point of refining the specific scenarios to be looked at, the target sets, the modalities of the analysis," he said. The analysis is mulling the appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities, including heavy bombers and non-nuclear Prompt Global Strike. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the study to determine the best mix of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities -- including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons -- for U.S. power projection over the next 20 to 30 years.

"We have been examining the potential as well for some sort of nontraditional long-range strike assets," Ochmanek said. "You've heard about the Prompt Global Strike set of concepts. Where do they fit into an overall concept of operations? So that's been going on sort of in parallel with an analysis of more traditional things like bombers and cruise missiles."

To meet the potential threats to the American military's ability to project power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners, the QDR directs more focus and investment in a new air-sea battle concept, long-range strike, space and cyberspace, among other conventional and strategic modernization programs.

The QDR notes the Air Force is eying ways to field survivable, long-range surveillance and strike aircraft as part of a plan to modernize the bomber force and working with the Navy on options for a new joint cruise missile.

The Navy, meanwhile, is mulling ways to expand the capacity of future Virginia-class attack submarines for long-range strike while also planning experiments with prototypes of a Naval Unmanned Combat Aerial System, a drone that might one day greatly boost the range of carrier-based ISR and strike operations. In a speech Monday at the Navy League's annual conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates touted such efforts.

Gates called for extending the range at which U.S. naval forces can fight, refuel and strike with more resources devoted to long-range unmanned aircraft and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities; developing new sea-based missile defenses; giving the submarine force "expanded roles," including conducting more missions deep inside an enemy's battle network; increasing sub strike capability and using smaller and unmanned underwater platforms.

"Looking forward, we are focused on the challenge of anti-access adversaries and how we do power projection in a world where our adversaries have more capabilities to threaten our forces and bases in theaters of operation than has been the case in the past," Ochmanek said.

The QDR discusses that, makes some "down payments on capabilities" and moves in that direction, "but there is more to be done," Ochmanek added.

"We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet," Gates said Monday. "At the low end, Hezbollah, a nonstate actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region."

At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, he said, U.S. forces now face long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles with the capability to strike from over the horizon.

"This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multibillion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 [billion] to $20 billion set of hardware at risk," Gates said.

Gates said the agreement by the Navy and the Air Force to collaborate on an air-sea battle concept is "an encouraging development, which has the potential to do for America's military deterrent power at the beginning of the 21st century what air-land battle did near the end of the 20th." Work on the concept is progressing, Ochmanek said.

"That's going on as well between the Air Force and the Navy and we're very hopeful that's going to come up with some new ways to skin this cat," he told ITP. "There's still in the study and analysis phase but we're kind of following that pretty closely."

Schwartz Scales Back Requirements For Next-Generation Bomber

The Air Force's top officer this week said the U.S. military's next-generation bomber will not be a "lone wolf" aircraft that operates without escort, noting that the requirements now being considered by the Defense Department for a new, long-range strike capability are less ambitious than previous Pentagon plans for a future bomber.

"I think that's clear," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said in reply to a question asking whether capabilities currently being envisioned for the new bomber are more "modest" than prior plans "At least at the start, this airplane will not be a lone wolf. It wouldn't have everything on it that you would need to operate independently of everything else in the portfolio."

In early March, Defense Department leaders began in earnest an effort to hammer out a plan to modernize its bomber force. Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for the study in December as a follow-up to an assessment of potential long-range strike capabilities conducted last year in support of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

The goal is to determine what combination of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare and precision-attack capabilities -- launched from either penetrating or stand-off aircraft -- will best suit U.S. operations for the next three decades.

The working group includes leaders from the Pentagon's policy shop, the office of cost assessment and program evaluation and the Joint Staff as well as other key stakeholders in a future bomber program -- among them representatives from the Air Force, the Navy, U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Pacific Command. In addition, the working group is being supported by the RAND Corp., the Institute for Defense Analyses and Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory.

"People have different views about how big it should be, how far it should be able to go, what kind of weapon payload it might carry," Schwartz said March 30. "These are serious questions that generalists, like me, and analysts, like others, have to wrestle with. That's what lies in front of us."

Schwartz would only outline in broad terms the Air Force's position in the closed-door discussions.

"Clearly we believe -- the Air Force believes -- there is a need in the defense portfolio for something between an F-35 and a conventional ICBM," the Air Force four-star said. "The country needs something in that space. Now what we have to do is we need to persuade the leadership -- both uniformed and civilian in the building -- that what we have in mind is appropriate, affordable and that it has very little if any wishful thinking associated with it."

The Pentagon's five-year investment blueprint allocates $1.7 billion to fund work on capabilities expected to be incorporated in the future platform, whatever shape it takes, Schwartz said.

"The idea here is to have industry work on things that clearly have value to a long-range strike platform without regard for who the manufacturer is or the precise design," Schwartz said in remarks to an audience of defense contractors and uniformed officials. "And as you are aware, the ultimate decision on proceeding forward with a specific program of record will be decided this cycle. Needless to say, we will argue, we will debate, we will be strongly involved in the discussion on this."

Air Force Expects Streamlined Next Generation Bomber In Next Decade - DefenseDaily

The United States will likely develop a new bomber airplane over the next decade, but the Air Force's top military leader said yesterday that he does not expect the next-generation platform to be capable of conducting the bomber mission entirely on its own.

"It might not have all the capabilities that you would embed in a single platform to do that whole mission all by itself," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters on the sideline of the IFPA-Fletcher national security conference in Washington, D.C.

"Part of this will involve a commitment to a family of systems that are more interdependent and mutually supportive than we have looked at previously," he added.

Schwartz said he is confident that the Air Force has answered questions raised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the proposed program. Gates suspended the effort a year ago, asking the Air Force to better flesh out its ideas before proceeding with development.

Schwartz said yesterday that he expects "certain, very finite parameters on the program" from Gates "when, and if, it is ultimately endorsed by his team."

A formal analysis of alternatives process will likely be opened "shortly" after fiscal year 2011, Schwartz added.

Earlier in the day, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the Pentagon plans to "mature a portfolio of capabilities--manned and unmanned, penetrating and standoff, ballistic and cruise missile" for the new long-range strike capability.

Lynn said that both military and civilian officials in the Pentagon think that a single new bomber platform would not meet the military's needs.

He also noted that the United States will likely face greater enemy air defenses in the future, noting that the military's ability to penetrate enemy territory is "more fraught with challenges that it has been in memory."