Same problem as always- they aren't going to last forever. If ANY
weapon system in the pipeline is an indicator, if we started a clean
sheet replacement for the B-1 it would be decades before we saw
anything in service.

I don't see another manned bomber being built ever.

I thought that for a while but I think in the end the comlink to the
UCAVs are never going to be bulletproof and if you make them
completely autonomous you lose too much utility. Not to mention the
likelihood of them ever building a stealthy UCAV big enough to carry a
30k bomb is pretty much zero. "That thing is going to cost HOW much
and it won't even have a man in it???"







Come to think of it though, ISTR the arguement
for the FB-22 as being as a follow on to the Strike Eagle. I've only
heard it mentioned in the same breath as the B-1 once. Even with the
stretch, an FB-22 wouldn't have the range of a B-1 so I don't think
it's an apples/apples comparison.

When the Bone was looking at being scrap there was a possible need for
additional bomber fleet, as the B-52 is old. Now that the bone is looking
at bringing back additional aircraft I don't see spending money on more bomb
truck capability as a sound investment.

This is were we start to see some pork. The USAF doesn't want to
bring many (if any) back out of the boneyard. They feel like using
the funds it would take to bring them back out to upgrade the
*existing* fleet would be a better use of $$$. The politicians are
doing their best to force them to though. We'll have to see how it
pans out. As far as the age thing goes there was a study done in 1999
by the USAF

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/Bom...map%201999.pdf

and in it they determined the B-1 will actually crap out structurally
before the B-52. This was done *before* the USAF got all hot about
using the B-1 as an on-call bomb truck so the numbers would be even
more skewed.






Both Northrop and Lockheed have
kicked around full sized bomber designs in the last four or five years
though. I think things are so much in flux these days that nobody is
sure WHAT they want.

X-45 UCAV.


or X-47? At *best* the X-45C could give you F-117-like ability
provided all it has to do is move the bomb from point A to point B.
If you have to self designate the target forget it. If your link is
jammed forget it. The X-45 in any way shape or form is in NO way a
long-range bomb truck.



You see a supercruising bomber design from
Northrop one day, another from Lockheed a couple years later, then
back to Northrop with a Quiet Supersonic large, long ranged bombing
UCAV. Then toss in things like that Hypersoar that LLNL was doing a
study on and it's anybody's guess as to what we might see. I think
the Air Force figures it has to start *somewhere* though and they know
that at some point the Strike Eagles will have to be replaced and
building an FB-22 along side the F-22 would help them get back some of
those research dollars they invested vs. going with something entirely
new and that's why the FB-22 is even being talked about.

I don't see replacing Stike Eagles as a plan at all, as they were an interm
solution while the Bone sucked.

The USAF doesn't share that opinion. As for the Stirke Eagle being an
interim solution to the B-1's troubles you might want to do a little
reading on the subject. Check the dates of the F-15E/F-16XL flyoffs
to those of the B-1. The B-1 was still strictly nuclear when the
majority of the F-15Es were already bought and in service. The two
programs have nothing to do with each other.




Same as the C-130J was designed to manage
risk in case the C-17 program failed to fix their problems.

Not even close.