Until very recently, the world’s manned bomber market was essentially dormant. There are only a few air forces around the world that maintain these fleets, and development of new bombers has for decades been the province of the U.S. and Russia.

Until recently, neither nation had been working on new manned bomber designs. One that is underway in the U.S. would be based on an existing concept for an unmanned combat air system.

In the U.S., recapitalizing the fighter fleet and other projects were higher priorities. In Russia, an overall weakness in defense spending retarded progress on all combat aircraft programs. Instead, both nations were focusing on upgrading fleets and extending their lifespans while development efforts focused on fighters and other types of aircraft.

But the need for a new manned bomber soon is becoming apparent. Attrition creates an immutable demand. The U.S. Air Force lost a B-2 and a B-52 in 2008, both at Andersen AFB, Guam. And there has been high operational use of the bombers based at Diego Garcia.

Attrition and the need to field new capabilities—including a long-endurance, high-power stand-off jamming platform—triggered a change in 2006, at least in the U.S. The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) breathed a little life into the bomber market when it recommended the development of a new one for USAF.

One of USAF’s 67 B-1B bombers takes off to support operations in Iraq.Credit: U.S. AIR FORCE

Operations of the USAF bomber fleet—the B-52, supersonic B-1 and ultra-stealthy B-2—over Serbia in 1999, and subsequently in Iraq and Afghanistan, show that the bomber retains a high degree of utility over the modern battlefield. Compared with multirole fighters or attack aircraft used in the strike role, USAF bombers can carry far higher payloads and so are capable of hitting more targets in each sortie. Greater range also allows operations from bases that are at great distance from the targets, and a high level of persistence over the battlefield.

Currently, the U.S. bomber fleet comprises 181 aircraft, including 94 B-52Hs, 67 B-1Bs and 20 B-2s. However, only the B-2s can safely penetrate enemy airspace defended by the latest air defense systems.

Outside low-threat environments like those found over Iraq and Afghanistan, the B-52s and B-1s are essentially limited to operating as platforms for launching standoff weapons. The QDR referred to the creation of a new bomber by 2018 to cover a perceived gap in USAF’s long-range strike capabilities. What the Air Force now wants is a new bomber that can penetrate enemy airspace defended by the most advanced air defense systems and then loiter to attack additional targets of opportunity as they appear.

Development of the aircraft is still in its preliminary stage, but performance requirements identified by Air Force leaders in 2007 indicated it will have an unrefueled radius of action of 2,000-3,000 naut. mi. and a maximum payload of 14,000-28,000 lb. The aircraft will have a high level of stealth and will be subsonic.

Although USAF preferred an aircraft that was both supersonic and stealthy, the technology necessary to hide the infrared signature of a bomber-size aircraft at supersonic speeds was not considered mature enough to be included on a bomber to be delivered in less than a decade. Instead, USAF is likely to leverage a considerable amount of technology that has been developed for other stealth aircraft programs.

The prospect of building a new bomber has attracted the interest of the usual players. Boeing and Lockheed Martin in January 2008 announced a teaming arrangement to pursue the contract to develop and build the new bomber. The duo will go up against Northrop Grumman, which developed the B-2 and is expected to offer a design influenced by its work on the X-47B unmanned combat air system.

Cost is likely to be the biggest obstacle to program managers. No firm figure has been announced regarding the required number of aircraft to be procured, but it is unlikely to exceed 100-120 units.

There are some air forces around the world that might be interested in acquiring a long-range stealthy bomber, particularly those in the Pacific Rim where the maritime environment results in a wide potential area of operations. However, the cost of the aircraft would have to be low enough to be affordable to those nations, and the aircraft would need to represent an acceptable tradeoff between price and performance. More importantly, the technology and equipment used in the aircraft would need to be modest enough so Congress would allow exports.

This is unlikely as long as USAF is looking for a next-generation bomber that represents an improvement on the capabilities of the F-22 and B-2, many of which are still classified. Without a major change in requirements, the Next Generation Bomber program will be strictly for the U.S. inventory.

With only one new aircraft program on the horizon, the bomber market cannot be described as vibrant, and the market will be limited strictly to upgrades and refurbishment should the Next-Generation Bomber program fail to advance beyond the planning stages.