TOPICS
TOPICS
Commander agrees with decision to delay new bomber
A senior Air Force officer charged with overseeing the nation's bomber fleet Tuesday said delaying development of a long-range bomber made sense in light of upcoming nuclear-disarmament negotiations with Russia.
During a breakfast with reporters, Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, the service's bomber headquarters unit at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., said he understands the Pentagon's recent decision to hold off on pursuing the program until it negotiates changes to the 1992 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in December.
"If the START negotiations were five years off from now, then I would say no," Elder said. "But if it's a matter of, 'Let's not lock ourselves into it for six months,' that seems to make sense."
This month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would postpone development of the bomber, which the Air Force hoped to field in 2018 while phasing out more of its older bombers. Gates announced the decision when he unveiled sweeping changes to the military's procurement plans. He said before moving forward he wants a more thorough understanding of the need and the requirement for a new bomber, which was an outgrowth of the Defense Department's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. But he also signaled that the START negotiations will play a role in determining the program's fate.
"Before continuing with a program for a next-generation manned bomber, we should first assess the requirements and what other capabilities we might have for this mission as well as the outcome of post-START arms control negotiations," Gates said last week during a speech at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.
The defense industry has been eagerly awaiting the details on the next-generation bomber, envisioned since its creation several years ago as a modern, stealthy aircraft. The B-2 stealth bomber -- the youngest aircraft in its bomber fleet -- was fielded in 1989 and features only second-generation stealth capabilities.
By contrast, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet features fifth-generation stealth technologies. Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. announced last year that they intended to collaborate on the bomber. And other defense firms, like Northrop Grumman Corp., the prime contractor on the B-2, were also expected to vie for the program. The Air Force had planned to spend at least $1.6 billion on the program by fiscal 2011, the Congressional Research Service reported last year. The aircraft's development cost could be as high as $10 billion.
COMMENTS
- Dan seems to forget who really got us involved in Vietnam. It was JFK and LBJ -- I can still hear LBJ's comments about why we're going there, and I was there. Much like I hear Bush's comments on why Iraq -- which I was opposed to and lost many of my military friends. Two years ago I commissioned a nephew who is now flying the B-52. Do I want to see him flying a new bomber? As a retired AF officer (37 years), I must say it would be nice, but the question that must be asked and answered is who is our enemy or potential enemy and is a new bomber really the answer. I don't see Russia as a real threat, but China on the other hand - potentially. If you look at the current environment or method of fighting terrorists, then there's probably no need for a new bomber. Maybe it's a lack of publicity, but I don't see anything being printed about how the AF is bombing terrorist targets. It's all about the Army and Marines and remote controlled pilotless aircraft. It's a different type of warfare that everyone at DOD, in Congress and the administration must think about and then develop a strategy to combat it along with the right type of weapon systems. To me the real question is do we have the right leadership in DOD, the military and in the White House to bring this about? I know what I'd say, but each one of us must make up our own mind on this issue. Bob Moore Posted April 24, 2009 10:34 AM
- What was I thinking with my last post. I should be bashing the repugs instead. It seems that every time we have a repug in office we have a fight or war at hand. Such has been the case since Eisenhower. He was prez and gots us out of Korea but then turned his sights on Vietnam by providing mil advisors which utlitmate spiraled into a bloody war for the US. Nixon took us into Cambodia and would have continue to China if he could. The dems did good in finally cutting his purse strings for that. Ford didn't do anything. Reagan gave us Grenada, Iran-Contra, built up the Muj in Afghanistan (who eventually because the Taliban), and sold tons of hardward to Iraq in the 80s. Papa Bush needed scratch his warrin' itch and gave us Panama and shortly followed with Op Desert Shield/Storm. Next was Bush Jr. who had to trump daddy's warrin' and marched to not only Kabul but also to Baghdad. So it seems to me those with the blood lust are repugs. Not dems. dan m ketter Posted April 24, 2009 8:41 AM
- Just round #1 in defending the military and ensuring that the next conflict will maximize casualties. It happens every time we have a Democrat pres, 1st Carter and then Billy Boy dan m letter Posted April 22, 2009 8:25 PM
