USAF General Defends New Bomber.

The US Air Force's (USAF's) Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is crucial to maintaining an effective US strategic deterrent, as is the remainder of the US triad of nuclear-capable bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarines, a top USAF general said on 21 January.

USAF General Defends New Bomber.

"We have not modernised our nuclear stockpile for a while," Major General Garrett Harencak, the USAF's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said at an Air Force Association breakfast in Arlington, Virginia. "I think people realise that over the last 20-25 years, we took a procurement holiday. Other countries did not."

When asked about Russia's continued nuclear modernisation over those decades, the general said the Pentagon must "keep an eye on what others are doing" and that he expects adversaries to do "what they need to do".

Regarding President Barrack Obama's goal for a nuclear-free world, the general said: "No one wants that more than we do in the US Air Force. I mean, why would we want another potential adversary out there?" He added, however, that "the best thing for us to do is to have a safe, secure, and effective stockpile until that happy day comes when we no longer need it."

To that end, the USAF is poised to announce a decision within the next few months on whether Northrop Grumman or a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team will build the new LRS-B. The nuclear-capable aircraft would be fielded sometime in the 2020s to complement and then eventually replace the USAF's Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bombers.

Maj Gen Harencak said the new bomber is crucial to maintaining the US strategic deterrent. The general, who is a former bomber pilot, added that "the ability to go anywhere in the world, anytime, and to get through enemy defences and be able to provide a lot of ordnance on a consistent basis has never disappeared, and never will."

He noted that much about the LRS-B programme is classified, which has invited criticism from many quarters. "To our critics out there: why don't you wait until you actually know something about it before you criticise it?"

"There are publications out there that are already saying: 'You don't need this. It's too expensive. It's not going to work.' We don't even know what it is yet, per se," he said.

Some critics have said simpler, unmanned aircraft and stand-off missiles could accomplish the same mission as the one envisioned for the new bomber, but at a fraction of the cost.

"No one has ever been right about the next war we're going to fight. Those who say: 'Don't worry. You won't need this,' have been wrong before. … They are wrong today. And they will be wrong in the future," the general said. "Stand-off is absolutely important, but it has never in history been enough."

Other critics have expressed concern about the new bomber's ultimate price tag. Despite the fact that top Pentagon officials have said they will not pay more than USD550 million per copy for a fleet of 80-100 aircraft, they note that the B-2 was built about a generation ago at a cost of more than USD700 million per aircraft.

However, USAF acquisition officials have said they were careful to study the available technologies before opening the competition in order to reduce risk and, thereby, cost. They continue to express confidence that the competing teams are working with mature technology.

"We are going to move mountains to make sure it is affordable," Maj Gen Harencak echoed. "We still may not get everything [in terms of requirements]. I get that, but certainly give us an opportunity to try.