The chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee this week expressed dismay over the Air Force’s proposed plan to retire nearly half of its venerable B-52 bomber fleet, saying such action could leave the service hamstrung to carry out long-range strike missions.

Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ike Skelton (D-MO) also chided Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and service Secretary Michael Wynne for the service’s progress on a new long-range strike platform, which likely will not be ready for at least another decade.

“The problem with deep strike is we’ve got darn few of any systems,” Hunter said during a March 1 committee hearing.

Inside the Air Force first reported in January that the Pentagon, as part of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, would reduce the B-52 force from 94 to 56, and use the expected cost savings to fully modernize the Air Force’s remaining B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers (ITAF, Jan. 13, p1), which make up the service’s deep-strike inventory. The high-profile document was obtained, in draft form, by InsideDefense.com.

In total, the service has approximately 160 bombers. The early retirement plan, if approved by Congress, would shrink the arsenal to 122 bombers. However, the Air Force’s FY-07 budget request pitches a plan that would trim its B-52 fleet to 56 aircraft. The service is banking on saving $680 million in its procurement accounts and reducing its B-52 personnel ranks by 3,924 airmen.

Service budget documents show the service plans to retire 18 B-52s in the coming fiscal year, and 20 more the following year.

Hunter said that the Air Force’s long-range strike capability “largely resides on backs of these ancient B-52s,” adding the problem is compounded by the service’s past resistance to begin a new bomber program.

The chairman said if the Air Force plans to rely on a “tiny contingent” of B-2s for long-range strike “you still are cutting it very close and if you have some attrition of those tiny numbers, then we’re in what I would call real trouble.”

Wynne replied that one of the key rationales for retiring the B-52 is the aircraft has been relieved of some of its assigned missions due to age, even though the “utilization rate” of the bomber has been “relatively light” over the past 15 years.

The service secretary added officials are looking at the bomber as a possible standoff platform. In the testiest portion of the hearing, Hunter shot back with his view that the service’s vision of making the B-52 a standoff platform is flawed. “If you ain’t got ‘em, you can’t put anything on them,” he said.

Overall, Hunter said the service’s approach could be problematic should the military engage in shooting war similar to Vietnam, pointing out that 15 B-52s were shot down during a single operation -- “Operation Linebacker” -- over the span of a few weeks.

“We know we need to start the wheels turning to get a new bomber,” the service secretary said, eliciting a sharp response from Hunter.

“Well the problem is we haven’t started those wheels . . . we’re not close a new bomber at this point, right?” the chairman asked.

“I’d say that’s true,” Wynne replied.

Asked when he saw a new bomber coming on-line, the Air Force secretary said officials are targeting 2016 to 2018 “for long-range strike, which is, de facto, our new bomber.”

For his part, Hunter expressed some worry about that time line, saying: “That’s a long time.”

Another notable QDR-directed change was to terminate the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems program. Since then, Air Force and Pentagon officials have said the service plans to lean heavily on lessons gleaned from its J-UCAS work as it begins developing a new long-range bomber (ITAF, Feb. 10, p1). Top uniformed Air Force officials have said the service is mulling whether the new effort will be composed of a family of aircraft or a single plane -- as well as the possibility that the new bomber might be unmanned.

To that end, Air Force officials expect to launch a broad study this year that will articulate a list of requirements for a next-generation long-range strike program.

Skelton, the committee’s top Democrat, inquired if there was any ongoing research and development for a new bomber.

Moseley said the service has penciled in close to $6 billion over the future years defense plan -- which spans from FY-07 to FY-11 -- to conduct a three-phased classified study of a new long-range strike platform. Phase one will examine continued modifications and enhancements of the existing B-1, B-2 and B-52 fleets; during phase two the Air Force will pump about $1.6. billion into this “long-range strike portfolio,” he said. The service has around $275 million set aside for phase three, which will examine needs “out beyond 2025 and 2030,” the four-star stated.

In terms of a new bomber, “it looks like the door isn’t even cracked open yet,” Skelton said. In his opening statement, the ranking member said “a great deal of new capability can be achieved by continuing to modernize” the B-2. Noting the stealthy bomber may not address every requirement contemplated in the 2005 QDR, it can be “upgraded to satisfy a large percentage of [those] requirements,” which, he said, would give the Air Force persistence in an anti-access environment.

The air chief pointed out that before he was sworn in as service vice chief in 2003, there were 24 studies examining bombers. Since then, he said, the Air Force has whittled that number to one or two studies, while also setting up bomber program offices at Langley Air Force Base, VA, and Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

“I’m committed to a new bomber because it’s not just long-range strike, it’s survivable strike,” the four-star told the committee. “These existing airplanes provide us persistence at range, they don’t necessarily provide us survivable strike at this range.”

Though Hunter agreed with the air chief’s assessment that a new bomber is needed, he stressed that retiring the B-52 could bring problems.

“What I’m worried about is you’re doing this because you’re out of money,” the chairman opined. Nearly halving the bomber fleet leaves but two options, according to Hunter: Accept the risk and hope that the additional aircraft are not needed; or put more funding into modernization work.

The latter approach, however, “may take some desk pounding,” Hunter predicted, prompting Moseley to reply: “Mr. Chairman, you’re signing our song.”