FAS Military Analysis Network

U.S. Military Aircraft

B-52 StratofortressThe B-52H BUFF [Big Ugly Fat Fellow] is the primary nuclear roled bomber in the USAF inventory. It provides the only Air Launch Cruise Missile carriage in the USAF. The B-52H also provides theater CINCs with a long range strike capability. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes up to 50,000 feet (15,166.6 meters). It can carry nuclear or conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability. The aircraft's flexibility was evident during the Vietnam War and, again, in Operation Desert Storm. B-52s struck wide-area troop concentrations, fixed installations and bunkers, and decimated the morale of Iraq's Republican Guard. The Gulf War involved the longest strike mission in the history of aerial warfare when B-52s took off from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., launched conventional air launched cruise missiles and returned to Barksdale -- a 35-hour, non-stop combat mission. A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962. Only the H model is still in the Air Force inventory and all are assigned to Air Combat Command. The first of 102 B-52H's was delivered to Strategic Air Command in May 1961. The H model can carry up to 20 air launched cruise missiles. In addition, it can carry the conventional cruise missile which was launched from B-52G models during Desert Storm. Barksdale AFB, LA and Minot AFB, ND serves as B-52 Main Operating Bases (MOB). Training missions are flown from both MOBs. Barksdale AFB and Minot AFB normally supports 57 and 36 aircraft respectively on-station.

FeaturesIn a conventional conflict, the B-52H can perform air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. It is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance, and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. Two B-52s, in two hours, can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface. Starting in 1989, an on-going modification incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adaptor beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions and additional smart weapons capability. All aircraft are being modified to carry the AGM-142 Raptor missile and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile. The B-52H was designed for nuclear standoff, but it now has the conventional warfare mission role with the retirement of the B-52Gs. The B-52 can carry different kinds of external pylons under its wings.

The AGM-28 pylon can carry lighter weapons like the MK-82 and can carry 12 weapons on each pylon, for a total of 24 external weapons. With the carriage of 27 internal weapons, the total is 51. Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam [HSAB] external pylon can carry heavier weapons rated up to 2000 lbs. However, each HSAB can carry only 9 weapons which decreases the total carry to 45 (18 external). A third type pylon is used for carrying ALCMs/CALCMs/ACMs. So the B-52 can carry a maximum of either 51 or 45 munitions, depending on which pylon is mounted under the wings. However, the AGM-28 pylon is no longer used, so the B-52 currently carries on HSABs, limiting the external load to 18 bombs, or a total of 45 bombs. The use of aerial refueling gives the B-52 a range limited only by crew endurance. It has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers). All B-52s are equipped with an electro-optical viewing system that uses platinum silicide forward-looking infrared and high resolution low-light-level television sensors to augment the targeting, battle assessment, flight safety and terrain-avoidance system, thus further improving its combat ability and low-level flight capability. Pilots wear night vision goggles (NVGs) to enhance their night visual, low-level terrainfollowing operations. Night vision goggles provide greater safety during night operations by increasing the pilot's ability to visually clear terrain and avoid enemy radar. Current B-52H crew size is five. Pilot and co-pilot are side by side on the upper flight deck, along with the electronic warfare officer (EWO), seated behind the pilot facing aft.

Side by side on the lower flight deck are the radar navigator, responsible for weapons delivery, and the navigator, responsible for guiding the aircraft from point A to point B. Because the H model was not originally designated for conventional ordnance delivery, weapons delivery was assigned to the radar navigator and the "bombardier/navigator" crew station designation of the earlier B-52 series was not used.) The controls and displays for aircraft systems are distributed among the crew stations on the basis of responsibilities. The Air Forces objective is to employ the latest navigation and communication technology to reduce the crew size to four people, by combining the radar navigator and navigator functions into one position.

The navigator stations use CRT displays and 386x-type processors. Interface to avionics architecture is based on the Mil-Std-1553B data bus specification.

Current Upgrade ActivitiesThe current service life of the aircraft extends to 2040.

The B-52 is a typical representation of the misnomer of "legacy" system. While the B-52 exceeds 30 years of age, new modifications and mission capabilities are constantly updating the system. The following is a list of current B-52 modification programs: 1. Global Positioning System (GPS) 2. TACAN Replacement System (TRS) 3. Integrated Conventional Stores Management System (ICSMS) 4. ARC-210/DAMA Secure Voice 5. AGM-142 HAVENAP Missile Integration 6. High Reliability Maintenance-Free Battery 7. Electronic Counter-Measures Improvement (ECMI) 8. Off-Aircraft Pylon Tester (OAPT) 9. Air Force Mission Support System (AFMSS) 10. Electro Viewing System - EVS 3-in-1 (EVS, STV, FLIR) 11. Advanced Weapons Integration Program (JDAM, WCMD, JSOW, JASSM) 12. Night Vision Imaging System Cockpit Compatible Lighting 13. Night Vision Imaging System Compatible Ejection Seat Mod 14. Standard Flight Loads Data Recorder (SFLDR) 15. Avionics Midlife Improvement (AMI) (ACU, DTUC, and INS Replacement) 16. ALR-20 System Replacement 17. Fuel Temperature Monitoring System 18. Panoramic Night Vision Goggles 19. Advanced Infrared Expendables 20. Advanced real Time Engine Health Monitoring System 21. Closed Loop Sensor-To Shoot Data Collection/Trans 22. Precision Targeting Radar 23. TF-33 Engine Replacement 24. Lethal Self Protection 25. B-52 Cockpit Modernization 26. KY-58 VINSON Secure Voice 27. AVTR 28. Additional Cabin Pressure Altimeter 29. Enhanced Bomber Mission Management System 30. Chaff and Flare Dispenser Upgrade 31. Non 1760 Pylon Upgrade The B-52 is undergoing a Conventional Enhancement Modification which allows it to carry MIL-STD 1760 weapons. The Advanced Weapons Integration (AWI) program supports the conventional enhancement of the B-52 through the addition of the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW), and the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM). Limited Initial Operational Capability for the WCMD was achieved on the B-52 in December 1998, and LIOC for JDAM was achieved on the B-52 in December 1998. The Air Force Mission Support System supports the Air Force movement of all mission planning to a common system. GPS TACAN Emulation provides support to the

Congressionally-directed GPS-2000. Electronic Countermeasures Improvement supports a DESERT STORM identified deficiency. The B-61 Mod 11 program was added at the direction of the Nuclear Posture Review and Presidential Decision Directive-30. The AGM-142 (or Have Nap as it is commonly called) and Harpoon missile systems were first installed and made operational on the B-52Gs in the mid-1980s. When the G models were retired, these capabilities were moved to the B-52H model. While Air Combat Command (ACC) was happy to retain these operational capabilities, they were limited in their ability to employ either Have Nap or Harpoon by the fact that only a limited number of B-52Hs could employ the missiles. In the early 1990s the B-52 Conventional Enhancement Modification (CEM) Integrated Product Team (IPT) began programs to make it possible for any B-52H to carry and launch either missile. At about the same time, the AGM-142 SPO began a second phase of their producibility enhancement program, PEPII for short, to upgrade the AGM-142 missiles to both enhance supportability and lower the missiles cost. As of 31 December 97 these programs provided ACC with the expanded and more flexible mission capability they desired.

Upgrades

The B-61 Mod 11 program involves development and testing of a modified nuclear weapon on B-52 operational aircraft. Replacement of a strategic weapon was recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review and directed by Presidential Decision Review-30. Congress was notified during the second quarter of FY 1995, of the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy intent to modify an existing weapon to provide a replacement option. Modifications (made by the Department of Energy) to the B-61 Mod 7 strategic bomb accomplish the mission requirements of the replaced weapon. Modification of an existing weapon is less expensive than the cost to develop a new weapon from "scratch." Flight testing by the 419th FLTS, Edwards AFB, CA is required to certify the modified weapon mass and physic properties are the same as the Mod 7 device. The Air Force asked and received permission from Congress to reprogram the $4.5M FY 96 Congressional plus-up for AGM-130 integration on the B52, into the B-61 Mod 11 Flight Test program. This program was completed in FY 97. A key element to preserving the combat capability of the BUFF is the continued effort to improve the reliability, maintainability, and supportability (RM&S) for the B-52s in the near future. The three major defensive ECM systems on the aircraft, the AN/ALQ-172, AN/ALQ-155, and AN/ALR-20, all needed upgrades or replacement due to performance, reliability, and/or supportability problems. In addition, a myriad of other defensive systems on the BUFFs required enhancements to keep the B-52 ECM suite viable

throughout the lifetime of the aircraft. In FY97, the B-52 fleet received only six percent of the overall bomber budget which further complicated efforts to maintain these aging ECM systems. Between October 1996 and March 1997, the B-52 ECM suite became the leading cause of the Air Combat Command's B-52 bomber wings not meeting mission capable (MC) rate standards for the B-52H fleet. The aircraft's three major defensive systems all needed upgrades or replacement due to performance, reliability, and supportability issues. During these six months, these three systems combined to produce a six month mission incapable (MICAP) driver rate for the B-52 fleet of more than 43,000 hours. In addition, B-52 ECM employees discovered that because of this, readiness spares packages (RSPs) kits were depleted of several key system line replaceable units (LRUs). This resulted in a significant impact to the operational readiness of the entire B-52H fleet. In March 1997, HQ ACC B-52 logistics officials (HQ ACC/LGF52), Oklahoma City ALC B-52 leadership (OC-ALC/LHL), and managers from the Center's LNR division implemented an ECM Support Improvement Plan (SIP) to improve the B-52H ECM MICAP rate and RSP fill rates to acceptable levels. As a result, they eliminated MICAPs by April 1997 and filled RSP kits to the Independent Kit Level by May 1997. The ALQ-172 ECM electronic countermeasures suite is being improved to cover a requirement identified during DESERT STORM. The improvement provides for an increased memory capability to handle advanced threats as well as correcting a coverage capability problem. The project adds a third ALQ-172 to the ECM suite and develops the new display required by the addition of the third system. The B-52's electronic countermeasures suite is capable of protecting itself against a full range of air defense threat systems by using a combination of electronic detection, jamming and infrared countermeasures. The B-52 can also detect and counter missiles engaging the aircraft from the rear. These systems are undergoing continuous improvement in order to enable them to continue to counter emerging threat systems. Situational Awareness is the highest priority modification needed for the B-52. The Electronic Countermeasure Improvement is a Reliability and Maintainability initiative that upgrades two low Mean Time Between Failure components, and replaces two Control and Display Units (CDU) with one CDU. The ECM system uses 1960s-era technology and will likely be unsupportable by FY02. Link-16 - A line-of-sight datalink that uses structured message formats to provide the capability for an organized network of users to transfer in real-time/near real-time, digitized tactical information between tactical data systems used to increase survivability and develop a real-time picture of the battlespace. An unsolicited proposal for reengining 94 aircraft in the B-52 fleet was submitted to the Air Force by Boeing North American, Inc. in June 1996. Boeing proposed modernizing the B-52 fleet by replacing the current TF-33 engines with a commercial engine through a long-term leasing agreement, and providing fixed-cost, privatized maintenance based on the number of hours flown each year. Boeing's proposal included modernizing the B-52 fleet by replacing the TF-33 engines with the Allison/Rolls commercial RB-211 engine

through a long-term leasing agreement and providing a fixed-cost, privatized maintenance concept through a "power-by-the-hour" arrangement. Boeing initially projected reengining cost savings of about $6 billion, but later revised the projected savings to $4.7 billion to reengine 71 B-52s. An Air Force team formed to study Boeing's proposal analyzed the lease and purchase alternatives and concluded that both options are cost prohibitive compared to maintaining the existing TF-33 engines. The General Accounting Office estimated that Boeing's unsolicited proposal to reengine the B-52 fleet would cost the Air Force approximately $1.3 billion rather than save approximately $4.7 billion as Boeing projected.

Service LifeUpdated with modern technology, the B-52 will continue into the 21st century as an important element of US forces. There is a proposal under consideration to re-engine the remaining B-52H aircraft to extend the service life. B-52 re-engine plans, if implemented, call for the B-52 to be utilized through 2025. Current engineering analysis show the B52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service The May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), prescribed a total fleet of 187 bombers (95 B-1, 21 B-2, and 71 B-52). Since the QDR, two B-1s have been lost in peacetime accidents. However, the Report of the Panel to Review Long-Range Air Power (LRAP) concluded the existing bomber fleet cannot be sustained through the expected life of the air frames and that additional aircraft will eventually be required. To address this issue, the Air Force will add five additional B-52 attrition reserve aircraft, bringing the B-52 total from 71 to 76 for a total bomber force of 190. The B-52 fleet will remain the same with 44 combat-coded aircraft.

SpecificationsPrimary Function: Contractor: Power Plant: Thrust: Length: Height: Wingspan: Speed: Ceiling: Weight: Maximum Takeoff Heavy bomber Boeing Military Airplane Co. Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan Each engine up to 17,000 pounds (7,650 kilograms) 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters) 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters) 185 feet (56.4 meters) 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86) 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters) Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms) 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)

Weight: Range: Armament: NOTE: The B52 can carry 27 internal weapons. Authoritative sources diverge as to maximum munition loads, with some suggesting as many as 51 smaller munitions and 30 larger munitions, while others suggest maximum loads of 45 and 24, respectively. The Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam [HSAB] external pylon can carry only 9 weapons which limits the total carry to 45 (18 external). The AGM-28 pylon could carry lighter weapons like the MK-82 and can carry 12 weapons on each pylon, for a total of 24 external weapons, for a the total of 51. However, the AGM-28 pylon is no longer Unrefueled 8,800 miles (7,652 nautical miles) Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -bombs, mines and missiles. NUCLEAR 20 ALCM 12 SRAM [ext] 12 ACM [ext] 2 B53 [int] 8 B-61 Mod11 [int] 8 B-83 [int] CONVENTIONAL 51 CBU-52 (27 int, 18 ext) 51 CBU-58 (27 int, 18 ext) 51 CBU-71 (27 int, 18 ext) 30 CBU 87 (6 int, 18 ext) 30 CBU 89 (6 int, 18 ext) 30 CBU 97 (6 int, 18 ext) 51 M117 18 Mk 20 (ext) 51 Mk 36 8 Mk 41 12 Mk 52 8 Mk 55 8 Mk 56 51 Mk 59 8 Mk 60 (CapTor) 51 Mk. 62 8 Mk. 64 8 Mk 65 51 MK 82 18 MK 84 (ext) PRECISION 18 JDAM (12 ext) 30 WCMD (16 ext) 8 AGM-84 Harpoon 20 AGM-86C CALCM 8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext] 18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext) 12 AGM-158 JASSSM [ext] 12 TSSAM

used, so the B52 currently carries on HSABs, limiting the external load to 18 bombs, or a total of 45 bombs. AN/ALQ-117 PAVE MINT active countermeasures set AN/ALQ-122 false target generator [Motorola] AN/ALQ-153 tail warning set [Northrop Grumman] AN/ALQ-155 jammer Power Management System [Northrop Grumman] AN/ALQ-172(V)2 electronic countermeasures system [ITT] AN/ALR-20A Panoramic countermeasures radar warning receiver AN/ALR-46 digital warning receiver [Litton] AN/ALT-32 noise jammer 12 AN/ALE-20 infra-red flare dispensers 6 AN/ALE-24 chaff dispensers AN/ANS-136 Inertial Navigation Set AN/APN-224 Radar Altimeter AN/ASN-134 Heading Reference AN/APQ-156 Strategic Radar AN/ASQ-175 Control Display Set AN/AYK-17 Digital Data Display AN/AYQ-10 Ballistics Computer AN/AAQ-6 FLIR Electro-optical viewing system AN/AVQ-22 Low-light TV Electro-optical viewing system AN/ARC-210 VHF/UHF communications AN/ARC-310 HF radio communications Five (aircraft commander, pilot, radar navigator, navigator and electronic warfare officer)

Systems

Crew:

Accommodatio Six ejection seats ns: Unit Cost: $30 million

Date Deployed: February 1955 Inventory: 44 combat-coded Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9

B-52 Image Bank

B-1B LancerThe B-1B is a multi-role, long-range bomber, capable of flying intercontinental missions without refueling, then penetrating present and predicted sophisticated enemy defenses. It can perform a variety of missions, including that of a conventional weapons carrier for theater operations. Through 1991, the B-1 was dedicated to the nuclear deterrence role as part of the single integrated operational plan (SIOP) The B-1B's electronic jamming equipment, infrared countermeasures, radar location and warning systems complement its low-radar cross-section and form an integrated defense system for the aircraft. The swing-wing design and turbofan engines not only provide greater range and high speed at low levels but they also enhance the bomber's survivability. Wing sweep at the full-forward position allows a short takeoff roll and a fast base-escape profile for airfields under attack. Once airborne, the wings are positioned for maximum cruise distance or high-speed penetration. The B-1B holds several world records for speed, payload and distance. The National Aeronautic Association recognized the B-1B for completing one of the 10 most memorable record flights for 1994. The B-1B uses radar and inertial navigation equipment enabling aircrews to globally navigate, update mission profiles and target coordinates in-flight, and precision bomb without the need for ground based navigation aids. Included in the B-1B offensive avionics are modular electronics that allow maintenance personnel to precisely identify technical difficulties and replace avionics components in a fast, efficient manner on the ground. The aircraft's AN/ALQ 161A defensive avionics is a comprehensive electronic countermeasures package that detects and counters enemy radar threats. It also has the capability to detect and counter missiles attacking from the rear. It defends the aircraft by applying the appropriate counter-measures, such as electronic jamming or dispensing expendable chaff and flares. Similar to the offensive avionics, the defensive suite has a reprogrammable design that allows in-flight changes to be made to counter new or changing threats. The B-1B represents a major upgrade in U.S. long-range capabilities over the B-52 -- the previous mainstay of the bomber fleet. Significant advantages include:

Low radar cross-section to make detection considerably more difficult. Ability to fly lower and faster while carrying a larger payload. Advanced electronic countermeasures to enhance survivability.

Numerous sustainment and upgrade modifications are ongoing or under study for the B1B aircraft. A large portion of these modifications which are designed to increase the combat capability are known as the Conventional Mission Upgrade Program. In FY93, The Air Force initiated CMUP in FY1993 to improve the B-1s conventional warfighting capabilities. The $2.7 billion CMUP program is intended to convert the B-1B from a primarily nuclear weapons carrier to a conventional weapons carrier. Capability will be delivered in blocks attained by hardware modifications with corresponding software updates:

Initial conventional capability was optimized for delivery of Mk-82 non-precision 500lb gravity bombs Current capability (Block C) also provides delivery of up to 30 Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs) per sortie for enhanced conventional capability against advancing armor. Initial capability achieved in September 1996 with FOC in August 1997. The upgrade consists of modification for B-1B bomb module from the original configuration of 28 500-pound bombs per unit to 10 1,000-pound cluster bombs per bomb rack. The modifications apply to a total to 50 refitted bomb racks -enough to equip half the B-1B fleet. Block D integrates the ALE-50 repeater decoy system, the first leg of the electronic countermeasures upgrade, and JDAM for near precision capability and adds anti-jam radios for secure communication in force packages. FY96 and FY97 Congressional plus-ups are being used to accelerate JDAM initial capability by 18 months (1QFY99). Congress has provided extra funding to allow a group of seven aircraft to be outfitted and ready a full 18 months early, with the first three JDAM equipped aircraft to be ready by December 1998, and the last of those seven aircraft are planned to arrive at Ellsworth AFB by Feb 99. Block E upgrades the current avionics computer suite and integrates Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) for standoff capability (FY02) Block F improves the aircrafts electronic countermeasures situational awareness and jamming capabilities in FY02

BackgroundThe B-1B is a modified B-1A with major revisions in offensive avionics, defensive avionics, weapon payload, range, and speed. These modifications were made to incorporate certain technological advances that had occurred between the original B-lA contract award in 1970 and the LRCA competition in 1980. Improvements consist primarily of offthe-shelf technology such as a new radar, new generation computers, expanded ECM capabilities, reduced RCS, and avionics compatibility with the ALCM. The wing sweep is restricted to 60 which limits the maximum speed to just above supersonic. Rockwell also estimated range increases for the modified B-1. Differences between the B-1B and its predecessor, the B-1A of the 1970s, are subtle, yet significant. Externally, only a simplified engine inlet, modified over-wing fairing and relocated pilot tubes are noticeable. Other less-evident changes include a window for the

offensive and defensive systems officers' station and engine housing modifications that reduces radar exposure. The B-1B was structurally redesigned to increase its gross takeoff weight from 395,000 to 477,000 pounds (177,750 to 214,650 kilograms). Still, the empty weight of the B-1B is but 3 percent greater than that of the B-1A. This added takeoff weight capacity, in addition to a movable bulkhead between the forward and intermediate weapons bay, allows the B-1B to carry a wide variety of nuclear and conventional munitions. The most significant changes, however, are in the avionics, with low-radar cross-section, automatic terrain-following high-speed penetration, and precise weapons delivery. Prior to 1994 B-1B fleet had never achieved its objective of having a 75-percent mission capable rate. In 1992 and 1993 the B-1B mission capable rate averaged about 57 percent. According to the Air Force, a primary reason for the low mission capable rate was the level of funding provided to support the B-1B logistics support system. Concerned about the low mission capable rate, a history of B-1B problems, and the Air Force's plans to spend $2.4 billion modifying the B-1B to become a conventional bomber, the Congress directed the Air Force to conduct an Operational Readiness Assessment (ORA) from June 1, 1994, through November 30, 1994. The purpose of the ORA was to determine whether one B-1B wing was capable of achieving and maintaining its planned 75-percent operational readiness rate for a period of 6 months, if provided the full complement of spare parts, maintenance equipment and manpower, and logistic support equipment. During the ORA the test unit achieved an 84.3-percent mission capable rate during the test period. The ORA demonstrated that, given a full complement of spare parts, equipment, and manpower, the Air Force could achieve and sustain a 75-percent mission capable rate for the B-1B. The Air Force projects that the entire B-1B fleet will reach a 75-percent mission capable rate by 2000 by virtue of numerous on-going and future reliability, maintainability, and management initiatives. However, as of mid-October 1999 the Air Force wide mission capable rate of the B-1 had fallen to 51.1 percent -mainly because of maintenance problems and a shortage of parts. Over the previous 12 months, the Kansas Guard had maintained a mission capable rate of 71.1 percent for the 10 usable aircraft assigned to it. The basis for the projection of useful life of the B-1 is the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). The useful life of the structure is assumed to be the point at which it is more economical to replace the aircraft than to continue structural modifications and repairs necessary to perform the mission. The limiting factor for B-1s service life is the wing lower surface. At 15,200 hours, based on continued low level usage, the wings lower skin will need replacement. Current usage rates, operational procedures, and mishap attrition will place the inventory below the requirement of 89 aircraft in 2018, while the service life attrition will impact around 2038. The first B-1B, 83-0065, The Star of Abilene, was delivered to the Air Force at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, in June 1985, with initial operational capability on Oct. 1, 1986. The 100th and final B-1B was delivered May 2, 1988. The Air Force has chosen to fully fund the operation of only 60 B-1Bs for the next few years, compared with plans to fund 82 beyond fiscal year 2000. In the short term, the Air Force has classified 27 of 95 B-1Bs as

"reconstitution aircraft." These aircraft are not funded for flying hours and lack aircrews, but they are based with B-1B units, flown on a regular basis, maintained like other B1Bs, and modified with the rest of the fleet. B-1B units will use flying hours and aircrews that are based on 60 operational aircraft to rotate both the operational aircraft and the reconstitution aircraft through its peacetime flying schedule. These 27 aircraft will be maintained in reconstitution reserve status until the completion of smart conventional munition upgrades. At that time, around the year 2000, there will be 95 aircraft providing an operational force of 82 fully modified B-1s. The B-1 will complete its buy back of attrition reserve by the fourth quarter of FY03, and re-code six training aircraft to attain 70 combat-coded aircraft by the fourth quarter of FY04. During the Cold War, heavy bombers were used primarily for nuclear deterrence and were operated solely by the active duty Air Force. According to the Air Force, the National Guard's part-time workforce was incompatible with the bombers' nuclear mission because of a requirement for continuously monitoring all personnel directly involved with nuclear weapons. With the end of the Cold War and increased emphasis on the bombers' conventional mission, the Air Force initiated efforts to integrate Guard and reserve units into the bomber force. As part of its total force policy, the Air Force assigned B-1B aircraft to the National Guard. Heavy bombers entered the Air Guard's inventory for the first time in 1994 with a total of 14 B-1Bs programmed by the end of fiscal year FY 1997 for two units, the 184th Bomb Wing (BW), Kansas, and the 116th BW, Georgia. The 184th completed its conversion in FY 1996 at McConnell Air Force Base (AFB), Kansas. After a long political struggle that involved resisting the planned conversion from F-15s and an associated move from Dobbins AFB near Atlanta to Robins AFB near Macon, the 116th began its conversion on 1 April 1996. The unit completed that process in December 1998. All the bombers in both units were configured for conventional, not nuclear, missions. Prior to 1994, the B-1B fleet operated out of four bases: Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota; McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; and Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. In 1994, the Air Force realigned the B-1B fleet by closing the Grand Forks Air Force Base and transferring the aircraft at McConnell Air Force Base to the Air National Guard. With the transfer, the B-1B support structure, including spare parts, was distributed to the two remaining main operating bases. The concentration of aircraft and repair facilities at Dyess and Ellsworth Air Force Bases resulted in improved support capabilities, which improved mission capable [MC] rates. On 26 March 1996 it was announced that the 77th Bomb Squadron would return to Ellsworth. On 1 April 97, the squadron again activated at Ellsworth as the geographically separated 34th Bomb Squadron completed its transfer to its home at the 366th Wing, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. By June 1998, the 77th had six of its B-1Bs out of the reconstitution reserve. This number ballanced those lost by the 34th BS. Upgrades

Cockpit Upgrade Program (CUP) - Current B-1 cockpit display units are not capable of supporting graphic intensive software modifications. The CUP installs a robust graphic capability via common display units throughout the front and aft stations. This program increases B-1 survivability by providing critical situational awareness displays, needed for conventional operations, keeping pace with current and future guided munitions integration, enhancing situational awareness, and improving tactical employment. Link-16 Providing Line-of-Sight (LOS) data for aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft-to-C2, and aircraft-to-sensor connectivity, Link-16 is a combat force multiplier that provides U.S. and other allied military services with fully interoperable capabilities and greatly enhances tactical Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence mission effectiveness. Link-16 provides increased survivability, develops a real-time picture of the theater battlespace, and enables the aircraft to quickly share information on short notice (target changes). In addition to a localized capability, the B-1s datalink will include BLOS capability increasing flexibility essential to attacking time-sensitive targets. B-1 Radar Upgrade is a candidate Long Term Upgrade that would improve the current Synthetic Aperture Radar resolution from three meters to one foot or better, allowing the B-1 to more autonomously and precisely Find, Fix, Target, Track, Engage, and Assess enemy targets with guided direct-attack or standoff munitions (JDAM/JSOW). Finally, the upgrade would replace older components that will be difficult to maintain due to obsolescence and vanishing vendors.

SpecificationsPrimary Function: Builder: Long-range, multi-role, heavy bomber Rockwell International, North American Aircraft

Operations Air Frame Offensive avionics, Boeing Military Airplane; defensive avionics, and AIL Division Integration: Power Plant: Thrust: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight: Four General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner 30,000-plus pounds (13,500-plus kilograms) with afterburner, per engine 146 feet (44.5 meters) 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended forward, 79 feet (24.1 meters) swept aft 34 feet (10.4 meters) Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: Speed: Rotate and Takeoff Speeds: Landing Speeds: Range: Ceiling: Crew:

477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms) 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level) 210 Gross - 119 Rotate kts / 134 kts Takeoff 390 Gross - 168 kts Rotate / 183 kts Takeoff 210 Gross - 145 kts 380 Gross - 195 kts Intercontinental, unrefueled Over 30,000 feet (9,000 meters) Four (aircraft commander, pilot, offensive systems officer and defensive systems officer) NUCLEAR CONVENTIONAL 84 Mk 62 84 MK82 30 CBU 87 30 CBU 89 30 CBU 97 12 Mk 65 PRECISION 30 WCMD 24 JDAM 12 GBU-27 12 AGM-154 JSOW 12 TSSAM

Armament:

Date Deployed: Unit Cost:

June 1985 $200-plus million per aircraft 100 total production 93 total current inventory Active force, 51 PMAI (69 actual) ANG, 18 PMAI (22 actual) Reserve, 0 AFMC, 2 (Test)

Inventory:

Deployment Cmd ACC ACC ACC ANG ANG # Location Unit 39 Dyess AFB, TX 9th Bomb Wing 21 Ellsworth AFB, SD 28th Bomb Wing 9 Mountain Home AFB, ID 366th Air Expeditionary Wing 10 Robins AFB, GA 116th Bomb Wing 12 McConnell AFB, KS 184th Bomb Group

AMC 2 Edwards AFB, CA test aircraft 6 lost to mishaps [as of 18 Feb 98] 1 eliminated under START II Treaty

Airframe Inventory# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tail # 830065 830066 830067 830068 830069 830070 830071 840049 840050 840051 840052 840053 840054 840055 Name Location Comment Star of Abilene Ole' Puss Texas Raider Predator The Beast 7 Wishes Spitfire Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess Edwards Dawg B-One Boss Hog Dyess Dyess Lost 09-25-87 @ La Junta, Colorado Lucky 13 Rage [Tasmanian Terror] Shockwave [Lethal Weapon] Sweet Sixteen Hellion Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess Dyess

16 840056 8417 0057

18 840058 19 850059 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 850060 850061 850062 850063 850064 850065 850066 850067

Eternal Guardian

Dyess

McConne ll Ellsworth Uncaged Dyess Lost 11-09-88 @ Dyess AFB, Texas McConne ll

On Defense

Ellsworth

28 850068 29 850069 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 850070 850071 850072 850073 850074 850075 850076 850077

Edwards McConne ll

Polarized

Dyess McConne ll

Crew Dawg

Dyess Ellsworth Lost 11-17-89 @ Ellsworth AFB S.D. Ellsworth

38 850078 39 850079 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 850080 850081 850082 850083 850084 850085 850086 850087

Ellsworth Ellsworth

Global Power

Dyess Ellsworth Ellsworth Ellsworth Ellsworth Ellsworth

48 850088 49 850089 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 850090 850091 850092 860093 860094 860096 860097 860098 Ellsworth Robins Ellsworth Ellsworth Ellsworth Ellsworth Robins Ellsworth

59 860099 60 860100 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 860101 860102 860103 860104 860105 860106 860107 860108 Phoenix Heavy Metal

Ellsworth Dyess Dyess Ellsworth Reluctant Dragon Dyess Robins Snake Eyes Dyess Lost 12-01-92 @ IR 165, Van Horne TX

Alein With An Attitude Spectre Stairway to Heaven

Dyess Dyess Dyess Ellsworth

69 860109 70 860110 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 860111 860112 860113 860114 860115 860116 860117 860118

Black Widow

Dyess Ellsworth Ellsworth

Robins Night Stalker Dyess Robins

79 860119 80 860120 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 860121 860122 860123 860124 860125 860126 860127 860128

The Punisher Iron Horse

Dyess Dyess Robins

[none] Dyess Robins

Ellsworth Ellsworth Bad Company Dyess Robins Oh, Hard Luck Dyess Ellsworth Robins Deadly Intentions Dyess

89 860129 90 860130 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 860131 860132 860133 860134 860135 860136 860137 860138

Ace In The Hole

Dyess Robins

99 860139 10 860 0140 Last Lancer

Robins Dyess

B-2 SpiritThe B-2 Spirit is a multi-role bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions. Along with the B-52 and B-1B, the B-2 provides the penetrating flexibility and effectiveness inherent in manned bombers. Its low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. Its capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation provide an effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century. The blending of low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the B-2 important advantages over existing bombers. Its low-observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers). The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness." The B-2 has a crew of two pilots, an aircraft commander in the left seat and mission commander in the right, compared to the B-1B's crew of four and the B-52's crew of five. The B-2 is intended to deliver gravity nuclear and conventional weapons, including precision-guided standoff weapons. An interim, precision-guided bomb capability called Global Positioning System (GPS) Aided Targeting System/GPS Aided Munition (GATS/GAM) is being tested and evaluated. Future configurations are planned for the B2 to be capable of carrying and delivering the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. B-2s, in a conventional role, staging from Whiteman AFB, MO; Diego Garcia; and Guam can cover the entire world with just one refueling. Six B-2s could execute an operation similar to the 1986 Libya raid but launch from the continental U.S. rather than Europe with a much smaller, more lethal, and more survivable force.

BackgroundThe B-2 development program was initiated in 1981, and the Air Force was granted approval in 1987 to begin procurement of 132 operational B-2 aircraft, principally for strategic bombing missions. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the emphasis of B-2

development was changed to conventional operations and the number was reduced to 20 operational aircraft, plus 1 test aircraft that was not planned to be upgraded to an operational configuration. Production of these aircraft has been concurrent with development and testing. The first B-2 was publicly displayed on Nov. 22, 1988, when it was rolled out of its hangar at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, Calif. Its first flight was July 17, 1989. The B-2 Combined Test Force, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., is responsible for flight testing the engineering, manufacturing and development aircraft as they are produced. Three of the six developmental aircraft delivered at Edwards are continuing flight testing. Whiteman AFB, Mo., is the B-2's only operational base. The first aircraft, Spirit of Missouri, was delivered Dec. 17, 1993. Depot maintenance responsibility for the B-2 is performed by Air Force contractor support and is managed at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker AFB, Okla. The prime contractor, responsible for overall system design and integration, is Northrop Grumman's Military Aircraft Systems Division. Boeing Military Airplanes Co., Hughes Radar Systems Group and General Electric Aircraft Engine Group are key members of the aircraft contractor team. Another major contractor, responsible for aircrew training devices (weapon system trainer and mission trainer) is Hughes Training Inc. (HTI) - Link Division, formerly known as C.A.E. - Link Flight Simulation Corp. Northrop Grumman and its major subcontractor HTI, are responsible for developing and integrating all aircrew and maintenance training programs. The Air Force is accepting delivery of production B-2s in three configuration blocks-blocks 10, 20, and 30. Initial delivery will be 6 test aircraft, 10 aircraft in the block 10 configuration, 3 in the block 20 configuration, and 2 in the block 30 configuration. Block 10 configured aircraft provide limited combat capability with no capability to launch conventional guided weapons. The Block 10 model carries only Mk-84 2,000pound conventional bombs or gravity nuclear weapons. B-2s in this configuration are located at Whiteman Air Force Base and are used primarily for training. Block 20 configured aircraft have an interim capability to launch nuclear and conventional munitions, including the GAM guided munition. The Block 20 has been tested with the Mk-84, 2,000-pound, general-purpose bombs and the CBU-87/B Combined Effects Munition cluster bombs (low-altitude, full-bay release). Block 30 configured aircraft are fully capable and meet the essential employment capabilities defined by the Air Force. The first fully configured Block 30 aircraft, AV-20 Spirit of PENNSYLVANIA, was delivered to the Air Force on 07 August 1997. Compared to the Block 20, the Block 30s have almost double the radar modes along with enhanced terrain-following capability and the ability to deliver additional weapons, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition and the Joint Stand Off Weapon. Other features include incorporation of configuration changes needed to make B-2s conform to

the approved radar signature; replacement of the aft decks; installation of remaining defensive avionics functions; and installation of a contrail management system. All block 10, 20, and test aircraft are to eventually be modified to the objective block 30 configuration. This modification process began in July 1995 and is scheduled to be completed in June 2000. The B-2 fleet will have 16 combat-coded aircraft by the second quarter of FY00, Upgrades

Link-16 Providing Line-of-Sight (LOS) data for aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft-to-C2, and aircraft-to-sensor connectivity, Link-16 is a combat force multiplier that provides U.S. and other allied military services with fully interoperable capabilities and greatly enhances tactical Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence mission effectiveness. Link-16 provides increased survivability, develops a real-time picture of the theater battlespace, and enables the aircraft to quickly share information on short notice (target changes).

Connectivity DoD requires survivable communications media for command and control of nuclear forces. To satisfy the requirement, the Air Force plans to deploy an advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite communications constellation. This constellation will provide a survivable, high capability communication system. Based on favorable results from a funded risk reduction study, the B-2 will integrate an EHF communication capability satisfying connectivity requirements. Digital Engine Controller - The current analog engine controllers are high failure items, and without funding, ACC will be forced to ground aircraft beginning approximately FY08. Replacement of the engine controllers will improve the B-2s performance and increase supportability, reliability, and maintainability. Computers/Processors - With advances in computer technology and increased demands on the system, the B-2s computers will need to be replaced with state-of-the-art processors. Although reliable, maintaining the present processors will become increasingly difficult and costly. Signature Improvements - The B-2s signature meets operational requirements against todays threats. As advanced threats proliferate, it will be prudent to investigate advanced signature reduction concepts and determine if it is necessary to improve the B-2s low observable signature. CANDIDATE LONG TERM UPGRADES BEYOND FY 15 TOTAL The basis for the useful life of the B-2 includes data from initial Developmental Test and Evaluation analysis. Data indicates the aircraft should be structurally sound to approximately 40,000 flight hours using current mission profiles. Analysis further suggests that the rudder attachment points are the first structural failure item. The B-2 has not implemented an ASIP similar to the other bombers, and this makes it difficult to predict the economic service life and attrition rate. However, a notional projection, based on the B-52, predicts one aircraft will be lost each 10 years. This attrition rate, plus attrition due to service life, will erode the B-2 force below its requirement of 19 aircraft by 2027. Tactical delivery tactics use patterns and techniques that minimize final flight path predictability, yet allows sufficient time for accurate weapons delivery. For conventional munitions. Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA) weapons delivery accuracies depend on delivery altitude. For a weapons pass made at 5,000 ft above ground level [AGL] or below, the hit criteria is less than or equal to 300 feet. For a weapons pass made above 5,000 feetAGL, the hit criteria is less than or equal to 500 feet. Similarly, Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA) delivery of conventional or nuclear weapons (i.e. Mk-84, B83, B-61) is altitude dependent. For a weapons pass made at 5,000 feet AGL or below, the hit criteria is less than or equal to 300 feet. For a weapons pass made above 5,000 ft

AGL, the hit criteria is less than or equal to 500 feet. The hit criteria for a weapons pass made with GAM/ JDAM munitions is less than or equal to 50 feet.

B-2 Image Gallery

SpecificationsPrimary function: Prime Contractor: Contractor Team: Multi-role heavy bomber. Northrop Grumman Corp. Boeing Military Airplanes Co., General Electric Aircraft Engine Group Hughes Training Inc., Link Division

Power Four General Electric F-118-GE-100 engines Plant/Manufacturer: Thrust: Length: 17,300 pounds each engine (7,847 kilograms) 69 feet (20.9 meters)

Height: Wingspan: Speed: Ceiling: Takeoff Weight (Typical): Range:

17 feet (5.1 meters) 172 feet (52.12 meters) High subsonic 50,000 feet (15,152 meters) 336,500 pounds (152,635 kilograms) Intercontinental, unrefueled NUCLEAR 16 B61 16 B83 16 AGM-129 ACM 16 AGM-131 SRAM 2 CONVENTIONAL 80 MK82 16 MK84 36 CBU87 36 CBU89 36 CBU97 PRECISION 8 GBU 27 12 JDAM 8 AGM-154 JSOW 8 AGM-137 TSSAM

Armament:

Payload: Crew: Unit cost: Date Deployed: Inventory: Air Vehicle AV- 1 AV- 2

40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms) Two pilots Approximately $2.1 billion [average] December 1993 Active force: 21 (planned operational aircraft); ANG: 0; Reserve: 0 Aircraft # Name [*] 82-1066 82-1067 Fatal Beauty Spirit of ARIZONA Ship From Hell [Murphy's Law] Spirit of NEW YORK Navigator / Ghost [Afternoon Delight] Spirit of INDIANA Christine Spirit of OHIO Fire and Ice [Toad] Spirit of MISSISSIPPI Black Widow / Penguin [Arnold the Pig] Ordered n/a n/a Delivered to USAF 17 Jul 89 19 Oct 90 20 Mar 98 Arrived Whiteman

AV- 3

82-1068

n/a

18 Jun 91

10 Oct 97

AV- 4 AV- 5 AV- 6 TOV&V

82-1069 82-1070 82-1071

n/a n/a n/a

02 Oct 92 05 Oct 92 02 Feb 93

22 May 99 18 Jul 97 23 May 98

AV- 7 AV- 8 AV- 9 AV-10 AV-11 AV-12 AV-13 AV-14 AV-15 AV-16 AV-17 AV-18 AV-19 AV-20 AV-21 AV-22-76 AV-77-133 AV-134165

88-0328 88-0329 88-0330 88-0331 88-0332 89-0127 89-0128 89-0129 90-0040 90-0041 92-0700 93-1085 93-1086 93-1087 93-1088

Spirit of TEXAS Pirate Ship Spirit of MISSOURI Spirit of CALIFORNIA Spirit of S. CAROLINA Spirit of WASHINGTON Spirit of KANSAS Spirit of NEBRASKA Spirit of GEORGIA Spirit of ALASKA Spirit of HAWAII Spirit of FLORIDA Spirit of OKLAHOMA Spirit of KITTY HAWK Spirit of PENNSYLVANIA Spirit of LOUISIANA

1987 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 Cancelled Cancelled Cancelled

29 Aug 94 11 Dec 93 16 Aug 94 29 Dec 94 27 Oct 94 16 Feb 95 26 Jun 95 25 Sep 95 12 Jan 95 21 Dec 95 29 Mar 96 13 May 96

31 Aug 94 17 Dec 93 17 Aug 94 30 Dec 94 30 Oct 94 17 Feb 95 28 Jun 95 14 Nov 95 24 Jan 96 10 Jan 96 3 Jul 96 15 May 96 30 Aug 96 05 Aug 97 10 Nov 97

AIRCRAFT NAMES Each stealth bomber has at least three designations. The Air Vehicle [AV] number [eg, AV-1], indicative of the aircraft's construction sequence within the stealth bomber program. The tail number [eg 82-1066] is part of the general Air Force numbering system in which the first two digits are the year in which the plane was authorized, and the last four digits are the aircraft's unique serial number. The planes also have both formal and informal names, which is an unusual [though increasingly common] practice. For a long time we had a bit of difficulty providing robust correlation among these three designation systems, since Whiteman AFB and Dave Hastings did't have their stories straight on Spirit of OHIO and Spirit of ARIZONA. While we think that we have finally gotten these ducks lined up, any additional corrections would be vastly appreciated.

Following the naval precedent in which battleships, and subsequently whatever ship the Navy regarded as its capital ship [currently ballistic missile submarines, but it was nuclear powered cruisers for a while] were named after states, operational B-2 aircraft are named after states, with the annoying exception of Spirit of KITTY HAWK. States so honored are generally those with a close association [operational, political, or otherwise] with the program. This would seem to place an upper limit of 50 on the number of aircraft that can eventually be expected to be produced, though one imagines that additional states can be admitted to the Union if the need arises. Test aircraft have a somewhat less illustrious, and less definitive, naming system. Sources vary as to the names that have at times been used in connection with these airfraft, and we provide all names that have been reportedly associated with these vehicles [with the less certain names in [] parentheses]. As they enter operational service, these aircraft are given more dignified state names, as recently happened with AV-2 Spirit of OHIO.

B-3 bomberUnder current plnas, the B-52, along with the younger B-1B Lancer and the new stealthy B-2 Spirit, will be kept around until approximately 2037, by which time the Air Force calculates that attrition will have reduced the fleet below the minimum 170 aircraft. The B-52s may fly to 2045. Based on current operating procedures, attrition models, and service lives, the total bomber inventory is predicted to fall below the required 170 aircraft fleet by 2037. This date will become the target Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date for a follow-on to the current bomber capability, and an acquisition process can be planned by backing up from this date. Based on current projections for airframe economic service life and forecast mishap rate, initiating a replacement process no later than 2013 will ensure a capability to fill the long-range air power requirement as the current systems are retired. There are, however, additional concerns besides service life and mishap rates that could shift this replacement timeline. Changes in employment concepts, driven by technological advances in munitions and threats, or improvements in industrys ability to perform cost effective major structural extensions could extend the todays bomber force well beyond current projections. This may shift the acquisition timeline for a replacement capability further into the future.

The Light Bomber (Manned) concept calls for a medium-sized aircraft that blends the advantages of a tactical fighter with a strategic bomber to develop a medium/long range, high payload capability (inter-theater) affordable bomber. The aircraft will utilize some level of low-observable technology to obtain an effective yet affordable aircraft which can provide for multiple/heavy weapons carriage and launch for missions requiring real time decision making/replanning or autonomous operations. Cost would be controlled by utilizing off-the-shelf systems and affordable stealth technologies (JSF technology). Logistic support would be enhanced by maximizing commonality of support equipment with existing systems. The Bomber Industrial Capabilities Study was directed by Congress, chartered by the DOD, and conducted by The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC). The study concluded that building a new bomber type, a B-3, could easily cost in excess of $35 billion for research and development alone (with unit flyaway costs about the same as a B-2). Technology concepts from the USAF Scientific Advisory Board's (SAB) New World Vistas and technology concepts submitted for the 2025 Study were reviewed and concepts harvested from these efforts included the Future Attack Aircraft. This concept envisions a 500-nm-range manned or unmanned aircraft that would use stealth technology (both RF and IR) to reach a target and employ laser or high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. An unmanned aircraft with a "tunable" HPM weapon could provide either the nonlethal or lethal punch SAF needs in the constabulary mission. Two concepts currently under consideration by Air Force Materiel Command include:

Multi-mission - Manned, multi-role capability, radius > 450+ range (hi-med-hi), Payload??, medium threat, Unit Flyaway Price (UFP) In July 1996, NASA selected Lockheed Martin Skunk Works of Palmdale CA to design, build and test the X-33 experimental vehicle for the RLV program. The selected team consists of Lockheed-Martin (lead by the Skunk Works in Palmdale, CA), Rocketdyne (Engines), Rohr (Thermal Protection Systems), Allied Signal (Subsystems), and Sverdrup (Ground Support Equipment), and various NASA and DoD laboratories. NASA has budgeted $941 million for the X-33 program through 1999. Lockheed Martin will invest at least $212 million in its X-33 design. Specific technology objectives of the X-33 space vehicle include:

demonstrate a reusable cryogenic tank system, including the tanks for liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX), cryogenic insulation, and an integrated thermal protection system (TPS) verify TPS durability, low maintenance, and performance at both low and high temperatures demonstrate guidance, navigation, and control systems, including autonomous flight control of checkout, takeoff, ascent, flight, reentry, and landing for an autonomously controlled space vehicle achieve hypersonic flight speeds (speeds up to Mach 15 or 18,000 km/hr(11,000 mph)) demonstrate composite primary space vehicle structures integrated with the TPS demonstrate ability to perform 7-day turnarounds between three consecutive flights (a turnaround is the amount of time required from a takeoff and flight until the vehicle is serviced, refueled, and ready to fly again) demonstrate ability to perform a 2-day turnaround between two consecutive flights demonstrate that a maximum of 50 personnel performing hands-on vehicle operations, maintenance, and refueling can successfully accomplish flight readiness for two flights.

Specific test flight objectives would include demonstration of:

successful interaction of the engines, airframe, and launch (also referred to as takeoff) facility engine performance, thrust, and throttling capability meets specifications operability and control of the X-33's flight control surfaces (canted fins, flaps, ailerons, etc.) durability of the metallic thermal protection system during repeated flights performance of the guidance, navigation, and control system performance of primary operations facilities, including takeoff infrastructure automated landing at a designated point on the runway verification of tasks required to service the vehicle on landing and prepare it for next flight in minimal time.

The reusable, wedge-shaped X-33, called VentureStar, will be about half the size of a full-scale RLV. The X-33 will not take payloads into space; it will be used only to demonstrate the vehicle's design and simulate flight characteristics of the full-scale RLV. Lockheed Martin plans to conduct the first flight test in March 1999 and achieve at least 15 flights by December 1999. NASA has budgeted $941 million for the project through 1999. Lockheed Martin will invest $220 million in its X-33 design. After the test program, government and industry will decide whether or not to continue with a fullscale RLV. The RLV will fly much like the Space Shuttle. It will take off vertically and land on a runway. However, there are differences between the two vehicles. The RLV will be a means of transport only. It will not be used as a science platform like the current Space Shuttle. Also, the RLV will be a single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft it does not drop off components on its way to orbit. It will rely totally on its own built-in engines to reach orbit, omitting the need for additional boosters. Unlike the shuttle, the RLV will use a new linear aerospike engine, which looks and runs much differently than the bell-shaped Space Shuttle Main Engine. NASA considered the aerospike engine for the Space Shuttle 25 years ago, but opted to use the Space Shuttle Main Engine, also built by Rocketdyne. The aerospike has been revived and enhanced to power the RLV. The aerospike nozzle is shaped like an inverted bell nozzle. Where a bell nozzle begins small and widens toward the opening of the nozzle like a cone, the aerospike decreases in width toward the opening of the nozzle. The aerospike is 75 percent shorter than an equivalent bell nozzle engine. It is also lighter, and its form blends well with the RLV's lifting body airframe for lower drag during flight. The shape spreads thrust loads evenly at the base of the vehicle, causing less structural weight. The half-scale X-33 test vehicle will use two smaller test versions of the aerospike, whilet the full-scale RLV will use seven aerospike engines. The X-33 main propulsion system (full system of engines and propellant tanks) consists of two J-2S aerospike engines, one aluminum LOX tank in the front, and two LH2 tanks in the rear for short- and mid-range flights. The vehicle could sustain one engine out at liftoff and still have sufficient power from the remaining engine to continue acceleration and make a safe landing at the intended runway or an abort landing area depending on where the engine out occurred

during flight. For the long- range flights an engine out situation could be tolerated approximately 30 seconds after liftoff. The X-33 was scheduled to complete its first flight by March of 1999. As of early 1999 the projected date for the X-33 rollout was May 1999, with its first flight planned for that July. The program is scheduled to be completed by the year 2000. The baseline test program would include a combined total of approximately 15 flights beginning in July 1999 and concluding in December 1999. The baseline test flight plan includes three short-range, seven mid-range, and five long-range test flights. Actual numbers of test flights to any range may vary due to changing plans and/or actual test flight data evaluation. Test flights involve: (1) launching the X-33 from a vertical position like a conventional space launch vehiclethis reduces the weight of the landing gear and wheels to only that required to support an unfueled vehicle (baseline dry weight of vehicle is approximately 29,500 kg (65,000 lb) and fueled weight of X-33 is approximately 123,800 kg (273,000 lb)); (2) accelerating the vehicle to top speeds of Mach 15 (15 times the speed of sound or approximately 18,000 km/hr (11,000 mph) and reaching high altitudes up to approximately 75,800 m (250,000 ft); (3) shutting down the engines; gliding over long distances up to 1,530 km (950 mi) downrange of the launch site followed by conducting terminal area energy maneuvers to reduce speed and altitude; and (4) landing like a conventional airplane. Optimally, the flight test plan to meet Program objectives would involve flights of approximately 160, 720, or 1,530 km (100, 450, and 950 mi). Landing sites meeting the above criteria and providing 3,050 m (10,000 ft) of hard surface are referred to as short-, mid-, and long-range landing sites, respectively. The X-33 Program prefers to land the vehicle on a dry lake bed at least for its first flight in order to have a wider and slightly safer landing area than conventional runways offer. The same philosophy was used for the Orbiter's and most X-planes' first landings. The launch site is located within Edwards Air Force Base, California. A total of fifteen launches are scheduled over a period of approximately one year. The X-33 will blast off from the site near Haystack Butte, located at the eastern edge of the Base near the AFRL/PR. Predominantly local NASA and USAF tracking and command assets will be utilized to support this phase of flight. Construction of the X-33 launch site at was completed in December 1998, just a little more than 12 months after groundbreaking. Once the X-33 is readied for flight, the engines will be fired two times on the launch pad, with the second firing having a duration of 20 seconds. The longest flight will be approximately 20 minutes at an altitude of about 55 miles. The plan is to demonstrate a 2day turnaround for the vehicle. Landing sites include Silurian Dry Lake Bed, Michael Army Air Field and Malmstrom Air Force Base. One of NASA's 747s will be used to carry the X-33 from its landing destinations back to Edwards. Silurian Dry Lake Bed near Baker, California is approximately 3000 feet wide and 12000 feet long. The lake bed will be the site of the first landing attempts for the X-33 vehicle. Three flights are scheduled to Silurian Lake that will include vehicle speeds in excess of Mach 3. The flights are scheduled to start in mid 1999.

Michael Army Airfield will be the second landing site for the X-33. This will also be the first downrange runway landing. Michael Army Airfield is part of the Utah Test and Training Range, located south of Salt Lake City. This airfield is located on the eastern boundary of Dugway. The airfield has a 3,960 m (13,000 ft) long by 61 m (200 ft) wide hard surfaced runway. Immediate surrounding terrain is relatively flat. It is a secure facility with a long history of flight operations. The airspace above Dugway Proving Ground is restricted military airspace controlled by Hill Air Force Base which manages and approves use of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). Seven flights are scheduled to Michael with vehicle speeds in excess of Mach 10. Flights are scheduled to start in the latter part of 1999. Malmstrom Air Force Base will be the third and final landing site for the X-33. The airfield was closed on Decmeber 31, 1996, except for the area used by helicopters of the Malmstrom's Air Rescue Flight. The airfield has a hard surface runway approximately 3,500 m (11,500 ft) long and 61 m (200 ft) wide with a 305 m (1,000 ft) overrun at each end. Since closure of the airfield, the USAF has no plans or budget to operate the runway. Five flights are scheduled to the Malmstrom runway with vehicle speeds in excess of Mach 15. Flights are scheduled to start in the spring of 2000.

X-34On August 28, 1996, NASA awarded to Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) a contract for the design, development, and testing of the X-34 technology testbed demonstrator vehicle. First flight was scheduled before the end of 1998. The intent of the X-34 program is to demonstrate "key technologies" integratable to the Reusable Launch Vehicle program. This vehicle was conceived as a bridge between the Clipper Graham (DC-XA) and the X-33. The contract is managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center. (MSFC) The objective of the X-34 program is flight demonstration of key reusable launch vehicle operations and technologies directed at the reusable launch vehicle goals of low-cost space access and commercial space launch competitiveness. The vehicle is being designed and developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation. It will be powered by a government-furnished engine. The main engine is a 60,000 pound thrust version of the Fastrac LOX/kerosene engine being developed by the Marshall Space Flight Center. This is a simple engine which uses a gas generator cycle, and a single turbopump based on the previously developed Marshall Simplex LOX pump. The X-34 is considerably smaller and lighter than the X-33. It is capable of hypersonice flight to Mach 8, compared with the X-33's Mach 15. Consequently, it is considerably less expensive and simpler to develop, to operate, and to modify for flight experiments. It has different embedded technologies and a different operational concept. The flight testing will focus on RLV-type operations, the embedded technologies, and technology test articles to be carried as experiments. Test-bed instrumentation will satisfy the needs for the embedded technolgoies demonstration, and for some additional experiments to be carried. Additional instrumentation requirements will be dictated by the demands of the experiments to be conducted. This test-bed vehicle is designed to be air-launched from Orbital Science's L-1011 aircraft, then accelerated to speeds up to Mach 8, reaching altitudes up to 250,000 feet. It will land horizontally on a conventional runway. The X-34 will have a wing span of 27.7 feet and is 58.3 feet long. The modular X-34 design permits easy engine removal and replacement. It may be adaptable for subsequent testing of more advanced propulsion technologies such as rocket based combined cycle, plug nozzle, pulse detonation wave rocket, and dual expansion engines. The X-34 program is divided into two phases: In Phase I, the vehicle will be designed and built, and two envelope expansion flights limited to Mach 3.8 will be made. In Phase II, 25 flight throughout the range of achieveable speeds will be undertaken during a 12month period, from locations selected to assure operational experience over a variety of weather and environmental conditions.

X-36McDonnell Douglas and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have developed a tailless research aircraft that could dramatically change the design of future stealthy fighters. Named the X-36, the vehicle has no vertical or horizontal tails and uses new split ailerons to provide yaw (left and right) and pitch (up and down) directional control. This innovative design promises to reduce weight, drag and radar signature and increase range, maneuverability and survivability of future fighter aircraft. The 28-percent scale prototype was designed, developed and produced in just 28 months for only $17 million. The X-36 began a six-month flight test program in the summer of 1996. McDonnell Douglas and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) embarked on a joint project in 1994 to develop a prototype fighter aircraft designed for stealth and agility. The result -- after only 28 months -- was a subscale tailless aircraft called the X-36. The 28 percent scale, remotely piloted X-36 has no vertical or horizontal tails, yet it is expected to be more maneuverable and agile than today's fighters. In addition, the tailless design reduces the weight, drag and radar cross section typically associated with traditional fighter aircraft. In a series of flight tests, the low-cost X-36 research vehicle demonstrated the feasibility of using new flight control technologies in place of vertical and horizontal tails to improve the maneuverability and survivability of future fighter aircraft. During flight, the X-36 used new split ailerons and a thrust-vectoring nozzle for directional control. The Ailerons not only split to provide yaw (right-left) control, but also raise and lower asymmetrically to provide roll control. The X-36 vehicle also incorporated an advanced, single-channel digital fly-by-wire control system developed with commercially available components. Fully fueled, the X-36 prototype weighed 1,300 pounds. It is 19 feet long and measures 11 feet at its widest point. It is 3 feet high and is powered by a Williams Research F112 engine that provides about 700 pounds of thrust. Using a video camera in the nose of the vehicle, a pilot controls the flight of the X-36 from a virtual cockpit -- complete with head-up display (HUD) -- in a ground-based station. This pilot-in-the-loop approach eliminates the need for expensive and complex autonomous flight control systems. McDonnell Douglas has been working under contract to NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., since 1989 to develop the technical breakthroughs required to achieve tailless agile flight. Based on the positive results of extensive wind tunnel tests, McDonnell Douglas in 1993 proposed building a subscale tailless research aircraft. In 1994 McDonnell Douglas and NASA began joint funding of the development of this aircraft, now designated the X-36. Under the roughly 50/50 cost-share arrangement,

NASA Ames is responsible for continued development of the critical technologies, and McDonnell Douglas for fabricating the aircraft. McDonnell Douglas built the X-36 with a combination of advanced, lowcost design and manufacturing techniques pioneered by the company's Phantom Works research-anddevelopment operation. Among these techniques are:

advanced software development tools for rapid avionics prototyping; low-cost tooling molds; composite skins cured at low termperatures without the use of autoclaves, and; high speed machining of unitized assemblies.

Two identical subscale research vehicles were produced by the team for use in the flight test program. Including design and production of the two aircraft and flight testing, the total cost of the X-36 program was only $17 million. A total of 25 flights, conducted by McDonnell Douglas, took place during a six-month flight test program designed to prove the aircraft's superior agility. Initial tests focused on the low-speed, high angle-of-attack performance of the X-36.

X-37 / Future X / Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV)NASA is considering asking for funding for an X-37 flight test vehicle. This will provide the agency has a sustainable research and technology program in space transportation. There will be a need for a research vehicle after X-33. And one of the facts of the hypersonic or the very high speed vehicle business is that the place to validate systems and components is in-flight. So the team at Marshall and other centers, is working to put together a sustainable research and technology program with flight demonstration, where appropriate, in the investment strategy, that is called X-37 by some. The intended objective of the program is to demonstrate the next generation of technologies. The technologies in X-33 are frozen at 1994. Assuming success at this level of technology, the future requirements of NASA and the commercial industry are going to require a next generation of technologies, and NASA would be ready to develop those and to validate them in the X-37 experimental flight program. While the X-33 is a demonstrator for Earth-to-orbit technologies, Future X demonstrators will flight test technologies for multiple applications including orbital and commercial transport, military spaceplane, human exploration, multi-stage and hypersonics research. In December 1998 NASA selected the Boeing Company, Downey, Calif., for negotiations leading to possible award of a four-year cooperative agreement to develop the first in a continuous series of advanced technology flight demonstrators called FutureX. The total value of the cooperative agreement, including NASA and Boeing contributions, is estimated at $150 million, with an approximate 50/50 sharing agreement. Work conducted under this initiative may include:

Development of core technologies for low-cost space transportation. Pathfinder vehicle flight tests to prove focused technologies that require a flight environment validation. Trailblazer vehicles integrated flight demonstrations that validate a vareity of technologies and operations, along with performance and economic feasibility. Possible concepts include all-rocket and air-breathing systems, single and twostage systems. Work under this cooperative agreement will begin immediately after successful negotiations. In addition, three companies and three NASA Centers were selected for seven Future-X flight experiments with an estimated value of $24 million. The Future-X effort is managed by the Space Transportation Programs Office at NASA's Marshall Space Fight Center, Huntsville, Ala. Future-X vehicles and flight experiments will demonstrate technologies that improve performance and reduce development, production and operating costs of future Earth-toorbit and in-space transportation systems. Under the cooperative agreement Boeing and

NASA will advance 29 separate space transportation technologies through development and flight demonstrations of a modular orbital flight testbed called the Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV). The ATV is first-ever experimental vehicle that will be flown in both orbital and reentry environments.

X-38Update: On April 29, 2002, NASA announced the cancellation of the X-38 program due to budget pressures associated with the international space station. The X-38 was two years short of completing its flight test phase. Engineers at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., and the Johnson Space Center, (JSC) Houston, Texas, were flight-testing the X-38, a prototype spacecraft that could have become the first new human spacecraft built in the past two decades that travels to and from orbit. The vehicle was being developed at a fraction of the cost of past human space vehicles. The goal was to take advantage of available equipment, and already developed technology for as much as 80 percent of the spacecraft's design. Using available technology and off-the-shelf equipment significantly reduces cost. The original estimates to build a capsule-type crew return vehicle (CRV) were more than $2 billion in total development cost. According to NASA project officials, the X-38 concept and four operational vehicles will to be built for approximately one quarter of the original $2 billion cost.

Current StatusFull-scale, unpiloted "captive carry" flight tests began at Dryden in July 1997 in which the vehicle remained attached to the NASA B-52 aircraft. Unpiloted free-flight drop tests from the B-52 began in March 1998.

Project GoalsThe immediate goal of the innovative X-38 project, was to develop the technology for a prototype emergency CRV, or lifeboat, for the ISS. The project also intended to develop a crew return vehicle design that could be modified for other uses, such as a possible joint U.S. and international human spacecraft that could be launched on the French Ariane 5 booster. In the early years of the International Space Station, a Russian Soyuz spacecraft was be attached to the station as a CRV. But, as the size of the crew aboard the station increases, a return vehicle that can accommodate up to six passengers would be needed. The X-38 design used a lifting body concept originally developed by the Air Force's X-24A project in the mid-1970's. After the deorbit engine module is jettisoned, the X-38 would glide from orbit unpowered like the Space Shuttle and then use a steerable, parafoil parachute, a technology recently developed by the Army, for its final descent to landing. Its landing gear would consist of skids rather than wheels.

Technology

Off-the-shelf technology doesn't mean it is old technology. Many of the technologies used in the X-38 had never before been applied to a human spacecraft. The X-38 flight computer is commercial equipment that is currently used in aircraft, and the flight software operating system is a commercial system already in use in many aerospace applications. The video equipment on the atmospheric vehicles is existing equipment, some of which has already flown on the Space Shuttle for other NASA experiments. The electromechanical actuators that are used on the X-38 come from a previous joint NASA, Air Force, and Navy research and development project. An existing special coating developed by NASA was to be used on the X-38 thermal tiles to make them more durable than the tiles used on the Space Shuttle. The X-38's primary navigational equipment, the Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System, is a unit already in use on Navy fighters.

Future PlansAlthough the design could one day be modified for other uses such as a crew transport vehicle, the X-38 would strictly be used as a CRV. It was baselined with only enough life support supplies to last about nine hours flying free of the space station in orbit. The spacecraft's landing would be totally automated, although the crew would be able to switch to backup systems, control the orientation in orbit, pick a deorbit site, and steer the parafoil, if necessary. The X-38 CRV had a nitrogen gas-fueled attitude control system and used a bank of batteries for power. The spacecraft was to be 28.5 feet long, 14.5 feet wide, and weigh about 16,000 pounds.

X-38 three view

An, in-house development study of the X-38 concept began at JSC in early 1995. In the summer of 1995, early flight tests were conducted of the parafoil concept by dropping platforms with a parafoil from an aircraft at the Army's Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Arizona. In early 1996 a contract was awarded to Scaled Composites, Inc., of Mojave, Calif. to build three full-scale atmospheric test airframes. The first vehicle airframe was delivered to JSC in September 1996, where it was outfitted with avionics, computer systems, and other hardware in preparation for the flight tests at Dryden. A second vehicle was delivered to JSC in December 1996.

Team ApproachSome 200 people were working on the project at Johnson, Dryden, and the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. This was the first time a prototype vehicle has been built-up in-house at JSC, rather than by a contractor; an approach that has many advantages. By building up the vehicles in-house, engineers had a better understanding of the problems contractors experience when they build vehicles for NASA. JSC's X-38 team will have a detailed set of requirements for the contractor to use to construct the CRVs for the ISS. This type of hands-on work was done by the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), NASA's predecessor, before the space age began. Dryden conducted model flights in 1995. The 1/6 scale-model of the CRV spacecraft using a parafoil parachute system was flown 13 times. The results showed that the vehicle had good flight control characteristics and also demonstrated good slideout characteristics

X-39As of early 1999, the X-39 designator is apparenty unassigned, but it is reported to be reserved for use by the Air Force Research Laboratory. The designation may be intended for subscale unmanned demonstrators planned under the Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements (FATE) program. FATE develops revolutionary technologies that will become the foundation for next generation warfighters. It will be these new systems that will provide the US with air and space superiority into the 21st century. Examples of FATE technologies include affordable low-observable data systems, active aeroelastic wing, robust composite sandwich structures, advanced compact inlets, photonic vehicle management systems, self-adaptive flight controls and electric actuation. Each of the major airframers has performed a long-range study on nextgeneration aircraft. A subset of the national Fixed Wing Vehicle (FWV) Program, FATE was structured with three phases:

FATE I, Phase I: Define a set of aircraft technologies that must be flight test validated in a new air vehicle to meet FWV Phase I program goals for a fighter attack class of aircraft, including both inhabited and uninhabited aircraft. FATE I, Phase II: Develop preliminary vehicle design concepts, a demonstrator system, and demonstration plans. FATE II: Develop, build and flight-test a demonstrator vehicle to achieve program goals. FATE I, Phase I was used as a jump start for the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Advanced Technology Demonstration [UCAV ATD] that will replace the FATE activity.

Military Spaceplane X-40 Space Maneuver Vehicle Integrated Tech TestbedAir Force interest in military spaceplanes stretches back nearly 40 years. This has taken the form of science and technology development, design and mission studies, and engineering development programs. Examples of these activities include: the first Aerospaceplane program and Dyna-Soar/X-20 program (late 1950s-early 1960s); X-15 hypersonic and X-24 lifting body flight test programs (late 1950s through early 1970s); Advanced Military Space Flight Capability (AMSC), Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV), and Military Aerospace Vehicle (MAV) concept and mission studies (early 1980s); the Copper Canyon airbreathing single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) feasibility assessment and the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program (1984-1992); SCIENCE DAWN, SCIENCE REALM, and HAVE REGION rocket-powered SSTO feasibility assessments and technology demonstration programs (late 1980s); and, most recently, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's Single-Stage Rocket Technology program that built the Delta Clipper-Experimental (DC-X) experimental reusable spaceplane. Industry sources are being sought to develop critical technologies for future military spaceplanes using ground based advanced technology demonstrations. The first step is envisioned to include a streamlined acquisition that develops, integrates and tests these technologies in an Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT). Due to constrained budgets, the Air Force is seeking innovative, "out of the box", industry feedback and guidance to: 1) develop and demonstrate key military spaceplane technologies, 2) ensure competitive industry military spaceplane concepts are supported via critical technology demonstrations, and 3) ensure a viable, competitive military spaceplane industrial base is retained now and in the future. The primary objective of the ITT is to develop the MSP Mark I concept design and hardware with direct scaleability: directly scaleable weights, margins, loads, design, fabrication methods and testing approaches; and traceability: technology and general design similarity, to a full-scale Mark II-IV system. The ITT is intended to demonstrate the technologies necessary to achieve systems integration within the mass fraction constraints of Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles. In addition, the ITT will meet the military operational requirements outlined in the MSP SRD. The ITT is an unmanned ground demonstration. The Mark I demonstrator is also envisioned to be unmanned. The Military Spaceplane (MSP) ITT ground demonstration consists of an effort to develop a computer testbed model. It may also include options for multiple technology, component and subsystem hardware demonstrations to support and enable the acquisition

and deployment of MSP systems early in the next century. Although the ITT is not a flight demonstrator, it is anticipated that critical ground Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD) components and subsystems shall be designed, fabricated and tested with a total systems and flight focus to demonstrate the potential for military "aircraft like" operations and support functions. The latter point refers to eventual systems that 1) can be recovered and turned around for another mission in several hours or less on a routine basis, 2) require minimal ground and flight crew to conduct routine operations and maintenance , 3) are durable enough to sustain a mission design life of hundreds of missions, 4) are designed for ease of maintenance and repair based on military aircraft reliability, maintainability, supportability and availability (RMS&A) standards including the use of line replaceable units to the maximum extent possible, and 5) can be operated and maintained by military personnel receiving normal levels of technical training. The ITT effort is envisioned to culminate with a vigorous integrated test program that demonstrates how specific components and subsystems are directly traceable and scaleable to MSP system requirements and meet or exceed these operational standards. The testbed itself shall be a computer sizing model of the Military Spaceplane. Input parameters include mission requirements and all of the critical component, subsystem and system technical criteria. Output are the critical design features, size, physical layout, and performance of the resulting vehicle. The computer model shall be capable of modeling the technology componenta, subsystems and systems demonstrated characteristics and the resulting effect(s) on the Military Spaceplane vehicle concept design. Although the ITT is required to show analytical component and subsystem scaleability to SSTO, the contractor may also show scaleability and traceability to alternative MSP configurations. Those alternatives may include two stage to orbit (TSTO) configurations. The ITT is using SSTO as a technology stretch goal in the initial ground demonstrations. However, a future Military Spaceplane can use either single or multiple stages. The contract structure for ITT is anticipated to be Cost Reimbursement type contracts with possible multiple options and a total funding of approximately $125-150M. Due to initial funding limitations, the minimum effort for the contract is anticipated to consist of a broad conceptual military spaceplane design supported by a computer testbed model. However, should funding become available, additional effort may be initiated prior to the conclusion of the testbed model design. Offerors will be requested to submit a series of alternatives for delivery of major technology components and subsystems as well as an alternative for subsystem/system integration and test. Upon direction of the Government through exercise of the option(s) the contractor shall design, fabricate, analyze, and test Ground Test Articles (GTAs), and provide a risk reduction program for all critical technology components, subsystems and subsystems assembly. The contractor will prepare options for an ITT GTA designs which satisfy the technical objectives of this SOO, including both scaleability and traceability to the Mark I and Mark II-IV vehicles. These design shall be presented to the Government at a System Requirements Review (SRR). The contractor shall use available technologies and innovative concepts in the designs, manufacturing processes, assembly and integration process, and ground test. Designs shall focus on operational simplicity and minimizing

vehicle processing requirements. The contractor shall provide the detailed layout and systems engineering analysis required to demonstrate the feasibility and performance of the Mark I vehicle as well as scaleability and traceability to the Mark II-IV vehicles. The low cost reusable upper stage (i.e., mini-spaceplane) is envisioned to be an integral part of an overall operational MSP system. The contractor shall use the ITT to implement the initial risk reduction program that mitigates risks critical to developing both the Mark I and Mark II-IV MSP configurations. The ITT shall mitigate risks critical to engineering, operability, technology, reliability, safety, or schedule and any subsequent risk reduction program deemed necessary. The program may include early component fabrication, detailed vehicle integration planning or prudent factory and ground/flight testing to reduce risks. The Technology levels will be frozen at three points in the Military Spaceplane Program (MSP): At the ITT contract award for the Ground Demonstrator, at contract award for any future Flight Demonstrator, and at contract award for an orbital system EMD. Since the ITT is not a propulsion demonstration/integration effort there are two parallel propulsion efforts. One in NASA for the X-33 aerospike, and one in the AF for the Integrated Powerhead Demonstration ( IPD). It is anticipated th