Proposal for new USAF bomber

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3adb12160a-0761-48d4-934d-1e63742fa25b

The study's lead author, Mark Gunzinger, said Tuesday that there were two main surprises that popped out of the work done by CSBA. The first was the importance of the strategic "framework" to long-range strike studies. Most earlier studies have been based on a post Cold War framework in which regional bases are available, carriers are secure and there is no challenge to space. But, he says, "our competitors have gone to school on the American way of warfare" and as a result, in future conflicts, carriers will be held 1000 nm off the coast and land bases will be pushed back.

The second surprise was that Gunzinger and other CSBA contributors expected the bomber analysis to revolve around classic choices: manned/unmanned, standoff/penetrator, or the degree of stealth. "In some cases these were false choices and in other cases there was no choice necessary," Gunzinger says.

 

 

Report [PDF]