(B-2 bomber-not attrition friendly)
The small USAF B-2 fleet puts in about 4600 flying hours per year.
USAF has just issued a $9.9B, 5-year contract for B-2 sustainment and upgrades.
In April Northrop Grumman completed a preliminary design review of a new software package for the B-2. The software, known as the USAF's 'Flexible Strike Phase 1' programme, was created to streamline weapons management on the platform. The aircraft currently have several standalone software programmes that each manage a specific mission, and the ongoing simplification will reduce maintenance costs, and increase reliability, according to Northrop Grumman.
The company also began software and hardware upgrades to the aircraft's Lockheed Martin AN/APR-50 defensive management system (DMS) in February. In October 2012 Northrop Grumman completed field installations of the B-2's active electronically scanned array (AESA)-upgraded Raytheon AN/APQ-181, under the radar modernisation programme.
Other enhancements to the B-2 include improvements to the cockpit weapon interfaces to accommodate new munitions, such as the Small Diameter Bomb II, and Massive Ordnance Penetrator; the fitting of enhanced communications; and the installation of a Universal Armament Interface.
23000 flying hours for 5 years = $430,000 per flight hour. This is fair since they are unwilling to tell how much of that money is sustainment and how much is upgrade.
This is a nice pay-day.
The B-2 is unsurvivable vs. emerging threats. It may have broad-band stealth, but it is sub-sonic. The idea of penetrating a modern air defense is unrealistic vs. a variety of sensors. When detected, it can't run.
So, use it for stand-off attack? That is a lot of money for something other aircraft can do. Hey, it was used in Libya...against a decrepit air defense system.
MOAB? Big deal, we have won wars without it. Nuke alert? Cruise missiles.The B-2 has always been undergoing upgrades and it appears the vendor likes it that way.
The B-2 does not give us any wonderful capability for the money spent. We could win wars without it. And the capability it does give is not needed at any price.
Its original design requirement was to make a one way nuke strike against the Soviets.
What could the USAF better use $9.9B for?
When you add up all of the bad defense projects in the current budget (F-35, LCS, $3B USMC flat-tops without a well-deck, DDX, $15B aircraft carriers, a variety of other things from all services), the U.S. instead could have sensible weapons systems and still have money left over to sustain them and spend on combat training.
Again I say, do not believe it when the DOD says it has trouble making ends meet.
No comments:
Post a Comment