The B-2 Bomber Is Still Getting "Game-Changing" Upgrades As Focus Shifts To The B-21

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,749
The B-2 Bomber Is Still Getting "Game-Changing" Upgrades As Focus Shifts To The B-21
The upgrades the B-2 and its sustainment program are getting now will have a direct influence on the capabilities of the B-21 in the future.
AUGUST 22, 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...changing-upgrades-as-focus-shifts-to-the-b-21

Excerpts:

The War Zone recently had a chance to visit Northrop Grumman's facilities at the Air Force's Plant 42 complex as part of an event to mark the 30th anniversary of the first flight of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. Northrop said it has and continues to leverage lessons from the B-2 program to support work on the new B-21 Raider, but also highlighted how it is still adding "game-changing" capabilities to the existing Spirits, including major upgrades as part of the Defensive Management System Modernization program, as well as improving the processes for sustaining and maintaining the bombers. America's stealth bombers still have many years of life left in them and will find themselves flying alongside B-21s, at least for a period, as the Air Force begins to take delivery of the new aircraft in the next few years.

In July 2019, U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Stephen Wilson revealed that the service is looking toward the B-21 making its first flight in December 2021. The first examples are expected to enter operational service sometime in the mid-2020s. It seems very probable, if not likely, that some form of risk reduction prototype or test articles have already flown as part of the Raider's development. Northrop Grumman's RQ-180 reconnaissance drone may have also served a dual purpose in supporting this development. U.S. Air Force Major General James Dawkins, head of Eighth Air Force, the service's top strategic bomber unit, declined to comment on whether the first B-21s would eventually have a pilot-optional capability as outlined in the original requirements when we asked him after the ceremony.

In the meantime, the B-2s will continue to be a vital component of the Air Force's strategic bomber force and Northrop Grumman continues to modernize those aircraft, as well as improve the maintenance and sustainment processes to keep fleet going. The stealth bombers are high-demand, but low-density assets that have complex time- and resource-intensive maintenance and logistics requirements. All this contributes to the high operating costs for the B-2, which recent reports say is presently around $122,000 per flight hour.

Each B-2 has to go through a programmed depot maintenance cycle every nine years, which includes a general overhaul and a complete reapplication of the aircraft's special radar-absorbing material skin and paint job. The bombers used to have to go to the depot in seven-year intervals, but improvements to the specialized coatings and other components have given them extended service life. Robotic tooling to help install parts and apply coatings, which helps improve consistency and quality control, has also contributed to this added flying time between depot visits.

Northrop Grumman says the entire depot process takes a year, but that it has been able to speed up the basic work, again through the use of robotic systems. What this means is that the company now includes various upgrade work in each trip to the depot, which helps to reduce costs and improve availability rates. At present, the 19 combat-coded B-2s have a mission capable rate just over 60 percent. An additional bomber is at Edwards Air Force Base in a non-combat test capacity. Two of them, roughly 10 percent of the fleet, are at Plant 42 for depot work at any one time.

Past B-2 modernization projects have included new communications equipment and improved avionics. The latest major upgrade effort, which is going on right now, is the Defensive Management System
Modernization (DMS-M) program.

"By leveraging ‘state-of-the-art’ electronic warfare antennae, processors, controller, and displays, B-2 aircrews will realize unprecedented situational battlespace awareness and dynamic, real-time threat avoidance in the most complex radio frequency emitter environments," is how the Air Force has described the updates in budget documents in the past. "The inherent increased sensitivity of the modernized DMS over the legacy system, with increased processing power, will build a battlespace picture that could be shared with joint force platforms by onboard communication systems."

The DMS-M upgrades will allow crews to rely less on rigid mission planning and be more readily able to change their routes and tactics on the fly based on situational threat information. Electronic warfare systems will provide an additional set of tools to ensure the B-2s can get to their targets even as potential opponents, especially Russia and China, continue to improve their integrated air defense networks and develop potential countermeasures to detect and engage stealth aircraft.

In addition, there has also been talk over the years about adding additional defenses, including hard-kill anti-missile systems, using either physical interceptors or directed energy weapons, on various U.S. military aircraft. Northrop Grumman itself has a patent for an anti-missile interceptor system for stealthy aircraft, which The War Zone has explored in detail in the past.



 
I love the B-2, it was by far one of the coolest things I've gotten to touch in my life. That said, the supply chain is so jacked up it's amazing we even have a 60% mission capable rate. We had a huge back log of LRUs waiting on single cards from depot, some for over a year. Many were for ridiculous things like a fuse on a card (due to another unit down the chain failing, not an issue with the card itself) that we had previously repaired at the back shop level before having the ability to do so revoked. Nothing like having hundreds of thousands of dollars of hardware sitting idle on the shelf because we couldn't do a 10 min job and had to send the cards to sit on someone's desk at depot until they got around to it. Any system upgrades were a nightmare logistically as well.

I'm sure I don't understand the whole picture, and maybe I'm wrong, but making defense a business seems to be a terrible idea.
 
I'm sure I don't understand the whole picture, and maybe I'm wrong, but making defense a business seems to be a terrible idea.
Problems I saw, although it wasn't about the B-2, were caused by poor planning and fund allocation on the government side of the equation although there was certainly what appeared to be price gouging on the commercial side due to often necessary single sourcing.
 
Years ago there was a low level B-2 flyover at a TARC event. It was an amazing experience.
 
How come it's the B-21 and not the B-3?
Looks a lot like the B-2 doesn't it?
Hopefully easier and more economical to keep it flying.
I'm saving a spot on the shelf for the plastic model.
IMG_20190826_064151.jpg
 
Last edited:
How come it's the B-21 and not the B-3?
Looks a lot like the B-2 doesn't it?
Hopefully easier and more economical to keep it flying.
Good question:

Q: Why did they name it the "B-21 Raider" instead of the B-3?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-they-name-it-the-B-21-Raider-instead-of-the-B-3

Answer:

It is “21” for the 21st century, and Raider because they like the way the name evokes the Doolittle raid (and, unspokenly, the idea of a secret, surprise, largely unimpeded attack on an Asian homeland. ie, China.)

The USAF wanted some good marketing, and chose a combination of hamfisted symbology and saber rattling over logic and style, which would have dictated that it be something like B-3 Shadow. Which if you ask me amounts to bad marketing. But hey, it’s the USAF, and it is naming something. “Fighting Falcon”, anyone?

The Navy similarly called some of its notional ship classes 21 or other numbers pulled out of the air, such as the CVN-21 (for the 21st century) or the DDG-1000 (because high round numbers sound impressive), and the USAF for a time tried to call the Raptor the F/A-22 to emphasize the fact that it actually does have a modest air-ground capability. I guess so they can tell congressional staffers that “it’s actually all in the name,sir/m’am.”

But hopefully it will end up as the B-3 someday…

Answer:

There was supposedly a USAF press release that stated "The designation B-21 recognizes the [Long Range Strike Bomber] as the first bomber of the 21st century". The raider part came from "Doolittle Raider"

Found it:

“While there are no existing prototypes of the aircraft, the artist rendering is based on the initial design concept. The designation B-21 recognizes the LRS-B as the first bomber of the 21st century.”

Hopefully easier and more economical to keep it flying.

That's the plan from lessons learned with the B-2.



 
Depot maint. and upgrades for the B-2, as well as depot maint. for the B-21 will be done at Tinker AFB in Okla. City. I live next to the southern approach to the base, so I get to see wonderful pieces of our hardware every day. Looking forward to seeing more flying wings!
 
I saw B2s fly over Omaha twice. I was up at my Mom's farm years ago back when step-dad was still alive and saw a low flying K-135 refueling a B2 flying over. That was a major like wow!
 
Problems I saw, although it wasn't about the B-2, were caused by poor planning and fund allocation on the government side of the equation although there was certainly what appeared to be price gouging on the commercial side due to often necessary single sourcing.
Yeah, I'm definitely not saying the gov was free of blame at all. I do think they're responsible for it to getting to the point it was, but I'm not sure that frees defense contractors from being at blame for taking full advantage of the system.

From my understanding we had very strict repair contracts on Northrop's side that set a quota of cards/units to be repaired monthly. They stuck to these and it resulted in a large backlog.

I totally get the single sourcing/small run parts issue, it's not cheap to make a handful of something for sure. Some of it was completely ridiculous, though. That said, I remember scrolling though GSA and looking at ridiculously priced hammers and brooms that could be had at a fraction of the cost anywhere else.
 
Yeah, I'm definitely not saying the gov was free of blame at all. I do think they're responsible for it to getting to the point it was, but I'm not sure that frees defense contractors from being at blame for taking full advantage of the system.
The problem being with the system being imperfectly set up and allowing that. Patriotism and ethics aren't sufficient deterrents to prevent price gouging any more and were never 100% effective anyway. There was even gouging in WWII.

I totally get the single sourcing/small run parts issue, it's not cheap to make a handful of something for sure. Some of it was completely ridiculous, though. That said, I remember scrolling though GSA and looking at ridiculously priced hammers and brooms that could be had at a fraction of the cost anywhere else.
IMPAC cards (gov't credit card) allow purchases like that to be made anywhere. A smart move on the government's part. You occasionally read about scumbags misusing them, but I think the overall savings are probably huge. A remaining, stupid incentive is the "use it or get less next year" end of fiscal year spending spree.
 
The problem being with the system being imperfectly set up and allowing that. Patriotism and ethics aren't sufficient deterrents to prevent price gouging any more and were never 100% effective anyway. There was even gouging in WWII.

IMPAC cards (gov't credit card) allow purchases like that to be made anywhere. A smart move on the government's part. You occasionally read about scumbags misusing them, but I think the overall savings are probably huge. A remaining, stupid incentive is the "use it or get less next year" end of fiscal year spending spree.
You're right, it's absolutely the government's problem, it's still frustrating to see.

We were able to find suitable substitutes from non GSA sources in most cases, but I remember the process being a total headache. IIRC we had to go thorough a card holder in the squadron and it was a pain. Especially when we'd spend frivolously on things that weren't necessary but when we actually needed something it was difficult to procure that item. Yeah, we had a 50" TV in our break room for "presentations" because we had money left over one year...
 
While I am sure some price gouging goes on, lots of its is pretty much out of the companies control. Once I worked with making some screws for a satellite. Basically, we originally planned on purchasing some rather strange dimensioned multi-material fasteners for a satellite. However, between the time they were specified for the project and when we tried to order them, the company that originally made them had already destroyed the necessary equipment and were out of stock. We only needed 8 of these basically glorified screws, but after all the support equipment and man-hours, they probably cost around 10 grand. We cranked out a few dozen more since most of that was sunk cost, but since we really weren't planning on using those fasteners ever again, we ended up destroying the support equipment too.

I'm sure this is the case for lots of the parts needed for the maintenance of a fancy military aircraft such as the B-2.
 
Another common issue is overspecifying requirements, especially when using boilerplate. Stuff like requiring that non-combatant ships needing to meet shock requirements as if they were going to get missiles lobbed at them. I have a current project with a Navy auxiliary boat that will never leave the continental US that is required to meet a higher damaged stability standard than a ferry rated for 2500 passengers.
 
Back
Top