Posted on 09/18/2002 12:41:35 AM PDT by HAL9000
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (UPI) -- The Air Force is making arrangements to erect special shelters for B-2 bombers on the British military base on Diego Garcia, an island in the north Indian Ocean, an arrangement that will dramatically increase the utility of the long-range bomber in the event of a war with Iraq, a defense official confirmed Tuesday.The plan to establish a base for the aircraft on Diego Garcia has been under consideration for the last three years and is not directly tied to possible hostilities with Iraq, the official said.
Nevertheless, having B-2s able to fly from Diego Garcia and return to that base for refueling, crew rest and maintenance will greatly increase the number of bombing runs the $2 billion stealthy aircraft can generate.
"There are a lot of targets appropriate for the B-2 in Iraq, a lot more than in Afghanistan," the official said.
B-2s took part in the opening days in the war in Afghanistan, flying a total of six bombing runs directly from Whiteman AFB, Mo. The round trip took nearly 70 hours, as the planes headed west across the Pacific to avoid having to secure overflight rights over the Middle East. It bombed its targets then preceded to Diego Garcia, where it refueled, crews changed out and the aircraft returned back to Missouri -- without its engines ever being turned off.
"Why would you want to have a 70-hour mission when you could do it from there?" the official said.
The reason it made such a long trip: the B-2 radar absorbing skin requires special humidity and temperature-controlled conditions for repairs. Once the skin is repaired and cured, it can sit outside with no extra protection, Air Force officials told United Press International. That kind of facility does not exist on Diego Garcia.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper refused to comment on the arrangements being made with the British.
"We're treading on operational ground," Jumper said. "But we are on very good terms with the British government and have several agreements with them. The B-2 is obviously fundamental to our concept of operations."
"Any forward basing concept has the effect of being able to multiply the number of sorties," Jumper said.
Two years ago the Air Force awarded American SpaceFrame Fabricators of Crystal River, Fl, a $12 million contract to build four shelters, each of which is 125 feet wide, 250 feet long and 55 feet high. The shelters are supposed to be able to be constructed within one week on a runway, although in one test in June it took more than 30 days to build it, according to service documents. In September it ordered four more upgraded shelters and expects a total buy of 13.
The Air Force selected a Royal Air Force base at Fairford in the United Kingdom; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Diego Garcia to host forward deployed B-2s. Fairford and Diego Garcia need the shelters, as Anderson has adequate hangars in place already.
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
I still can't believe the Chinese got their hands on an F-117A because of the Bent One.
The fact that they spent the money for the autoclaves and special hangars needed to service the B-2's composites (and probably most other systems as well) means they're settling in for a long stay. This is a significant, and positive, development!
Hardly. A carrier air wing can deliver much more ordnance at a fraction of the cost.
Before we give it a HARM salvo, or afterwards?
The B-1 can carry more, faster, although not quite as high as the B-2. The B-1 can carry 24 JDAMs compared to 16 for the B-2 and 12 for the B-52. Plus there are about 4 times as many B-1's, so the capability of putting a lot of iron on the target rests with the B-1B's.
I don't think so but instead of just making an accusation and running away how about providing some reputable facts to rebut what I've written about that piece of junk B-2.
Not true. All B-2 flights over theater in Allied Force following the F-117 shootdown on 27 March 1999 were escorted by two EA-6Bs as a requirement. Prior to that they were not. Every B-2 flight over Afghanistan was escorted by two EA-6Bs. Suggest you read the August 2000 issue of Proceedings, the 26 July 1999, 15 November 1999 and 2 October 2000 issues of Aviation Week. You also might want to speak with the aircrews who were stationed at Aviano who were required to escort B-2s, something which was not in the original OOB.
2. The required Maintenance Man Hours per Flight Hour as of 1999 (including Kosovo) is 32.11. Not 60-80.
As of 2001 the Air Force in testimony before Congress stated that the number was 45.8. However, that figure should be taken with a healthy dose of salt considering the Air Force's track record in telling the truth and their accounting practices. The tech reps at Grumman Northrop, who don't answer to the taxpayer and don't testify before Congress, tell a different story and the ~60-80 hours is more credible. Even if the overly optimistic estimate of 32.11 were true, it still is way too high.
3. While the total program cost of developing and procurring the B-2 was $44.7 billion, the actual unit cost is $1.157 billion.
Again, one has to take your number with a heavy dose of salt. The $2 billion/copy price has more veracity based on the numbers provided by both GAO and Northrop Grumman. Even at the "bargain price" of $1.157 billion a copy, they're a rip off. A plane that costs that much money should be able to deploy anywhere a B-52 or B-1 can, fly in all weather conditions, perform the mission that people claimed it would be able to, possess quick turn around capability, be able to defend itself fighting it's way to and from the target and be equipped with an onboard toilet.
With regard to man hours per flight hour, you reveal an obvious bias against the Air Force that is artificially coloring your arguments. But that aside, when you compare the B-2 MMHFH to other tactical aircraft your point becomes moot. The F-18 has one of the best maintenance records of any US combat aircraft and still requires about 25 MMHFH. The EA-6B requires over 50 and don't even ask about the F-14. And none of those aircraft have to contend with the LO technology which makes up the bulk of the B-2 maintenance hours. Let's say for the sake of argument your original estimate (60-80) is accurate. Considering a single B-2 can carry the same load as 8 combat configured F-18's, you've actually got a very large net decrease in the number of man hours required per target serviced.
With regard to your cost per unit discussion... I think you've missed the whole point of the B-2 if you are arguing it should be just as deployable as the B-1 and B-52. The fact that it can strike any target in the world, without having to deploy is one of its key strongpoints. In Kosovo it was the only aircraft that was able to drop its weapons on days when entire strike packages were scrubbed due to weather. Its 98% mission capable rate produced a 96% mission success rate which was far and away better than any other aircraft flown in Kosovo. It proved a much more flexible weapon than the rather cumbersome carrier battle group it is often compared to. The Roosevelt carrier battle group wasn't even able to make it until 2 weeks after the air war in Kosovo kicked off (which partially explains the small role the Navy played in the total operation). Furthermore, when you add up the total cost of a carrier battle group, the B-2 ends up looking CHEAP. Take a carrier, its embarked wing, all the escort and supply ships and required logistics, and compare that to a single base in Missouri that can reach out and touch anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours.
Anyway, the B-2 is an awesome aircraft...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.