Posted on 03/30/2006 5:19:36 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
PALMDALE: Northrop Grumman Corporation has completed an upgrade of the U.S. Air Force's B-2 stealth bomber that allows the aircraft to deliver five times its previous capacity of independently targeted, “smart'' (GPS-guided) weapons. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the B-2, which remains the only long-range, large payload aircraft that can penetrate deep into protected airspace. Combined with superior airspace control provided by the F-22 Raptor and global mobility provided by tanker aircraft, the B-2 ensures an effective U.S. response to threats anywhere in the world.
The SBRA upgrade program enhances the B-2's ability to respond to current and emerging worldwide threats as a key element of the military's network-centric warfare concept.
(Excerpt) Read more at defencetalk.com ...
The mission capable rate is so low only because someone keeps keying the paint job while it's parked.
Increased the number of smart weapons that could be programmed from the cockpit. 500lb vs. 2,000lb.
The payload is still the same, just a different mix.
Question: does the enhanced payload, regardless of the size of the bombs..mean that the bomb-bay doors are deployed longer, which then makes the B-2 visible on enemy radar, and thus more vulnerable? This would NOT seem to be an issue over Afghanistan, for example... where the new technology is an obvious force multiplier, because there is no threat to the B-2 from the ground..but sending the plane over Iran, to target scattered nuke sites...well, if the plane is unstealthy five times longer than before..( am I correct in assuming it would take 5x as long to eject 5x the # of bombs?) there would seem to be much greater risk to the aircraft..
The addition of payload was not without compromise. I understand they had to shrink the jacuzzi and cut the bar down to two taps.
Methinks the old B-52 is probably still the all-time champ in delivered ordnance capacity tonnage.
IIRC, shills for the Bush Administration were griping that Clinton wasted Tomahawks on "tents and camels". By putting up five times the ordnance to loiter over theater, we can go back to gratuitous pot-shots at "tents and camels". That should put the fear of god in the perps that the world needs fewer of
And yes, with the new generation of gps munitions being so accurate, they will do. They average anti-tank missile only carries around 10 pounds of HE.
There's even talk of smart "bombs" without explosives at all.
Imagne a 100lb or 500lb iron slug/penetrator hitting a tank from 10,000 feet. Does the damage and almost no collateral damage.
Armament: NUCLEAR
16 B61
16 B83
16 AGM-131 SRAM 2 CONVENTIONAL
80 MK82 [500lb]
16 MK84 [2000lb]
34-36 CBU87
34-36 CBU89
34-36 CBU97
PRECISION
216 GBU-39 SDB [250lb] (b-52 max loadout ONLY 51 500 pounders)
80 GBU-30 JDAM [500lb](compared to 51 on B52)
16 GBU-32 JDAM [2000lb]
8 GBU 27
8 EGBU 28
8 GBU 36
8 GBU 37
8-16 AGM-154 JSOW
8-16 AGM-137 TSSAM
2 MOP / DSHTW / Big BLU
Payload: 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms)
Crew: Two pilots
Unit cost: Approximately $2.1 billion [average]
Date Deployed: December 1993
Inventory: Active force: 21 (planned operational
aircraft); ANG: 0; Reserve: 0
Wonderful! Now we can "accidentally" hit 5 times the number of Chinese embassies!
Now, if we ever have to go against the Chinese (or for that matter a country that has some modicum of real capability) then it would make sense for the Spirit to have such a low readiness level (after all they have to make sure that it's VLO nature is at tip-top shape). However the US hasn't faced a competent military in several decades now. The Iraqis in the first Gulf War 'performed' better than they did this time, but they were still woefully inadequate to deal with the US; and the Yugoslavian Clinton debacle did show that those guys could come with ingenious stratagems, such as using clever camouflage to make black plastic look like roads and bridges from above, using microwaves to simulate radar sites, and making us think we bombed hundreds of tanks when the real number was far lower ......but the result was still the same, namely a curb-stomping by Uncle Sam.
We haven't faced a really competent and capable enemy in a long time, with China being the only one that has potential (in the future) to being significantly more capable than the various nations we have had to spank.
I understand that the Iraqi desert was littered with sound systems that made noises like approaching helicopters and MI-1A Abrams...
The Brits did that very thing with concrete smart bombs near the end of the active conflict in Iraq. IIRC, they took out one tank under a bridge that way.
With these type of upgrades the only thing that will meet allah is a small amount of vapor. ;D!
They would rarely drop them all at once. And those rotary racks can spit bombs out really really fast.
I would think they would open and close the bay to drop them in small batches for different targets.
I am always amused by the image of the guy at the enemy radar site...
"Sir we have a contact! No... wait... Its gone now."
"Oh $&*@%!"
The B-2's only advantage is it's "stealth" capability, which, as the article states, is only useful in places where the US hasn't established air superiority. Once they have, then the B-52 would be superior "mission capable".
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.