Boeing ATB

Boeing ATB

The B-2 Spirit originated from the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) black project that began in 1979.[7] The Cold War was long underway, and on the campaign trail in 1979 and 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan promised to restore American military strength. On 22 August 1980, the incumbent Carter administration publicly disclosed that the Department of Defense was working to develop stealth aircraft including the ATB.[8] In 2007, it was revealed publicly that MIT scientists helped assess the mission effectiveness of the aircraft under classified contract during the 1980s.[9]
First public display of B-2
The B-2's first public display in 1988

After the evaluations of the companies' proposals, the ATB competition was reduced to the Northrop/Boeing and Lockheed/Rockwell teams with each receiving a study contract for further work.[7] Both teams used flying wing designs. The Northrop design was larger while the Lockheed design was smaller and included a small tail.[10] The black project was funded under the code name "Aurora".[10] The Northrop/Boeing team's ATB design was selected over the Lockheed/Rockwell design on 20 October 1981.[7][11]

The Northrop design received the designation B-2 and the name "Spirit". The bomber's design was changed in the mid-1980s when the mission profile was changed from high-altitude to low-altitude, terrain-following. The redesign delayed the B-2's first flight by two years and added about US$1 billion to the program's cost.[8] An estimated US$23 billion was secretly spent for research and development on the B-2 by 1989.[12] At the program's peak, approximately 13,000 people were employed at a dedicated plant in Pico Rivera, California for the aircraft's engineering and portions of its manufacturing.[13]
B-2 in flight
The B-2's first public flight in 1989

The B-2 was first publicly displayed on 22 November 1988, at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, where it was assembled. This initial viewing was heavily guarded and guests were not allowed to see the rear of the B-2. Its first public flight was on 17 July 1989 from Palmdale.[14]
[edit] Procurement

A procurement of 132 aircraft was planned in the mid-1980s, but was later reduced to 75.[15] By the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had disintegrated, which effectively rendered void the Spirit's primary Cold War mission. In light of budgetary pressures and congressional opposition, in his 1992 State of the Union Address, President George H.W. Bush announced B-2 production would be limited to a total of 20 aircraft.[16] In 1996, however, the Clinton administration, though originally committed to ending production of the bombers once the 20th aircraft was completed, authorized the conversion of a 21st bomber, a prototype test model, to Block 30 full operational status at a cost of nearly $500 million.[17]

In 1995 Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566M each.[18]
[edit] Espionage

In 1984 a Northrop employee, Thomas Cavanaugh, was arrested for trying to sell classified information to the Soviet Union, which apparently was smuggled out of the Pico Rivera, California factory.[19] Cavanaugh was eventually sentenced to life in prison and released under parole in 2001.

Noshir Gowadia, a design engineer who worked on the B-2's propulsion system, was arrested in October 2005 for selling B-2 related classified information to foreign countries. His trial was initially scheduled for 12 February 2008, but he received a continuance.[20] On 9 August 2010, Gowadia was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on 14 of 17 charges against him. Sentencing had been set for 22 November 2010.[21]
[edit] Program costs
In a 1994 live fire exercise near Point Mugu, California, a B-2 drops forty-seven 500 lb (230 kg) class Mark 82 bombs, which is more than half of a B-2's total ordnance payload

The program was the subject of public controversy for its costs to American taxpayers. In 1996 the General Accounting Office disclosed that the USAF's B-2 bombers "will be, by far, the most costly bombers to operate on a per aircraft basis", costing over three times as much as the B-1B (US$9.6 million annually) and over four times as much as the B-52H ($US6.8 million annually). In September 1997, each hour of B-2 flight necessitated 119 hours of maintenance in turn. Comparable maintenance needs for the B-52 and the B-1B are 53 and 60 hours respectively for each hour of flight. A key reason for this cost is the provision of air-conditioned hangars large enough for the bomber's 172 ft (52.4 m) wingspan, which are needed to maintain the aircraft's stealthy properties, especially its "low-observable" stealthy skins.[22][23] Maintenance costs are about $3.4 million a month for each aircraft.[24][verification needed]

The total "military construction" cost related to the program was projected to be US$553.6 million in 1997 dollars. The cost to procure each B-2 was US$737 million in 1997 dollars, based only on a fleet cost of US$15.48 billion.[3] The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in General Accounting Office (GAO) reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars.[3]

The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts. The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft.[3]
[edit] Opposition

In its consideration of the fiscal year 1990 defense budget, the House Armed Services Committee trimmed $800 million from the B-2 research and development budget, while at the same time staving off a motion to kill the bomber. Opposition in committee and in Congress more largely was broad and bipartisan, with Congressmen Ron Dellums (D-CA), John Kasich (R-OH), and John G. Rowland (R-CT) authorizing the motion to kill the bomber and others in the Senate such as Jim Exon (D-NE) and John McCain (R-AZ) also opposing the project.[25]

The growing cost of the B-2 program, and evidence of flaws in the aircraft's ability to elude detection by radar,[25] were among factors which drove opposition. At the peak production period specified in 1989, the schedule called for spending US$7 billion to $8 billion per year in 1989 dollars, something Committee Chair Les Aspin (D-WI) said "won't fly financially."[26]

In 1990, the US Department of Defense accused Northrop of using faulty components in the flight control system. Efforts have also been made to reduce the probability of bird ingestion, which could damage engine fan blades.[27]

In time, a number of prominent members of Congress began to oppose the program's expansion, to include former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry who cast votes against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992 while a United States Senator representing Massachusetts. By 1992, Republican President George H.W. Bush called for the cancellation of the B-2 and promised to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.[28]

In May 1995, on the basis of its 1995 Heavy Bomber Force Study, the DOD determined that additional B-2 procurements would exacerbate efforts to develop and implement long term recapitalization plans for the USAF bomber force.

In October 1995, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Mike Ryan, and Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, strongly recommended against Congressional action to fund the purchase of any additional B-2s, arguing that to do so would require unacceptable cuts in existing conventional and nuclear-capable aircraft to pay for the new bombers,[29] and because the military had much higher priorities on which to spend its limited procurement dollars.[30]

Some B-2 advocates argued that procuring twenty additional B-2s would save money because B-2s would be able to deeply penetrate anti-aircraft defenses and use low-cost, short-range attack weapons rather than expensive standoff weapons. However, in 1995, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and its Director of National Security Analysis, found that additional B-2s would reduce the cost of weapons expended by the bomber force by less than US$2 billion in 1995 dollars during the first two weeks of a conflict, which is when the Air Force envisions bombers would make their greatest contribution. This is a small fraction of the US$26.8 billion (in 1995 dollars) life cycle cost that the CBO projected an additional 20 B-2s would cost.[31]

In 1997, as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee and National Security Committee, Congressman Ron Dellums (D-CA), a long-time opponent of the bomber, cited five independent studies and offered an amendment to that year's defense authorization bill to cap production of the bombers with the existing 21 aircraft. The amendment was narrowly defeated.[32] Nonetheless, Congress did not approve funding for the purchase of any additional B-2 bombers.
[edit] Upgrades

In 2004, Northrop Grumman tested a new alternate high-frequency material (AHFM) for use as a Radar-absorbent material coating for the B-2.[33]

In 2008, the US Congress funded upgrades to the B-2s weapon control systems for hitting moving targets.[34]

On 29 December 2008, Air Force officials awarded a production contract to Northrop Grumman to modernize the B-2 fleet's radar. The contract provides advanced state-of-the-art radar components, with the aim of sustained operational viability of the B-2 fleet into the future. The contract has a target value of approximately US$468 million.[35] The award follows successful flight testing with the upgraded equipment. A modification to the radar was needed since the U.S. Department of Commerce required the B-2 to use a different radar frequency.[36] It was reported on 22 July 2009 that the B-2 had passed the second of the two USAF audit milestones associated with this upgraded AESA radar capability.[37]

On 28 April 2009, an Air Force/contractor team verified that the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) would fit in the B-2's bomb bay.[38]

The Air Force Research Laboratory has developed a new material to be used on the part of the wing trailing edge that is subject to engine exhaust to replace the current material that degrades.[39]