Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

quellish said:
Yes, there is not a line in START I that says "The B-2 cannot carry ALCMs".

START I limited the total number of weapons and how they were counted. The implementation of START I had severe effects on the US heavy bomber force to preserve the other components of the strategic triad and its modernization.

- All but 71 B-52s were to be destroyed
- The efforts to certify the B-1B to carry ACM and ALCM were stopped.
- Plans for the B-2 to be certified to carry the ACM and ALCM were also stopped.
- Reduced production of the ACM



The 1 or 2 B-1Bs that could carry cruise missiles for flight testing carried external... things that could be verified by national technical means. There is no reason the same could not be done with the B-2.
Click to expand...

My point stands -- not banned by treaty, but by a set of constraints the US adopted. There were other ways we could have sliced things that would have allowed B-2;to be a CM carrier, but they would have been strange choices

And I'd definitely say that a suitable visual mod for the B-2 would be much harder than for earlier aircraft, because it would inherently alter the RCS reducing geometry.
 
According to the AFM Stealth publication 2014, on page 57 (end of first column) it states that the B-2 was qualified to AGM-129s up to 2012 when they were withdrawn.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a video about how a B-2A Spirit sunk a target in the RIMPAC2024 exercise held earlier this year using a Quicksink JDAM:


During a massive series of Maritime wargames called RIMPAC 2024 held earlier this month, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber demonstrated a new relatively low-cost — but extremely effective — means of engaging even large enemy warships dubbed QUICKSINK. This weapon, which could be thought of as an anti-ship JDAM, has significant implications for the future of naval warfare, so let's talk about it.
Click to expand...
 
B-2 returns to Edwards for more development testing:

In addition to functional upgrades, a focus for the new campaign will be testing the integration of open mission systems architecture, known as Spirit Realm 1.

Assistant Director of Operations with the 419th Flight Test Squadron, Maj. Stephen Henderson, flew the B-2 back to Edwards on its anniversary.

“This is the first time that we are going to do agile software development with Spirit Realm, so that is a big change for us,” he said. “We are projected to work on that heavily this fall.”
[...]
“It’s a very big deal that higher levels in Air Force leadership decided we would be able to get the test jet back because the B-2 has a small fleet dynamic,” Maj. Henderson said. “So the fact that they were willing to give up one of their jets to do test really speaks to the importance of what we are looking to accomplish and hopefully get those new capabilities out to the warfighter as quickly as possible.”
Click to expand...

www.edwards.af.mil

B-2 Returns to Edwards on 35th Anniversary of First Flight

Edwards Air Force Base revisited a significant chapter of aviation history with the return of the B-2 Spirit on July 17, 35 years since its first flight from Air Force Plant 42, in Palmdale,
www.edwards.af.mil

Great video embedded in the link Crank up the volume!
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Wouldn´t that be more an R&D airframe instead of one for continuous development?
Click to expand...
As @quellish mentioned they have to rotate if they're all on a 9-year depot cycle. That said, I'd expect them to rotate from the first six, to avoid adding to much orange wire when they swap. The press blurb from ED has a bit in there from the OT guys, so it's sounds like it's a second airframe to accelerate OT&E.
 
NGC got $7B for B-2 upgrades and support and the B-2 is going to be around a while. I'm sure B-21 LO has probably begun working its way to the B-2, evolution my friends.
 
Is there a retirement date for B-2? It seems like half the B-1s will be retired first and then the B-2s are next. It would only take a couple years of full rate to replace the fleet.
 
The B-2's should have at least a 50 year life, plenty of life in the airframe and will see many upgrades. The primary, future strike mix:
B-21
B-2
CCA (of different platform types beginning with small (Increment I) then medium (Increment II). If the current plans hold up.
Add-in the B-52s with the new motors and a few younger B-1s which have good airframe life since they were not used much over their career but will also get upgrades.
 
Hydroman said:
The B-2's should have at least a 50 year life, plenty of life in the airframe and will see many upgrades. The primary, future strike mix:
B-21
B-2
CCA (of different platform types beginning with small (Increment I) then medium (Increment II). If the current plans hold up.
Add-in the B-52s with the new motors and a few younger B-1s which have good airframe life since they were not used much over their career but will also get upgrades.
Click to expand...
The B-2 fleet is scheduled for retirement in the early 2030s. The USAF plans a two bomber fleet based on B-21 and B-52...
The B-1 and B-2 fleets are on track for retirement by the early 2030s.
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force lays groundwork for major changes to bomber fleet

The Air Force is moving to a two-bomber fleet of B-21s and Cold War-era B-52s, and plans to retire B-1s and B-2s in the next decade.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Hydroman said:
The B-2's should have at least a 50 year life, plenty of life in the airframe and will see many upgrades. The primary, future strike mix:
B-21
B-2
CCA (of different platform types beginning with small (Increment I) then medium (Increment II). If the current plans hold up.
Add-in the B-52s with the new motors and a few younger B-1s which have good airframe life since they were not used much over their career but will also get upgrades.
Click to expand...

USAF has explicitly stated it cannot afford a four bomber force and strongly implied B-2s get cut as well once sufficient B-21s are available.

Based on the scheduled updates to bomber bases, it looks like half the B-1s get retired first, consolidating parts and personnel at one base across two dozen aircraft, and that then the B-2 fleet is retired. The LRIP and EMD B-21s are probably sufficient for the first step; a 2-3 years of full rate probably does the second. It seems to me that would see the B-2 removed by ~2033, with the rest of the B-1 fleet retired shortly after. That’s my read based on the scheduled base improvements. I suspect Bomber numbers do not significantly increase until replacement is completed.
 
Last edited:
www.twz.com

Questions Linger Over Australia's Role In B-2 Spirit Strikes On Yemen

We now know that Australian air bases were used to support the Yemen strikes, although officials are tight-lipped about which aircraft types used them and how. We now know that Australian air bases were used to support the Yemen strikes, although officials are tight-lipped about which aircraft...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
This article makes it sound like the B-2 can carry the 5000lb bunker busters. GBU-28 or -72.

I didn't think that anything but the Strike Eagle carried those?
Click to expand...
It has been able to carry 5,000lb bunker busters for a long time, I read about it in the Air Forces Monthly 'Stealth' magazine back in 2014. IIRC it can carry 8 in total, 4 in each bay on the RLAs.
 
Didn't knew that Australia had a border with Yemen. Then again, in the 1960's TSR-2 vs CVA-01 debate, Australia had been on the move by a few hundred miles. That was 60 years ago, maybe that drift has gotten out of control in the past decades ?

(I'll see myself out)

More seriously: https://www.distance.to/Tindal,Northern-Territory,AUS/Sana'a,YEM

"Only" 10 000 km, for a B-2 that's a walk in the park. Still this begs the question why didn't they staged the attacks out of Diego Garcia ? Much closer.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Didn't knew that Australia had a border with Yemen. Then again, in the 1960's TSR-2 vs CVA-01 debate, Australia had been on the move by a few hundred miles. That was 60 years ago, maybe that drift has gotten out of control in the past decades ?

(I'll see myself out)

More seriously: https://www.distance.to/Tindal,Northern-Territory,AUS/Sana'a,YEM

"Only" 10 000 km, for a B-2 that's a walk in the park. Still this begs the question why didn't they staged the attacks out of Diego Garcia ? Much closer.
Click to expand...
I would assume perhaps it sends a message to other parties about the ability to stage B-2s out of Australia right now.
 
Forest Green said:
It has been able to carry 5,000lb bunker busters for a long time, I read about it in the Air Forces Monthly 'Stealth' magazine back in 2014. IIRC it can carry 8 in total, 4 in each bay on the RLAs.
Click to expand...
Huh, that's been kept relatively quiet. 4 per RLA makes sense due to weight.


Archibald said:
Still this begs the question why didn't they staged the attacks out of Diego Garcia ? Much closer.
Click to expand...
Does DG have the big climate-controlled hangars that B-2s need?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Does DG have the big climate-controlled hangars that B-2s need?
Click to expand...

There were detectable shelters there just for the B-2, four of them I believe. Plus if we are just talking about a hot pit refueling, shelter does not matter. Typically B-2s just fly to and from the Whiteman; they generally only make stop overs for message sending. Tindal makes a lot of sense for use in the westpac, as it is out of range of just about any Chinese missile short of an ICBM or cruise missile launched over Indonesia, while being within the B-2s unrefueled combat radius of the South China Sea.
 
The biggest problem of DG Screenshot_20241111_172419_edit_187257238017161.jpg is that the harsh climatic conditions are unsuitable for long-term deployment, mostly as a medium-duty station, and the second core of the future in the Asia-Pacific region will be Yandal Air Base in Australia
 
trajan said:
with a squad of three B52s bombing Viet Cong concentrations almost every 30 minutes at the height of the fighting.
Click to expand...

IIRC the B-52 was the US weapon the VC feared the most as the first thing you knew you were being carpet-bombed was when 500Lb and 750Lb started detonating around you in the jungle (The bombs were supersonic by the time they impacted the ground).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom