GovernmentExecutive.com

To secure hundreds of millions of dollars in an increasingly competitive budget environment for upgrades to its B-2 stealth bomber, Northrop Grumman Corp. is touting the plane's airframe as the ideal starting point for development and testing of the Air Force's next-generation long-range strike aircraft.

The defense giant hopes the service will agree to install new technologies intended for the next-generation bomber in the existing fleet of 21 B-2s, and company executives are urging officials to set aside a significant funding stream for upgrades over the next decade.

With plenty of power and space onboard the aircraft, the B-2 is a "good platform for bringing down the risks for the next-generation bomber," Dave Mazur, Northrop Grumman's vice president for long-range strike, said at a briefing for reporters Tuesday.

Northrop is now installing new digital communications and a specially formulated coating on the planes to reduce maintenance time, as well as a rack for smart bombs that allows the plane to drop 80 independently targeted weapons -- five times the previous capacity. But the company also is hoping increase the bombers' effectiveness and lethality by getting more "kills" per sortie and improving its ability to hit hard, deeply buried targets.

"As the threat starts to get better, we have to get better, bottom line," Mazur said.

But recognizing that defense dollars could be strained over the next several years, Mazur added that Northrop Grumman is looking for ways to boost the B-2's capabilities without draining the Air Force's pocketbook. The level of funding needed for many of the upgrades, probably on the order of $100 million to $200 million, will not be a "hard pill to swallow for the government," he asserted.

The B-2, first produced in 1989, is the Air Force's only platform for survivable, long-range, large-payload strike capability. Mazur stressed that B-2 upgrades could address critical capability shortfalls until the next systems are ready for combat more than a decade from now.

But he also said the next-generation strike platform will not replace the B-2, but rather be a complementary system that will serve a different role from the B-2. The defense industry is eagerly anticipating the Air Force's detailed planes for its next long-range strike program, expected in the next several months.

Mazur said Tuesday he expects Northrop Grumman to compete for the program, which the Air Force intends to field between 2018 and 2020.

COMMENTS

• Taxpayer, I do actually agree with you. I hope we never have to use the nukes. As a submariner carrying those around, we all felt that if we ever had to launch them, we had failed in our mission. (But that does not mean we wouldn't have done it.) However, if we don't have the guts to use them because of world opinion, then this paper tiger may as well shut up and stay home, which of course is where the next battles will be fought. Other countries do not have to agree with us, nobody has ordained so we are always right, and we need to stop being the world’s policeman, but mess with us, we take you and your supporting infrastructure out. Maybe the first round is conventional, but if that does not get your attention, the second round will. Besides, we only have to do it once to prove we will and the world will settle back down and let the diplomats solve the problems, whatever they come up with is better than that option. Ted Posted December 5, 2006 7:52 AM
• Ted, I hope we never use the nukes and we probably should reduce the number of them we have and start using our funds to build nuclear reactors to generate power instead of continuing the oil, gas and coal burning power plants that increase greenhouse gases and pollute the air with mercury and other bad stuff that drives our health bills up and up. I do not agree that we need to advance the B1 or B2 that now flies from Missouri to the Middle East (a 24-hour flight) for bombing runs of a few minutes before they return for more bombs (refueling over the Atlantic with obsolete refuelers). This is extremely costly and ineffective and if we ever meet a worthwhile enemy, this system will prove very ineffective and subject to great easy attach -- just knock out the tankers and the bombers will never make it there or home! We could spend our money much more effectively elsewhere. Taxpayer Posted December 1, 2006 7:49 AM
• Taxpayer, You are right, and not so right. What we really need is the intestinal fortitude to use the nukes we have. Tell the world, you hit us, we take you out. Then we found out who really hit us, and take them out too. If our allies don't like the policy, tough. If our enemies don't like it, so what? They don't like us anyway, and they now have a very vested interest in protecting the United States from their state sponsored terrorist organizations. However, since that will never happen, we can't wait till someone else develops it and then play catch-up. At least this plan is better than starting from scratch with a brand new plane that we don't need. Ted Posted November 30, 2006 7:35 AM