Effort to Revive B-2 Bomber Takes Wing : Aerospace: Congress is being asked to buy more of the Stealth bombers. Thousands of jobs hinge on the decision.

As the last B-2 Stealth bomber winds its way through the giant assembly hangar at the Northrop Grumman Corp. plant in Palmdale and 22,000 B-2 jobs nationwide fall into a post-Cold War abyss, the bombers’ proponents have embarked on a broad campaign to continue production.

Against formidable political odds, the lobbying effort is attempting to sell the Pentagon and Congress on a plan for 20 additional B-2s for $12 billion--cheap by historical B-2 standards but a mountain of gold for the cash-starved Defense Department. The first batch of 20 bombers is costing $44 billion, which includes research and development.

There are two key arguments for making more B-2s: The nation must not abandon its unique production capability for Stealth bombers, and only the B-2 can respond to international crises quickly and without jeopardizing many members of the U.S. military. Both assertions evoke bitter dispute.

“The role of the bomber has been elevated, not diminished by the end of the Cold War,” said Gen. John M. Loh, the Air Force’s combat aircraft commander. “Nothing has the range and the payload of the bomber or the sense of immediacy, able to strike in 10 to 12 hours anywhere in the world.”

The goal is for the Air Force to buy B-2 bombers much like the Navy buys nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers--essentially at a slow but nonstop pace, rather than in large batches, which inevitably leads to contentious political battles.

The B-2 campaign would be much tougher were it not for the California economy, which has loomed large over congressional actions this year. According to a UCLA analysis, 30,000 direct and indirect jobs in California supported by the B-2 will be lost under the current program over the next six years. But additional B-2 orders would preserve about 13,000 of those jobs.

Northrop’s success will depend in large measure on the political will of the California delegation, which appears this year to be born again on the merits of big-ticket military programs that can underpin the state’s still-weak economy.

California representatives flexed their muscles two weeks ago in a vote to increase purchases of the C-17 cargo jets, dealing a harsh setback to Rep. Ron Dellums, the Oakland Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

“We have all been hit in the face with the recognition that aerospace in California is a real driver of the economic health of the state,” said Northrop’s new B-2 chief, Ralph Crosby, who cites a long list of California Democrats who support the B-2.

Of course, B-2 opposition is stiff. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has charged that the B-2 “has been more able to penetrate the Treasury than any enemy line.”

Selling more B-2s seemed virtually impossible a year ago, so its prospects have clearly improved. But the plane, designed to escape detection by enemy radar, has avoided any new technical problems in recent years that would have doomed further orders.

The chairmen of three key military committees in Congress support buying more B-2s, and some senior Air Force officials have expressed support for the B-2 in defiance of official Pentagon policy against buying more.

Earlier this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in secret session to provide $150 million for future B-2 production by preserving special tools at subcontractors.

Coming up with $150 million is painless compared to the ultimate bill of $12 billion, however. That would require drastic steps, such as reducing C-17 production, canceling the Lockheed F-22 fighter or eliminating a Navy carrier--the kinds of sacrifices that would bloody the Capitol or lead to a “real food fight,” as one House staff member put it.

B-2 proponents have begun laying the intellectual groundwork for the battle, arguing at a Center for Security Policy seminar this week that the B-2 can project U.S. power around the globe more forcefully than Navy carrier battle groups.

The B-2’s ability to carry large conventional bombs and deliver them with precision anywhere in the world “is equal to nuclear deterrence and even better, because we are likely to use it,” said Donald Hicks, a former defense official and Northrop consultant.

*

As the United States withdraws from bases in Europe and Asia, its forces will increasingly operate from this country. Naval aviation came out of the 1980s defense buildup without a single new class of plane, leaving the service with an air fleet that will have less range to penetrate inland.

Loh suggests that the Pentagon pay for the added bombers by reducing spending on think tanks, spacecraft and supply depots. He worries that Air Force power is eroding below what is necessary to carry out the Clinton Administration’s avowed mission of fighting two major regional wars simultaneously. At present, the Air Force has just 80 operational bombers, for example, Loh said.

Opponents, however, bristle at the idea that the Pentagon should buy more bombers. It is facing a funding crisis, taking on too many programs and being saddled with responsibility for many non-defense roles, such as spending for defense conversion, they say. By some estimates, the Pentagon has $100 billion more in commitments over the next five years than it has funding.

Neil Singer, a defense expert at the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that although 20 more B-2s may cost only $12 billion to buy, they would end up costing another $88 billion to operate over the next 20 years. That would require eliminating three of the Navy’s carrier battle groups, for example.

Aside from military power issues, B-2 proponents argue that the nation must preserve the unique manufacturing technology for large Stealth aircraft, much as it is buying submarines to keep General Dynamics’ Electric Boat shipyard open in Groton, Conn.

The idea is a huge departure from historical practice, in which producers of fighters or jetliners built bombers as needed. But the technology is different today, the B-2 supporters say.

“If you don’t think that’s the case, all you have to do is look at the A-12,” said Hicks, referring to the Navy’s disastrous effort to build a Stealth bomber using contractors that had no Stealth experience.

At the bomber seminar this week, former Pentagon officials such as James Schlesinger, Caspar Weinberger and Paul Wolfowitz offered ideas that supported more B-2 production. And Frank Miller, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, allowed that “bombers may be the system of choice if we ever have to cross the nuclear threshold in a regional contingency.”

Such tough issues will take years to debate and evaluate--long past the window for buying more B-2s. Northrop hopes to preserve the option of producing more B-2s while the debate goes on.