It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B2 Bomber to get massive upgrade

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
It's also used for time of day broadcast.




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


what were they going to do thirty years ago if they had to drop nuclear weapons?

I thought Dr. Strangelove answered that pretty well. With B 52's that is.

After being attacked by a nuclear missile the only option to make target was flying by the seat of their pants at tree top level. Any higher and it would get shot off.

I know B2 is "stealthy" but remember, if you can see it you can shoot it down. Bosnia should have been a lesson. F117's were downed there and they have a lot smaller profile than a B2.

Does the B2 have ground avoidance radar to fly at tree top level?

edit on 26-6-2014 by intrptr because: quote



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptrF117's were downed there and they have a lot smaller profile than a B2.


I assume you're meaning visual profile?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Sounds more like «REVEALING» the capabilities of this 30 years old ugly bird rather than «UPGRADING» as the military technologies are always half a century ahead of public knowledge.


I wonder what is more they are willing to let out next…



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Bosnia was only 1 shot down, and that was due to poor planning. The b2 is a lot stealthier than an F-117.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Not to derail. The thread is up now. Look up KIT and princess and the pea.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Kratos40

The nuclear blast would block normal communications, due to the interference it would put out. VLF will go through it, but the problem is that the B-2 was designed to carry those nuclear weapons that create that interference. So once it dropped them, prior to now, it would be unable to communicate after. This is something that they should have thought of 30 years ago when they designed it.


Thank you Zaphod, I always learn something new with you. I'm a molecular/cellular biologist by education and training and so it's nice to learn something new from a different field.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Its only invisible to radar and heat seekers. If you can see it you can hit it.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
nothing we have today will be viable in 2058... come on...

First this is propaganda - boosting the b2 like its something from star wars... and second 2058... really? 2058? With technology advancing the way it has been... with simple cellphones being able to hijack drones? Not really.

That kind of "stealth" is old stealth... what we need now is "cloak". If we cant come up with that in the next 30 years, then damn are we a retarded species considering the advances we've made in one century alone. So they're saying, basically that, considering the past 100 years of technological breakthroughs that plane will last for the next 40.

Thats impossible. I could bet my money on it.

Thats pure propaganda BS trying to "sell" the B2 - no matter what upgrade it gets - because if it gets "cloak" tech, then every freakin plane since the wright brothers can get it, so... theres nothing special about the B2. What the engines? You can make it better in 40 years. The software? You better hope so. Then what? The range? The payload... oh come on... 40 years... lol

What a bunch of bs. This is just made to make the everyday joe goe "wooah we go' ourselves so much bettah stuff that it can last for the next 40 years"... thats for you and bubba to believe now.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
nothing we have today will be viable in 2058... come on...

First this is propaganda - boosting the b2 like its something from star wars... and second 2058... really? 2058? With technology advancing the way it has been... with simple cellphones being able to hijack drones? Not really.

That kind of "stealth" is old stealth... what we need now is "cloak". If we cant come up with that in the next 30 years, then damn are we a retarded species considering the advances we've made in one century alone. So they're saying, basically that, considering the past 100 years of technological breakthroughs that plane will last for the next 40.

Thats impossible. I could bet my money on it.

Thats pure propaganda BS trying to "sell" the B2 - no matter what upgrade it gets - because if it gets "cloak" tech, then every freakin plane since the wright brothers can get it, so... theres nothing special about the B2. What the engines? You can make it better in 40 years. The software? You better hope so. Then what? The range? The payload... oh come on... 40 years... lol

What a bunch of bs. This is just made to make the everyday joe goe "wooah we go' ourselves so much bettah stuff that it can last for the next 40 years"... thats for you and bubba to believe now.


Did you mean 2018? The B1 is going to be replaced by the LRS-B (known as the 2018 bomber). But this is just heresay.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Why not? The B-52 has been in service for 60 years now...



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
Why not? The B-52 has been in service for 60 years now...


The b-52 from today has nothing to do with the b-52 from 1946...

If thats your (and their) idea of how long a certain weapon, vessel, plane, whatever can last, and just call it "upgrades" then... just call it Enterprise and go from the 1700s and say "hell this ship will probably last till the 23rd century with "upgrades"...." ... of course the first doesnt has anything to do with last one but... since they share the name hey "why not... the Enterprise has been in service for 5 centuries now..."

@Kratos

Yea I've been hearing about that "B3" for quite a while... but I never got it if thats made to replace the B1 or the B2 because they're 2 different purpose beasts.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: FraternitasSaturni



The b-52 from today has nothing to do with the b-52 from 1946...


You're right, the B-52 in 1946 was straight winged and had 6 engines.

But he's not talking about the 1946 B-52, because that would be 70 years old, no he's talking about the 1950's B-52, the one that's 60 years old.

Those 60 year old planes are still flying today, the last ones were made in 1961, so the newest are still over 50 years old, and the airforce plans to keep using them for another 30 years.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: FraternitasSaturni



The b-52 from today has nothing to do with the b-52 from 1946...


You're right, the B-52 in 1946 was straight winged and had 6 engines.

But he's not talking about the 1946 B-52, because that would be 70 years old, no he's talking about the 1950's B-52, the one that's 60 years old.

Those 60 year old planes are still flying today, the last ones were made in 1961, so the newest are still over 50 years old, and the airforce plans to keep using them for another 30 years.


Ok... then... We really need a serious war to see something new I guess...



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FraternitasSaturni

There's new stuff out there, there's quite a few being speculated on here at the moment and I can't help but feel we'll see one or two very soon.

Interestingly, as of 2008, 38% of all the airforce's aircraft was older than 24 years.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

Perfect illustration of: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The cold war thinking for the B-2 Spirit was probably after it launches it's nuclear payload communications are not important, it just flies back to base.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
The cold war thinking for the B-2 Spirit was probably after it launches it's nuclear payload communications are not important, it just flies back to base.


I was waiting for someone to say that. What difference does it make if it can't communicate after dropping its bombs? It will have two nukes it drops on primary and secondary targets. Then it flies home. There's nothing that they could say to it to change anything unless whiteman is wiped out. But by then the Russians will have launched its nukes at the US and it wouldn't matter anyway.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Ok, since apparently no one is going to get it, here it is.

The B-2 was originally designed to be a high altitude nuclear armed bomber, dropping nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union. It was designed 30 years ago. If it's JUST NOW getting a communication system that allows EAMs to go through nuclear detonations, what were they going to do thirty years ago if they had to drop nuclear weapons?


a) give them orders on papers when they took off
b) use the previous system which did the same thing, until its code was cracked by the Chinese/Russians.
c) It is not getting a communication system for EAMs through nuclear detonations, because it already has one for 30 years. The contractor will in fact be installing active ECM (unusual on stealth, but if detection systems are getting better and better....) or Something Else with the money
d) some Congressman On A Committee has a District and so they have a License To Waste Money
e) It is some undisclosed platform other than B-2 which is actually getting this communication system installed

how did I do?
edit on 27-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Think about this:

Who uses VLF?
Why is VLF used?
Why would you need to only receive?





top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join