B2 Bomber to get massive upgrade

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
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.

the F117 could be shot down using the SA-11 missile system using more then one radar due to its faceted shape.

The radar would ping the aircraft and not bounce back 180 degrees but there would be weaker bounce at other angles..
By using two or more radars (bi-static system)you could get a return signal better then one radar could.

The B-2 uses a lot better radar absorbing material and gives almost no return a any angle.

www.strategypage.com...

a reply to: ANNED

And the new bomber makes the B-2 look like a legacy bomber.

a reply to: FraternitasSaturni

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

I think the world can suffer along with seeing the old if it means a serious war to see a little new.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

And we have a winner! Without being able to communicate, the B-2 has to do its own hunting.

It sounds like this upgrade is meant for underground facility hunting, not something in the event of nuclear war. I would assume that given the budget environment, massive upgrades for immediatly practical things would be prioritized, such as the ability to find and destroy North Koreas/Irans UGFs.

a reply to: quatro

I wonder why would they use such an expensive and quantity-limited platform like B-2 for that task? A smaller UAV seems like the right one---a deep underground facility isn't getting up and moving anywhere.

a reply to: mbkennel

Because Iran and NK is "denied" airspace, and it's the only (known) LO platform that can carry the MOP. If Iran is building underground nuke facilities, the B-2 will be the only thing that can hunt for and carry the hardware to destroy it without getting shot down.

a reply to: quatro
Not with modern day network-centric warfare and battlefields...

a reply to: weavty1

Even with those factored in, you're not going to get a B-1 or a B-52 through, or other platforms that could be used to hunt the facilities. Stealth is the best way to do it, and it works.

originally posted by: quatro
a reply to: mbkennel

Because Iran and NK is "denied" airspace, and it's the only (known) LO platform that can carry the MOP. If Iran is building underground nuke facilities, the B-2 will be the only thing that can hunt for and carry the hardware to destroy it without getting shot down.

I understand the bombing part, it's a bomber.

My question is why use the B-2 to hunt? That could take much longer than an in-out mission at high cost and risk. Any underground facility isn't going anywhere? If you're hunting, a number of light UAV's each with a EM sensor is better than one expensive manned bomber with a high payload.

I guess my conclusion is that unless we're on the wrong track, the VLF detection stuff isn't going on a B-2 but something which resembles it vaguely.

a reply to: mbkennel

B-2s have been used to do recon for other B-2s recently. They work, and do the mission well, better than many UAVs, and are more flexible.

originally posted by: Kratos40

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?

Maybe I get it now. The nuclear explosion would release an EMP-like interference and the bomber would not be able to communicate while within this range. Now we can, and it will get better when the AEHF comes online.

EMP has always fascinated me...I have a question though, and you'll have to forgive my ignorance...so...why wasn't the Enola Gay's (THE B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb) electronics, and electrical circuits, knocked out while they were airborne, and so close to the initial detonation?

a reply to: jimmyx

They were so primitive that there was nothing really for the EMP to knock out.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: quatro
a reply to: mbkennel

Because Iran and NK is "denied" airspace, and it's the only (known) LO platform that can carry the MOP. If Iran is building underground nuke facilities, the B-2 will be the only thing that can hunt for and carry the hardware to destroy it without getting shot down.

I understand the bombing part, it's a bomber.

My question is why use the B-2 to hunt? That could take much longer than an in-out mission at high cost and risk. Any underground facility isn't going anywhere? If you're hunting, a number of light UAV's each with a EM sensor is better than one expensive manned bomber with a high payload.

I guess my conclusion is that unless we're on the wrong track, the VLF detection stuff isn't going on a B-2 but something which resembles it vaguely.

I considered that, but I assume they want a platform that can both hunt and kill. I wouldn't be surprised if other new platforms had the same or similar capability baked in, but it seems as though the B-2 has always been something that they want to be able to operate pretty much on it's own. Maybe Zaphod knows more about that.

a reply to: quatro

A B-2 that could hunt on its own would be invaluable. Especially over China, or deep in Russian territory, where UAVs would be hard to range. Now if you have B-2s that could either hunt on their own, or wolfpack together and hunt in packs, their effectiveness just got multiplied exponentially.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jimmyx

They were so primitive that there was nothing really for the EMP to knock out.

And also significant EMP is generated only from ionospheric/orbital bursts as the effect requires interaction with charged plasma in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jimmyx


And also significant EMP is generated only from ionospheric/orbital bursts as the effect requires interaction with charged plasma in the atmosphere.

Sorry mb that's just not true, very significant and damaging EMP is generated by a nuclear explosion, atmosphere or not. I agree that orbital bursts can have far more significant effects at long range due to the 'focusing' effect of the earth's magnetic field but if you're within 10 miles of a nuclear explosion with unshielded sensitive electronic equipment you're in trouble. The Enola Gay's electronics would have been valve based, valves or vacuum tubes are far less sensitive to EMP than semi-conductors used in modern electronics.

Cheers
Rob