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.

 

The B-2

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Can somebody find me a cockpit image and tell me the more than few secrets behind this aircraft, it has appealed to me to be one of my favorites. Im 15 years old and have been admiring military aviation since I were 5. And im on the track of the B-2 now.. Ive heard such things as chemicals being added to the exhaust to wipe away the vapor trails..and the high voltage at the leading edge...can somebody tell me more about this aircraft ?? I would be very pleased.. Thanks once again

Creamsoda




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Tu-160 ' Blackjack ' is better.


Date deployed: 1985, Unit cost: $200+ million
Maximum Speed: 1275 km/h (M1.2 sea level)
Ceiling: 9000 m
Range (km): 12000
Power Plant : Four General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner
Thrust: 13600 kg with afterburner, per engine
Dimensions (m): 44.5 x 10.4 x 41.8/24.1 m
Wing Area: 181.16 m2
Weight (kg): 86,183/214,650
Crew: Four (aircraft commander, pilot, offensive systems officer and defensive systems officer)
Manufacturers: Rockwell International, North American Aircraft Operations Air Frame and Integration: Offensive avionics,
Boeing Military Airplane; defensive avionics, AIL Division
Inventory: Active force, 50 (PAA) 84 (actual); ANG, 10 PAA (11 actual)
Armament: payload: 29030 kgs
84 Mark 82 conventional 500-pound bombs,
30 CBU-87/89/97 or nuclear weapons


W. (tons): 275
Combat load weight (tons): 9'000/40'000
Speed (km/h): 1'100/2'230
Dimensions (m): 35,6/55,7 x 54,1 x 13,1
Service seiling (m): 18'000
Range (km): 10'500/14'600
M./Engine: 4 DRTD-NK32, 4 x 25'500 kgs
Fuel weight (kg): 148'000
Man./Crew: 4
Concrete runway lenght (m): 3'050
Armament: 24 AA Kh-15
12 AS Kh-55 (strategic cruise), aerial bombs (40 tons)
Electronics: highly computerised systems: intergrated aiming, navigation, flight control systems (navigation and attack radars, electronic countermeasure, and full automatic controls; fly-by-wire controls

Both great planes, the ' Blackjacks ' sheer speed makes it the better bomber, in my eyes.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I think he was talking about the B-2 not the B-1B vs. the Tu-160.

Edit: the Tu-160 is a killer plane, but the tilt on the tail contol surfaces when the hydraulics are powered down always looked weird to me.

[edit on 12/11/04 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
"Air & Space Smithsonian" magazine has a 360 virtual reality panoramic view of the inside of the B-2's cockpit.
Here's a link to the VR B-2 Cockpit, you will need quicktime installed on your computer and it will take a dial-up about 4 minutes to download, a cable modem about 45 seconds.
Enjoy....
Here's a link to the story about how they got the panoramic view of the cockpit.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I think he was talking about the B-2 not the B-1B vs. the Tu-160.

Edit: the Tu-160 is a killer plane, but the tilt on the tail contol surfaces when the hydraulics are powered down always looked weird to me.

[edit on 12/11/04 by FredT]


He was.

On the B-1 ssubject though, the B-1A was capable of speeds in excess of the Tu-160, the B-1B traded that speed for a lower radar cross section (I believe it was something like 80% lower - a very big difference). In every other aspect the B-1B is a superior aircraft. (Not to mention it was actually deployed in numbers and is still a vital part of the US bomber fleet)



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
LOL! Kenshin, the Tu-160 was designed after the B-1 and the B-1 is still superior.




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The Tu-160 Blackjack is allot better than the B-1B


Allot better at getting shot down
especially by the raptor



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
The Tu-160 Blackjack is allot better than the B-1B


Allot better at getting shot down
especially by the raptor





posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
The Tu-160 Blackjack is allot better than the B-1B


Allot better at getting shot down
especially by the raptor

Yeah just like the F15 getting beaten by a vulcan bomber huh?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by roniii259
The Tu-160 Blackjack is allot better than the B-1B


Allot better at getting shot down
especially by the raptor

Yeah just like the F15 getting beaten by a vulcan bomber huh?


That doesn't make any sense. The Vulcan has no defensive armament.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sled Driver


That doesn't make any sense. The Vulcan has no defensive armament.

It had cannons,lol your 2 F-15's where taken down by a bomber using cannons.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Sled Driver


That doesn't make any sense. The Vulcan has no defensive armament.

It had cannons,lol your 2 F-15's where taken down by a bomber using cannons.


Link, link, we need link. My google search came up empty. This would be the first case of an F-15 being shot down (I believe two were designated at as lost in action several years back though).

[edit on 12-12-2004 by Frosty]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
No, what happened was in a Red Flag combat exercise in 1974 (?) two F-15s were tasked with preventing a British Vulcan from bombing a target. They failed, and couldnt even find the bomber after it had hit its target. No F-15s were shot down.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
1977, but otherwise spot on.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Once again it seems as though the Brits here have chimed in and made claims that they cannot support with documentation.

Until we can see some kind of proof, we are not going to buy anything you guys say.

Is it too much to ask for you to put some proof out for us instead of the usual heresay?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Once again it seems as though the Brits here have chimed in and made claims that they cannot support with documentation.

Until we can see some kind of proof, we are not going to buy anything you guys say.

Is it too much to ask for you to put some proof out for us instead of the usual heresay?

Firstly get a dictionary, secdonly this was debated and it was from a flight international book, so i do believe it would be credible.

I am sorry i mis read it BUT i might point out that the F15's could not hit the vulcan, so i believe the black jack could of had a chance against the F15.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Firstly get a dictionary, secdonly this was debated and it was from a flight international book, so i do believe it would be credible.

God, must be hard to be perfect.

Why don't you post a link to the article? Why not show us proof and end the debate once and for all? Maybe, it's because you can't?



I am sorry i mis read it BUT i might point out that the F15's could not hit the vulcan, so i believe the black jack could of had a chance against the F15.


You have no proof to show any of that. Until you do stop with the hearsay.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The origional thread on ATS with this in is here. Im sure Waynos will be more than willing to supply a scanned copy of the magazine article on request.

Seriously tho, the amount of pure unadulterated cr*p that gets posted on here about the B-2 (antigravity? get real), the SR-71 (mach 5 top speed? again, get real), excuses about F-15s loosing to India, and other stuff that is jsut accepted as gospel with hardly a question raised, and that you get all high and mighty when mention is made of some F-15s loosing at wargames is purely laughable. Grow up, get some balls and take your head out of your ass cheeks.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
God, must be hard to be perfect.

it is


Why don't you post a link to the article? Why not show us proof and end the debate once and for all? Maybe, it's because you can't?

Yeah mabye because its not on a link but in a flight international book, unless of course you keep links of every flight international book on your PC,do you?



You have no proof to show any of that. Until you do stop with the hearsay.

Firstly if you say that we can not post links from reliable sources from mouths then that would mean many posts by many members are invalid.
There is proof and i will get it ASAP , still no luck on that ore thing cool but i will find it.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah mabye because its not on a link but in a flight international book, unless of course you keep links of every flight international book on your PC,do you?

Then give me the month, year and article name and I will take it from there.



Firstly if you say that we can not post links from reliable sources from mouths then that would mean many posts by many members are invalid.
There is proof and i will get it ASAP , still no luck on that ore thing cool but i will find it.


No, most people post evidence when they make claims.

I am waiting with baited breath to see your proof.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join