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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Then give me the month, year and article name and I will take it from there.

Fair enough allow me time to contact waynos.


No, most people post evidence when they make claims.

I am waiting with baited breath to see your proof.

This your POV or you speaking for the whole of ATS now?
you will have to wait some more.




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Ok, heres what Ive come up with after asking a friend for access to his Flight International archives (Jesus, the stuff some people acumulate, this guy has near on 4000 aircraft magazines):

Flight International May 1978, "Red Flag 77"

Flight International October 1984, "Good Bye Baby"

Flight International May 1995, "Carry on Carrier"

Unfortunately the online archives are subscriber only, and only date back to 1995, otherwise I would have given you links to the articles online.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
You jogged my memeory there, I just told devilwasp that it was from the Autumn of 1977 but its certainly the 'Red Flag '77' article that came out in May of 78.

Due to needing space and also keeping my other half happy I have been spending the last few months selecting stuff I wanted to keep from my Flight collection (such as the scanned stuff I've posted on here) and putting it ito a series of lever arch files which can be stored neatly on a shelf. I don't think I need go any further with this, you'll have figured out what I did with the Red Flag article
.

I do know that I have seen the same reports in Air International and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the RAF Yearbook. I know I have the yearbooks and I'm pretty sure I have the Air Internationals as my cull hasn't extended to those yet, as long as the lovely Heather hasn't taken matters upon herself.

I will search them out and anyone with the same material available to them please feel free to do the same. BTW, whilst a fabulous thing for sure, the internet is not a complete library of the truth you know.

Edit; Out of interest, and in case it helps anyones search in any way, the Vulcan concerned was XM607 of 44 Sqn, the same one that flew the 'Black Buck' raids in the Falklands War.

second edit; I've tried googling again for it but with no luck. When you consider the amount of news published in flight every week since it started I suppose I was expecting a bit much. Ah well back to the paper sources.

Interestingly I did find a different story that I was previously unaware of that in the 1978 excercise, and knowing that the USAF was ready for the Vulcan this time no doubt, they tried a trick with the Vulcan flying as a 'mask' for Jaguar aircraft flying underneath it and hiding them from the radars, although the Vulcan was sacrificing itself the defenders didn't know there were three aircraft there until the target had been destroyed. Not strictly playing by the rules but effective hey?

[edit on 12-12-2004 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Weather or not an F-15 or two where bounced at a '77 Red Flag is irrelevant... It has yet to get touched in real aerial combat and from the looks of it, it probably wont...




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 miss 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.


Once again, this was only a few years after the F-15A came out. In real world scenarios the F-15C (probably with AESA) and AWACS support would have absolutely NO trouble spotting the Tu-160 and if the vectors where right, intercepting it.




Tu-160 ' Blackjack ' is better.


For all the times the B-1 isnt in disrepair it gets the job done. I think it would be in even more trouble if it was the size of the Tu-160 as there would be a hell of allot more maintenance to contend with.

And excuse me if Im wrong but wasnt it a defenseless bomber that scored a kill in GW1? I believe it was an F-111 being chased by a Jag (or whatnot) and ran the Iraqi pilot into the ground. What about the time when an F-15E scored a helicopter kill with an LGB when it was flying. The pilot had the WSO lase him and they dropped the LGB on him scoring an A2A kill with A2G weapons.

I honestly cannot believe the amount of bull that is posted in these threads Why bother talking about a subject that you have little knowledge on and consistently insist that you are correct?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Tu-160 is a good plane, its olny the worlds largest and fastest bomber. Shame half of them aren't maintained and used as spare parts. Like the An-225 is, and thats a crying shame. Beutiful plane too.

Look people, not all Russian tech is toss. Actually compare stats on paper eh? Then see who makes the best. Sure, most Russian tech is badly maintained in countries that don't know how to, but the tech itself is good.

Back to the B2. Beutiful, almost a work of art, even if it does look silly with the landing gear down. Sure, its slow, but who cares? Not alot can shoot it down, and it is one of the msot intimidating planes about. You see that above you, and you know your dead. It is expensive, yes, but its worth it when it was released. Still very usefull. Stealth may be becoming obsolete, but this thing won't be for a good while.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   


Tu-160 is a good plane, its olny the worlds largest and fastest bomber. Shame half of them aren't maintained and used as spare parts. Like the An-225 is, and thats a crying shame. Beutiful plane too.

Look people, not all Russian tech is toss. Actually compare stats on paper eh? Then see who makes the best. Sure, most Russian tech is badly maintained in countries that don't know how to, but the tech itself is good.

Back to the B2. Beutiful, almost a work of art, even if it does look silly with the landing gear down. Sure, its slow, but who cares? Not alot can shoot it down, and it is one of the msot intimidating planes about. You see that above you, and you know your dead. It is expensive, yes, but its worth it when it was released. Still very usefull. Stealth may be becoming obsolete, but this thing won't be for a good while.



Good words... Don't be fooled by forum posts telling you that stealth will soon be obsolete... Not for a GOOD while. Even when it is, nary a country will afford the great cost of it as it will be one of the greatest military technologies on the market.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The Tu-160 is USELESS compared to either the B-2 or the B-1.Simply because they can carry more armaments and the B-2 has stealth.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:22 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?


I actually just saw this post as I didn't read back throught he thread properly when I posted earlier and I can't let it go unchallenged.

You talk as if 'us' Brits are always coming on here making big claims about how great we are or something when in actual fact you will probably find more even handed posts from us than most Americans who are here. If you have the time or inclination you can trawl through my own posts and you will see as many critical posts about Britain as there are praising us, I think you will also see a pretty even measure of pro and anti US aircraft type posts as well and I have always been up front about my support for the Typhoon without ever trying to claim it is better than the Raptor or anything so silly.

Therefore if you think that a simple comment over a well known fact that happended 27 years ago is an attempt to score points off the USA, tough. Deal with it. Hide behind your standard "eeeuurgh, theres no link, I want a link" defence all you want to. I can provide any number of links for stuff that we would all immediately recognize as fantasy, except for those who regularly believe gaming sites like the US volunteers in Russia or the Tu-180 and F-25 rubbish, but they wont make them true.

I'm done with this argument, I was only looking to prove what I thought was a point of trivia, not get involved in a credibility contest.

BTW, on the original point, I reckon the B-2 (by far, for he who can afford it) and B-1B are the best of the modern bombers, I also reckon that the Tu-160 could have been a B-1 beater with more development, which it would have got had the Russian economy not collapsed.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Having slept since I posted the above I now regret using such strong terms, the basic point that is hidden in the rant is one that I stand by however.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
The Tu-160 is USELESS compared to either the B-2 or the B-1.Simply because they can carry more armaments and the B-2 has stealth.


Your right on the stealth aspect, but I belive that the Tu-160 was bigger plane overall and offered a bigger payload.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Blah Blah Blah.

One thing matters........actual combat performance. My humble research show that the B-1 and B-2 have stellar combat records and have never suffered a combat casualty. And the F-15 has over 100 confirmed kills in air-to-air combat with no losses.

Red Flag exercises are just that.....exercises. Do you really think that these exercises are intended for the benefit of our best pilots? No, they are there to train and familiarize are new and least trained pilots with the rigors of air combat. Thus, the results of any air exercise are never to be taken as a true reflection of the combat effectiveness of any given air wing or aircraft.

That being said, 27 year old "war stories" about how some sneaky Brits tricked a couple of newbie F-15 drivers who were trying to learn the ins and outs of their new aircraft at a Red Flag exercise is, well,....not really that impressive, nor is it relavent.

Like they say in the National Football League, the only score that counts is the one at the end of the game. Its all about wins, baby....











posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by creamsoda
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


Since it seems so tough for most people to Read The Question! I'll help you out. A while back ATS carried out in depth research in the B-2 and it's Advanced Technologies. Our research found many advanced features such as: Active Stealth, Advanced Sensor Fusion, reconfigurable weapons bays, advanced composite skins and much more.

Here is a link to our research archives in the B-2: B-2 Research

Take a time when you have lots of free time and read up on what we have learned.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Counter-Ignorance NOTE: Many ATS threads would be more productive if people could stick to the question!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join