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.

 

Somebody doesn't like the B-2

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
i am aware that the site is kind of anti-NATO


kind of? and the pope is kind of religious. Funny, are there other sites with this earthshaking story?




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
There is no such thing as a yugoslav. Dont ever say that again.
And whoever said that they prefered it is ignorant of what happend.


Yugoslavia Great country, nice people, too bad the serbians were such butchers eh?



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
who gives a crak if i said Yugoslav, it doesn't matter, anyways, the reason being is that America has used the B-2 in only a few different battles, the Gulf War, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan, the only remotely capable threat came from Yugoslavia, yea, so, you lose a $2.2 billion plane, you don't have to tell their families, look at the War in Korea in the fifties, they didn't tell families(not all, but some)

and how many sites do you visit, i vists toonns, not regularily, only a few i visist regularily, about 6 or 7, you guys just don't want to admit that you lost a few B-2's, and your complaining about me being pointless to argue with, what about everyone else and arguing about the F-22, not THATS pointless, you guys are just way too blinded by all that crap that you hear about it being SO ABSOLUTELY SUPERIOR, it can take on 100 planes, and they wouldn never know where it is, what a stupid thought, if you were to actually calculate(bang for the buck)and how much time you have to fire your missiles before you engage in dogfighiting, its really pointless, the F-22 would be inferior(bang for the buck) i'll elaborate later

no doubt, its an okay aircraft, the reason why its okay is because it costs so DAMN much, and mainteneance, replacing papers with a small "laptop" wowk, how much is that going to save you, the F-22 is a high-cost, hgih-maintenance, air superiority fighter



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
why do you compare the site to the Pope, thats the most irelevant thing that i have heard all day, probably all week, and ths site isn't based around how NATO "sucks balls," its all about aircraft, and has some good information there



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
New day same pointless dima rhetoric with little or no substance.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
wtf are you talking about? what rhetoric

you can't accept the FACT that it is a high maintenance, high cost, although good air superiority fighter?

the only rhetoric i hear is yours, if you call me closed-minded, just look at yourself, i actually say good things about American aircraft, i just hate it when people are just too stuborn or too stupid to accept it as it is, people like you, "oh America so good, Russia's too poor to afford anything, their technology is incredibly inferior" or sure, thats why America bought the EKIP from Russia, and thats why you bought scalar electromagnetic technology from Russia and claim you will have the capapbility to control the weather in 2015-2025, when Russia had it in the 1980's



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Croat56
There is no such thing as a yugoslav. Dont ever say that again.
And whoever said that they prefered it is ignorant of what happend.


Yugoslavia Great country, nice people, too bad the serbians were such butchers eh?


I know of the country, but there is no yugoslav ethnicity. It is just a name that means land of the southern slavs.

And by the way there is no more yugoslavia anymore it changed its name cause it didnt really make sence anymore

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Croat56]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
"The very idea that a B-2 would be lost in Yugoslavia of all places is just crazy! Even the Russians can't shoot down a F-117a how did the Yugoslavs manage to do that??

IAF>> "

That's funny, because the F-117s that were shut down in Yugoslavia were spotted by an old Soviet-era Russian radar.

"dtmfreak, how do you know that the Russians can't shoot down an F-117A, you see, its stupid assumptions like that makes the B-2 seem undetectable, so what, it has tons of stealth, and just because it costs $2.2 billion doesn't mean that it HAS to be the greatest bomber, or doesn't contribute to it being undectectable, radar technology is advancing rapidly, scarily, stealth technology(or conventional stealth technology such as utilizing RAM and coat paintings will become obsolete, maybe even RAS) "

Dima, read. I wasn't being sarcastic.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
This is getting REDICULAS!! First of all, NO B-2 has ever been lost either in combat or peace time! The Plane lost was an F-117. Before you go plane bashing, make sure your facts are correct.

Now, about the F-117 crash, according to all the info I've seen, the loss was caused by a door that didn't close correctly, which gave it just enought of a radar signature to give the SAM sight an aim point.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The B-2's are [irrespective of what the russian propaganda is ] the most superoir bomber the world has ever seen.
Firstly to spot a b-2 on radar you need to have a network of very very high powered radar grid that along with effective AA C&C structure and the b-2 would need to fly very close to the tower at a good altitude to be detected. Also the b-2 fight path is carefully selected to carry out any mission to be totaly undetected by the enemy.
Even if it is detected by the radar the SAM's don't have a radar homming device as powerfull as the tower so if you take an IR missile you still wouldn't be able to get a lock as the IR signature is so minute it woulld be like getting a lock on a bird! Also the b-2's only fly at night so visiual identification is almost impossible.The only slim chance is to spot it in the night with NV googles and to use a surface to air Laser guided missile[non in use!] to come anywhere close to hitting the B-2 and nobody would be crazy enough to do that.
Even with all this and another bad of ticks up their sleeve does any body still believe that a b-2 can be brought down. If you do then you are definitely misinformed!



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I'm Convinced!
Thanks to Dima & Co. I have seen the light!

It is obvious that the US is woefully behind the Russians in air defense and aircraft.

I for one am ready to hoist the white flag and ask that Russia, Serbia, Canada, France, Latvia, the Canary Islands and all the other countries that are far superior to us militarily be merciful and not shoot down our wimpy air force.

It is plain to see that US stealth does not work - and Russia is pursuing US style structural design stealth to mislead us. Of course! It all makes sense now!

Ok, enough of that...

On a serious note, I don't know if a B-2 was shot down over Yugoslavia or not, but I do know that out of the hundreds of sorties these aircraft flew - if only one was shot down then that would still be a testament to it's survivability - not it's uselessness.

Such tripe, no wonder I rarely come to this section anymore.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The resons that the F117 was shot down by the Yugo's is because OF Russian tech/ now NATO Did tell Yugo that if it wanted to get financial aid from U.S Yugo should not release any info on NATO'S loses, now it's funny how Milosivic was going to release all the Yugo T.V footages of Nato shoot downs AND captured pilots on the exact date NATO Officials were going to celebrate NATO'S 50th anniversary but on that day NATO bombed the T.V. Station in NIS Serbia (a civilian T.V. Station kind of like your "American A.B.C. news station a clear 1.violation of Geneva convertions on diliberatly attacking civilian sites 2. A violation of NATO's own oath that it was going to just attack Yugo Military unites only in KOSAVO The reason they attacked the NIS STAION was because NIS had all the footages especially of the two other F-117's shot down, now ALSO I want an answer from you YANKS I've asked this many times U.S. Lost 37 planes in Gulf war 1 Yugo has better airdefences than Iraq especialy in 1999 how is it NATO not just U.S.A. ONLY lost 3 planes? did the nato planes have realy advanced radar jamming devices on them or what!!?? what was it? I'm not realy asking cus I know the truth it is EXACTLY to the Letter of the word as Serbs said 388 NATO planes shot down including 444 crusie missles and 60+UAV's, now I still would like tio hear your answers???????

[edit on 10-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I'm not a Yank as you can clearly see but I want to raise a few questions from your post.

Who says that NATO lost three aircraft in this conflict? I am not aware of this figure though I admit I haven't really looked into it. The point of this thread was the claim about B-2's being shot down which is nonsense. I can think of at least three British aircraft lost in this conflict just off the top of my head so I don't know why you are fixated with this figure of three NATO losses.

Secondly, what are you talking about with this 'bombing the TV station to stop reports on NATO losses' malarky? I have seen footage of at least one wrecked F-16, the F-117 and a Harrier and a Puma amongst others on the BBC so your argument here is nonsense.

Finally this dross

I know the truth it is EXACTLY to the Letter of the word as Serbs said 388 NATO planes shot down including 444 crusie missles and 60= UAV's,


So you believe Serbias claims to 388 NATO kills absolutely do you? Don't you think thats incredibly silly?

How on earth couyld NATO sustain losses of 388 aircraft? Just how many do you even think NATO has? 388 shot down would represent a vast hole in the total inventory and is absolutely rubbish.

Really finally how on earth is a figure of 504 Cruise missiles and UAV's 'included' in an overall total of 388????WTF?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Have any of you simple folk ever though that the F-117 could have actually caught an AAA burst or two rendering its stealth capabilities inefficient to spoof the radar of the SAM(s)? I mean after all they where flying pretty low and in the same path for ~3 nights... I mean Gee!!! Would you think a few more of them would have been picked off in other conflicts and even earlier in the Yuko conflict if it where a cakewalk? And don't you think many more Vipers and Mud Hens would have become lawn darts also?




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
HAHAHAAHHA AAA fire didn't I tell you when Yanks have been cornered with the truth about thier socalled supiriouity they come up with some of the most" FANTASTIC" explainations (LIES) ever HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!
ANY WAYS WAYNOS scince U.S. is part of NATO and U.S news reported to Americans that 1 F-117,an F-16 and a UAV were lost in the conflict that why I put up these figures I don't beleive any of these lies I know they lost exactly what our Serbian Orthodox Brothers said "388 planes 444 crusiemissles and 60= UAV's" now if you have more bbc info then show me a link remember I know NATO lost WWWWAAAAYYYY more planes than what CNN has said, now if you can look at the March 27,1999 BBC World News report you should see a report on a U.S. F-15 shot down in a Dog fight with a Yugoslavia MiG 29 I can't find the link here in the U.S. Now you wanted me to answer some ?'s Remember NATO started out with 160 warplanes on March 24 then as time went on they KEPT increasing the number from 160 to 350 to 465 1000 aircraft for a nation with only 79 warplane the "socalled powerful nato" had to use 1000 warplanes (and to think people like Disturbed Diliverer still wants his fellow yanks to beleive U.S could defeat Rus in a war HAHAHAAHAHAHAH IF YOU NEED 1000 FOR LITTLE OL SERBIA you AIN'T nor CAN you EVER Defeat Mighty RUSSIA HAHAHAAHAHAH) anyways back to what I was saying now inGulf War 1 U.S. lost 37 (actually you can watch ANY episode on the History Channle which U.S. says it was 38 plane they lost in GF1 but scinse the only American link I found says 38 AND so yanks like Disturbed Diliverer can't have any room to argue for arguments sakes I state 37 warcraft, anyways U.S. lost 37 warcraft in GF1 Yugo has better Air defenses than Iraq so right then and there "Commen Scense" should tell you NATO lost planes by the hundreds if Iraq caused the U.S to loos 37 so please explain?????

[edit on 10-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 10-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 10-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Hereis a link to a BBC site with background on Kosovo.

Not that I think you'll take any notice of it because it is grounded in truth and common sense, something totally lacking in your own diatribe.

You don't even seem to grasp that the Serbians started the war themselves but instead portray it as an invasion by NATO akin to Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939. Grow up or shut up.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
^^^ Are you that confused and ignorant? U.S. 'Yanks' do know that we have air superiority and technological superiority when it comes to most of our military equipment. That lead doesn’t stop the fact that a AAA shell could have punctured the aircraft thus destroying its stealth abilities. These things can’t just be thrown together, coated with RAM and called stealthy... They have to go through rigorous testing and calculations to ensure that they aren’t off by more then what, 1/1000th of a centimeter...

I wonder why those F-15Cs (extremely big on radar), the Vipers (one incompetent pilot was downed), and the rest of the bunch had a field day over Yuk when they weren’t flying at below ~angles 10 and didn’t make it a practice to fly the same rout more then 1 time in a row...

I don’t even know why anyone bothers as seeing that the U.S. hold a completely undisputed lead over any airforce; the gap is only getting bigger with the advent of better ECM, radars, decoys, air dominance platforms, and WVR/BVR missile.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
That's all lies lies and more "FANTASTIC GENOCIDE LIES" here a REAL site with documented facts AND NATO addmitting they lied not only about abusses in from Serbs in KOSAVO but even Bosnia AND the fake Srebrenica massacar that NEVER TOOK place antiwar.com... go to the side culloms to read the articles were it shows no massacar.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Never heard of any B-2's being shot down before. Indeed, if even 1 was lost (let alone 3) the $6 billion+ cost would cause an enormous uproar.

www.commondreams.org...


One kink in the body could tip off ground radar to the bomber's location. Air Force officials believe that the only stealth fighter to be shot down, an F-117, was struck in Yugoslavia because radar on the ground bounced off the open bomb bay doors.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
wow, Siberian Tiger, overload, overload, lol

there's no point in arguing with these Americans, i must admit though that this forum has gotten better since i first came

believe what you want, the propaganda that you see in CNN(no debate to that, obviously propaganda) we have discussioons here in Canada in our schools about the war in Iraq, and what views are being taken into consideration, and such, if you people will continue to blindly follow what CNN or ABC tells you, you will never know the truth, Bush is a tyrannical crazy dumbass,. who's putting a blindfold over your eyes and putting an apple in the mouth of the world, so that the truth is not spoken, i personally believe FRIENDS, who have actually seen, what happens, without a blindfold, then what the American media would want to tell you, you guys talk about all this planning that goes into each mission that a B-2 will go through, well, what if something unexpected happens, what then, like the weather changes, if you read that article at the beginning of this topic, it said that the B-2's must be put into special hangars, that will obviously protect them from snow and rain, what if the weather changes, what if it starts pouring, anyways, i feel exhausted, arguing with a bunch of people so filled with crap, its just hopeless, yea i'm gone, nothiing elase to talk about, well, nothing that you guys will listen to



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join