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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Thanks Intelgurl, much obliged.


that's a wrap then guys??




posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by Croat56
Well to get back on topic, I like the B-2. Its a very cool looking plain. Kinda strange how it looks remarkably similar to those ufos that were reported by that pilot. I cant remember his name, but it was realy famouse. It looked alot like the B-2 except it was more round.


No one else thinks this is interesting?


I guess no one thinks this is interesting



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Back to thema. I do not like B-2, but I like S-400 [picture from home photoalbum].




...and the pilot, who you are talking about is Kenneth Arnold.
www.hitechweb.szm.sk/UFOpreprava2.htm





[edit on 18-1-2005 by matej]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:52 AM
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.



Thats the worst thing that could have happened to any country; hope it never happens to mine..thats why we can't let
taiwan/ chechnya/kashmir/Aceh go the yugoslavia way...btw the funny thing is all separatist movements in the above mentioned regions have been funded by the CIA at one time..


Okay now new topic, and this one will be more evenly matched on this forum, I know...

Can the Brit Rapier 22 Missile shoot the B-2 down?
The stage is yours!!


[edit on 18-1-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I doubt it, as there is no Rapier 22.


The latest version of the Rapier is the Rapier 2B and, as it is British, of course it can bring down the B-2 old boy!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by matej
Back to thema. I do not like B-2, but I like S-400 [picture from home photoalbum].




...and the pilot, who you are talking about is Kenneth Arnold.
www.hitechweb.szm.sk/UFOpreprava2.htm





[edit on 18-1-2005 by matej]


Thanks. I cant believe I forgot the guys name. Thats exactely what I was talkin bout. Maybe it was aliens or maybe thats just where they got the idea from



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

If the S-400 is reportably able to take this aircraft down, then surely it will be able to take down the B-2 which has 4x greater RCS than the F-117.

B-2A RCS (M²): 0.0014
F-117A RCS (M²): 0.003
That's approximately the RCS of an insect.
www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
And the rapier can still take it down!!..
Where's that checkbook of mine!!??!!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by XB70

If the S-400 is reportably able to take this aircraft down, then surely it will be able to take down the B-2 which has 4x greater RCS than the F-117.

B-2A RCS (M²): 0.0014
F-117A RCS (M²): 0.003
That's approximately the RCS of an insect.
www.aerospaceweb.org...


I think you got it backwards. 0.0014 is LESS then 0.003. if you don't believe me, line up the decmials:

0.0014 is the B-2's RCS
& 0.0030 is the F-117's RCS

Which looks bigger to you, 14 or 30? when in doubt, line up the decmial, fill in any empty spots with zeros, and take a second look!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I'm no expert on this, but I don't think RCS is the only measure of stealth, either. First generation stealth like the F-117 was more vulnerable to low-frequency radars. While having a higher RCS, the F-22 has different RAMS applied which are designed to absorb those low frequency radar waves better.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Ah..its just wishfull thinking by other nations that they shot down 3 B-2s. Its quite funny that other people have to make up stories about shooting down planes to make their militarys look better. Why does it seem like the US never makes up stupid stories like this? Maybe because they can back up what the claim not just through out baseless claims and hope somebody believes one.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
until the F-117 was shot down over yugoslavia, it seemed prety fictional to be able to do so too; but it happened..I still watch the wreckage video oncve in a while to make myself believe it..
USAF stealth is not inivncible..



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The F-117s were designed during the cold war to get past soviet air defenses, as back then, it was estimated that the entire air force would be destroyed in 14 days. The air force wanted funding for something to penetrate Soviet airspace,and ironically they got the idea after reading a book by a Russian scientist.

At that time,the diamond was decided to be the best shape,and they added on to it,eventually it became the F-117 as we know it today. During the Soviet union's heyday,the americans then designed the B-2,based on the flying wing concept.When it was done,it was so unstable that they had to house more than 140 computers just so that it could be stable in flight.This plane was a huge sucess,having less visible FCS and being able to carry as much as the B-52,but with less precision as the F-117 using its laser designator.

Then,in around 1998,the airforce wanted a stealth fighter,and so,they developed the F-22,a huge leap forward,and being able to double as a stealth fighter-bomber.It incorporated the B-2's FCS with some more advanced composites,so that unlike the F-117,it would be harder to detect by newer and more advanced radar systems.

(Companies who build the planes,i'm not very sure.)

PS:Just back from volunteering in Indonesia,it saddens me very much .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join