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.

 

US B-52 Bomber Drops First Stealthy Cruise Missile From Bomb Bay

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
US B-52 Bomber Drops First Stealthy Cruise Missile From Bomb Bay

We had touched on this before that the USAF was adding the rotary launcher to the B-52.

And now it looks like they have finally tested a few things with it.

I wonder how they will be using the B-52 now that they have this capability.





The U.S. Air Force (USAF) successfully tested the release of a Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) from the internal weapons bay of a B-52H Stratofortress long-range heavy bomber, according to a USAF press release.

The test involved the dropping of three Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM stand-off cruise missiles–a new long-range, radar-evading cruise missile designed to destroy hostile air defenses before aircraft are within range—from the B-52′s internal bomb bay, fitted with an upgraded conventional rotary launcher.

It was the first time that a B-52 has successfully released a JASSM from its internal weapons bay. While the bomber already could carry up to 12 JASSMs on its wing pylons, the capability to carry eight more JASSMs inside the bomb bay will increase the bomber’s stand-off cruise missile payload by more than 60 percent. The B-52 was previously only capable of carrying unguided munitions—“dumb bombs’—in its internal weapons bay.




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Now if they only find a good target....any ideas, suggestions??
Cheers



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

The only thing this changes is that they can double the PGM loadout for missions. That means longer time on station for CAS if they have to drop weapons. The first PGM upgrade only allowed them to be carried on the external racks. Now they can carry them externally, and up to 24 500 lb JDAMs, 20 2000 lb JDAMs, eventually they'll be carrying JASSM and MALD-J, as well as other guided munitions.

Since the initial PGM upgrade the bomb-bay has been largely ignored and mostly empty, because all they could carry in there were unguided munitions, which were poor choices for CAS missions, or anything but carpet bombing. That means that they've been flying with extremely limited payloads which hurt their fuel economy and time on station.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Stealthy cruise missiles?

I thought cruise missiles defeat radar detection by flying nap of the earth,
When does a cruise missile need 'stealth' other than it sounds cool and all?



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Aaaahh if only Project Pluto wasnt so scarey..



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grey580

Stealthy cruise missiles?

I thought cruise missiles defeat radar detection by flying nap of the earth,
When does a cruise missile need 'stealth' other than it sounds cool and all?


the stealthy part is it avoinds radar installations and is small enough to slip through most nets that anything else coudnt slip by. Oh and also if they made these as long range as the new TLAMS tomohawks they would really be a force to reckon with. Imagine all the b-52s launching hundreds of these at one time in a first strike.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
A good analysis here..Bit old though so advances would be making it moot but.....
Defeating Cruise Missiles



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
good, but when your missiles can skim the literal ground if need be SAMS cant hit them if they are below engagement altitude. ALso aircraft above them will have a hard time picking them off due to ground clutter.

Yeah thats old information and recent innovations,such as Image only tracking and homing on Jamming and the ability to operate without GPS guidance makes it even harder.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grey580

Stealthy cruise missiles?

I thought cruise missiles defeat radar detection by flying nap of the earth,
When does a cruise missile need 'stealth' other than it sounds cool and all?


the stealthy part is it avoinds radar installations and is small enough to slip through most nets that anything else coudnt slip by. Oh and also if they made these as long range as the new TLAMS tomohawks they would really be a force to reckon with. Imagine all the b-52s launching hundreds of these at one time in a first strike.

The B52's themselves aren't stealthy, would give the show away. They couldn't approach close enough prior to launch.

The best surprise attack is accomplished by sea from sub launched cruise missiles just off shore. Arrival time, 6 minutes.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

At least, they think so.

No one's sure where it went.




posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grey580

Stealthy cruise missiles?

I thought cruise missiles defeat radar detection by flying nap of the earth,
When does a cruise missile need 'stealth' other than it sounds cool and all?


the stealthy part is it avoinds radar installations and is small enough to slip through most nets that anything else coudnt slip by. Oh and also if they made these as long range as the new TLAMS tomohawks they would really be a force to reckon with. Imagine all the b-52s launching hundreds of these at one time in a first strike.

The B52's themselves aren't stealthy, would give the show away. They couldn't approach close enough prior to launch.

The best surprise attack is accomplished by sea from sub launched cruise missiles just off shore. Arrival time, 6 minutes.



Depends on distance at time of launch. And Most cruise missiles have a long enough range to fire outside detection range IF they are long distance ordinance.

Air force version is a 750 mile range missile. the Naval version will be ship or sub launchable. So the b-52's would most likely be out of range of detection if they fired on a country most likely.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grey580

Stealthy cruise missiles?

I thought cruise missiles defeat radar detection by flying nap of the earth,
When does a cruise missile need 'stealth' other than it sounds cool and all?


the stealthy part is it avoinds radar installations and is small enough to slip through most nets that anything else coudnt slip by. Oh and also if they made these as long range as the new TLAMS tomohawks they would really be a force to reckon with. Imagine all the b-52s launching hundreds of these at one time in a first strike.

The B52's themselves aren't stealthy, would give the show away. They couldn't approach close enough prior to launch.

The best surprise attack is accomplished by sea from sub launched cruise missiles just off shore. Arrival time, 6 minutes.



Depends on distance at time of launch. And Most cruise missiles have a long enough range to fire outside detection range IF they are long distance ordinance.

Air force version is a 750 mile range missile. the Naval version will be ship or sub launchable. So the b-52's would most likely be out of range of detection if they fired on a country most likely.

You said hundreds of launches, thats a fleet of B52s. The Russians know where they all are at all times.

Good for pounding ground, been replaced by B1 and B2, anyway. Plus some 'down the road' unknown design they are pumping billions into.

Lots of luck. The rest of the world already knows that bomber fleets are obsolete old school thinking. In todays modern theatre of total war they are the first to be destroyed or last to arrive to the party.

Like aircraft carriers they project force, holdovers from a long ago era of surface ship assault mega fleets and massed bomber raids over Germany and Japan. The other guys are developing missile technology. Which I understand this new cruise missile is a stab at, but geez get a new platform instead of 60 year old aging Buff.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Youre missing the point. They know the b-52s are highly visible. Also the Air force does not send them in anywhere they can be shot down. Stop assuming they will be out of our airspace if they had to fire on russia too. Submarines and Naval ship have that covered with their versions of the new cruise missile.

I notice that you DIdnt make any mention to the ship launched naval versions. WHy? Oh i know to make it look like one was not equal to the russians. Who still use the BEAR. A b-52 isnt good for anything but A Missile truck these days and thats with fighter cover and heavy ECM. it cant be a front line fighter. we all know this.

They do have a even longer range cruise missile in dev i hear. this one is nuclear capable and has double the miles of the JAASM almost. like 1,200 miles or something.

WHat irritates me though is the air force hiding the truly scary stuff. im like come on bring it out and scare the rest of the world back to their corners.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Wunderwaffe, huh?

Ever developing more expensive per item 'wonder weapons' that will save the day, turn the war around and provide ultimate victory?

History reveals thats a fantasy. The better technology is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of opposing arms.

The Nazis found this out when they tried to stop the Soviets from advancing on their country. A few heavy tanks or ballistic missiles aren't going to win the day.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

Wunderwaffe, huh?

Ever developing more expensive per item 'wonder weapons' that will save the day, turn the war around and provide ultimate victory?

History reveals thats a fantasy. The better technology is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of opposing arms.

The Nazis found this out when they tried to stop the Soviets from advancing on their country. A few heavy tanks or ballistic missiles aren't going to win the day.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like to disagree.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

Wunderwaffe, huh?

Ever developing more expensive per item 'wonder weapons' that will save the day, turn the war around and provide ultimate victory?

History reveals thats a fantasy. The better technology is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of opposing arms.

The Nazis found this out when they tried to stop the Soviets from advancing on their country. A few heavy tanks or ballistic missiles aren't going to win the day.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like to disagree.

Completely unnecessary, imo.

We developed nuclear weapons because we thought Germany was going to beat us to it.

The Japanese were beaten, they had no war making apparatus left. Dozens of cities had been already destroyed. There was no need to vaporize two whole cities full of civilians, except to justify the enormous expenditure of developing the atomic bomb.

That 'trend' was established by the mass bomber raid theory that killing masses of people would destroy morale to fight on. That didn't work either.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
If these are truly stealthy they can fly at medium to high altitudes to improve efficiency and increase their range.

Also, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not vaporize the whole cities, that would be the napalm raids on cities. Those firestorm were so violent that the trailing B-29s had to pull the engines to idle and point the nose down enough to reach v-max and they still gained altitude.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They would had fought to the last man woman and child. it was needed totally crush their spirit. You truly win final victory when your enemy has lost the will to live.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

They would had fought to the last man woman and child. it was needed totally crush their spirit. You truly win final victory when your enemy has lost the will to live.


I am aware of the official excuse. The Japanese weren't told what hit them, it was kept a secret, they had to slowly figure it out.

How climactic is that. Even if they were told right away and to surrender or else, they wouldn't believe a single weapon did all that. Most people today aren't truly aware of the destructive capability of nuclear weapons. In fact they are rattling sabres with the Russians and Chinese on some fools errand.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Yeah thats old information and recent innovations,such as Image only tracking and homing on Jamming and the ability to operate without GPS guidance makes it even harder.


Home on jam is not a recent innovation.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join