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.

 

Document Confirms B-21 To Be Delivered Optionally Manned And Nuclear Capable

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
A recent FOIA that was heavily redacted confirms that the B-21 will be nuclear capable. It also identifies that the the bomber will be capable of both manned and unmanned missions.

I doubt highly that any nuclear missions would be unmanned, but the USAF when talking about intel platforms spoke of "survivable" and perhaps this is what they are referring too? Basically a stealthy BACN that is collating all of that sensor data its getting from the F-22 etc. and distributing it where it is needed? Its ability to loiter, fly high, and stealthy would no doubt add to that. I wonder how much more range/time you would get in an unmanned configuration assuming its built to strip out the life support stuff?

www.thedrive.com...




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

First i wouldnt read too much into the document. It may very well be little more than the usual talking points copy pasted by yet another government agency. Doesnt necessarily mean its happening this way.

I could see this requirement referring tot he family of system approach too, for example. Meaning, instead of having an aircraft that can fly manned or unmanned based on mission configuration, you’d have diffrent B-21 variants, some built for unmanned flight and some not.
Not unlike what they did with the F-35s. They developed different variants of the same plane for different requirements.

I just have a hard time believing anything else would be an good idea from a design perspective. Adding a poor mans unmanned flight capability on an manned platform is certainly not too much of a hassle but its also far, far from a good solution. An purpose built unmanned platform ‚without the cockpit and life support‘ to put it in simple terms will always be superior.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

It will retain the cockpit and all the life support equipment. It will just be a matter of swapping out some equipment to make it unmanned.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I can see it now... "unmanned B2 drops nuclear rain upon LA -- anonymous claims responsibility"

Ah boy.. Putting a computer in charge of detonating or not detonating a nuclear weapon sounds terrifying. At least with people.. if they are given orders that seem wrong and heinous they can refuse them. Computers know no such conscience.
edit on 9-11-2017 by hombero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hombero

It wouldn't be anywhere near that easy. At best, you could spoof it, but that hole has been plugged.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're silly if you think that people can make a system that can't be used for non-intended purposes. Just think of the secret backdoors for agency X that nobody has really audited because they are secret.. I dunno I'm still very worried.
edit on 9-11-2017 by hombero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hombero

Thats why I think any nuclear mission would have pilots in the cockpit. Its the pseudo JSTARS and other stuff I see being unmanned.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I am not a fan of nuclear unmanned.

We lost nukes with manned missions.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

They didn't say nuclear unmanned, they said nuclear capable, and optionally manned. The Air Force has never even hinted that they will put nuclear weapons on unmanned aircraft.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Never say never, every time some company or group says something can't be cracked, they are usually embarrassed in short order. Working in cyber security all I have to say is if someone wants in, they're going to get in. It's just a matter of how easy it is for them to accomplish.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Hypntick

Getting into a UAV isn't like getting into a network. I've found out great detail about a few UAV programs, but any time the frequency used by that aircraft come up, every bit of information dries up so fast it's not even funny. Without having a way to communicate with them, you're not getting in. And the holes that were found after the Sentinel wound up in Iran have since been closed.

It might not be impossible, but the chances of it happening are incredibly remote.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And the holes that were found after the Sentinel wound up in Iran have since been closed.


If I'm not mistaken, those holes included clear (not encrypted) video output feed, and a spoofable GPS.

Is that right?

-dex



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

The video was on the Predator and Reaper, but the GPS was on a couple different platforms, but yes.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

With the predator/global hawk, an Anon hacker was able to capture tons of video from one owned by NASA. What scares me is I believe they did this by hacking the control unit. Were able to input way-points, and could take control of the drone.

Even if the connection between the drone/control is secure, if the military doesn't harden their control stations it won't do much good. And from past experience, they have enough trouble just disabling default windows admin accounts/passwords.

Always seems the weak point is the human in the loop (security admin) not doing their job correctly. Taking the lazy way out, no good routine audits being performed, or known security holes not patched in a timely manner.

~Winter



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Winterpain

Yes, that's the video hole we were talking about. The video wasn't encrypted and could be grabbed with the right receiver rig. They claimed They took partial control of a NASA Global Hawk, but I didn't ever see any kind of proof other than their claim to have done it.

The thing with the control units is that you have to have a way to access them. The actual UAV control units are not connected to a wireless network. There was a keylogger found on a number of control stations in 2011, that was tracked back to an operator that plugged a thumb drive in to use some of his files. Steps were taken to eliminate that from happening again too.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I did see downloaded flight logs/records from the hack, and I believe control console/maps were also shown. That said the source was the group who hacked it. I have no way of honestly knowing if the control console/maps/logs were legit or what their actual source was.

Hope your right. Hope they're careful, Hope for the best.
~Winter



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Winterpain

Those files are also kept on a server that isn't connected to the UAV. They're downloaded onto another server after each flight so they can be analyzed.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Can someone explain "nuclear capable" to me. I hate to simplify, but, isn't a bomb, a bomb?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SonofaSkunk
Arming the nuclear weapon requires special Hardware on the plane. Think PAL go from there.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Thought they were shying away from Nukes..Too much after event radiation and mess that needs to be cleaned up..Is it because of NK,s "Ive got a toy rocket" political reasoning that they are revisiting Nukes again?
There has been unconfirmed and hushed words of antimatter weapons from space that does the job with far less collateral damage.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join