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.

 

True Role of the B-2 Bomber (Hidden Capabilities)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
The B-2 Bomber was a weapon created out of the Cold War designed as a stealthy Nuclear bomber to face off with the USSR. Since the end of the Cold War it has proven its self a superb convential bomber but this was never its primary role. The primary mission of the B-2 bomber, according to the U.S. Defense Department, is to attack' mobile Soviet ICBMs and command posts, after an initial ICBM exchange.

Now thats a interesting to attack command post and ICBMs launchers after a initial ICBM exchange. Yet after an initial ICBM exchange, Soviet radar installations would be knocked out, and thus the stealth feature would not be needed. The B-2 is many things but fast isnt one of them its a High subsonic plane. Modern ICBMs can hit targets on the other side of the world in under a hour 30-45 minutes in most cases. Our we to believe this slow bomber is going to have anything to hit in the timescales of a ICBM exchange. The US has a great response after a ICBM exchange with Russia and thats our own land based ICBMs and submarine based nuclear missiles.

Yet we spend $2.2 Billion for each B-2 (over 2 times its weight in gold) Weighing in at 2,300,000 troy ounces (71,668 kg), each B-2 cost over $950.00 per troy ounce. For a claimed role that can be done by ICBMs or Submarines. ICBMs have one drawback though they have your address all over them when you launch them the whole M.A.D thing.

Im suggesting that the B-2 was and is a Nuclear First Strike weapon and in that effect its worth its weight in gold, well double its weight.

For this its true role its uses a secret new generation of small stealth nuclear cruise missiles which use stealth like the B-2 itself. Each B-2 bomber would carry 16 stealth cruise missiles, on two internal rotary missile launchers. The entire fleet would enter Soviet Airspace undetected and launch their missiles. Each bomber launches its missiles, which in turn would be invisible to radar and could be timed to strike all targets simultaneously.

The orginal order of B-2 called for 132 operational B-2 aircraft. So that orginal planned fleet could have struck Russia with2,112 nuclear missiles in a undetected first strike, a fatal blow for the USSR. Production was however cut after the fall of the USSR as a nuclear exchange became less likely. With just the current 21 B-2 fleet you could still hit 336 targets in a Nuclear first strike. Now thats not enough for Russia but for Rogue nuclear nations say N Korea that would be more then enough.

This in my opinion is the true designed role for the B-2 and why the US would pay so much for this Fatal Beauty.




posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
You have to remember a few things about an nuclear exchange.

Both sides would retain some warheads to followup after the intial exchange. There may be gaps, malfunctions etc so thats one scenario.

There also is the pshycological impact of a bomber force: You can launch them to send a message. You can also recall them at any time. Its a nice way to rattle the nuclear sabre. You cannot do that with ICBM's they cannot be recalled nor deveated once launched. But to make such a threat the bomber has to have a realistic chance to actually carry out the job and when the B-2 was built, the B-52 force was going to get decimated and the B-1B had a better chance, but many projections of thier survivability in an actuall attack on the USSR was pretty grim. The B-2 if produced in the intial projected numbers would have given Soviets fits cause they would have had to spend billions and billions to try to counter it.

The staggering cost of the B-2 was that the development costs are factored in. If produced in the 100's as intialy projected it would have been alot cheaper. The same thing will happen if the chop down the F-22



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I understand the pshycological impact of having nuclear equiped bombers. But in the event of a Nuclear Exchange between the US and Russia I dont see them as a Large factor there are just so many land based ICBMs and Sub launched missiles that do the good faster which much better chances.

We have evidence that early gen stealth cruise missiles that looked like a missile version of a F-117 tested on B-52s awhile back. Then Stealth cruise seem to drop off the radar (pardon the pun). I believe they went back and lost their facated look with new Generations of stealth.

FredT do you think a fleet of B-2 if armed with stealth cruise missile would be capable of a first strike?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   
I think that SAC envisioned a pre-emptive strike for the plane If the USSR could not see it you may get at thier C3I before they could respond to an ICBM launch. I think the stealthy cruise missile may have done the trick. Remember the German Teen, Mithiast Rust if I recall flew his Cessna to Red Square
You could get close to Zhiguli and Moscow and launch. I have to be honest I never thought about that scenario untill you brought it up but it seems workable


The mobile missile hunt may have been just a way to sell them to congress.

However as fast as ICBM's are you could never target them on a mobile ICBM and in the unlikely event that there is areas of the country that are not hit, you would want to take out those ICBM before a second strike.

SAC was quite resious and looked at an Recce version of hte XB-70 Valkyrie to do post nuclear strike recce.


The cruise missile you are refering to was known as "Senior Prom" and the ATS thread (started by yours truly) can be found Here



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
The only problem with talking about a nuclear first strike though is that you cannot guarantee your strike will prevent the enemy from being able to launch his own weapons. Anyt US launch against Russia (and likewise vice versa) is a suicide mission for both sides as the one thing you can be sure of is the a whole load of unstoppable missiles will be headed straight back your way.

However the scenario sketched out for the B-2 as launching an undetectable first strike sounds perfectly plausible as the sort of madcap scheme the looneys at the top might think they can win a war with.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
the downside is , with the russian long wave radar system that can track stealth *the hole in the air* method - they could detect a large force coming in - and launch when teh B-2`s get within range of there launch



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
the downside is , with the russian long wave radar system that can track stealth *the hole in the air* method - they could detect a large force coming in - and launch when teh B-2`s get within range of there launch




Yeah but I dont think the B-2's wouldnt be going in a huge mass IMO if a B-2 strike force was employed each one would go its own way, like a bunch of spies going in to cripple a country simultaneously



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I don't see any really new secret "hidden capability" aspect to the B2 at all.

Of course missiles fly faster than bombers that has been understood since the days of the V2 and is no news to anyone.
But (other than the most unlikely surprise attack coming right out of the blue......ie with no 'give-away preparations) since when would bombers and missiles only be launched at the same time anyway?

IIRC almost all the most probable war scenarios predicted a time of rising tensions leading to dispersement of the bomber fleet away from their usual main bases.
This was also expected to be observed by the 'opposition'.
It was thought 'flushing the bombers' would send a message loud and clear that would indicate the deadly seriousness of the situation and the need to deal with matters soberly and ernestly.
This move along with the establishment of an 'always airbourne' element ensured that the bomber force could not be guaranteed to be knocked out in any attempted first strike.

Times have changed and the days (early 1950's - mid 1980's) of relatively large fleets of B52s, Victors, Vulcans, Tornados, Mirage 4s and Mirage 2000s flying 'holding patterns' in times of great tension before (maybe) going off to attack the USSR are now thankfully behind us.
There are very few B52's or B2s around now and most of those European jets are either long gone or are not tasked to that kind of mission anymore.

The B2 is simply the last of the great ultra-expensive technological 'answers' to some of the problems set by the old cold war situation and 'mindset'.

It effectively shrank the USSR's radar 'net' and made the possibility of an airbourne precision strike on some targets possible for the first time in a long while.
'Decapitation' was probably the most likely use as I doubt a Soviet political and military leadership would have sat tight and done nothing in a time of international high tension whilst reports of several nuclear explosions were going off in their country with no apparant obvious cause were coming through.

Thankfully the nutter element that had always dreamed of a small 'winable' nuclear war never got their chance.

As for Fred's point about B2 costs.

It is IMO kind of disingenuous. It's a very very partial 'take' on the matter.

Whilst it is true that the unit cost is affected severely when production numbers are small that is hardly the entire story and only relates to that unit cost per plane.

A program producing "hundreds" (to do what, exactly, I wonder) would lead to a lower unit cost but an overall total program cost which would be prohibitive, even for the USA.......hence the much smaller numbers being purchased in the first place.
Ditto the F22.




[edit on 23-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Sounds like a good possible scenerio...but one that was made for deterence more then anything.

Th B-2 was 500 million apiece...I believe it was 2.2 billion if you add the R&D into its costs per unit. But why do that on aircraft when you dont do it on anything else. An example is in 1996 Ford spent 2.8 billion redesigning the Taurus...and that isn't factored in to its per unti price tag.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Possibly because Ford are just one competitor in a vast global market for their products and they need to at least match the price of the competition to entice punters to part with their cash. None of which applies to a military aircraft programme like the B-2, one supplier, one customer = come to an arrangement that doesn't bankrupt the supplier.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Shadow, your observation is amazing. I never thought about this tech being used in such a fashion, and nothing you propose is beyond current technology. I think you are 100% dead on.


Think about it people: We can detect missile launches this is what triggers the response, not planes taking off that are invisable to radar. Using Shadows logic here, the opponant would NOT be able to see any launches and have no clue that they should have launched thier own nukes to garantee "assured mutual destruction". They would be doomed before they knew that they have been engaged in a nuclear attack. They may even see the B's and not realize they should engage with a nuclear response, they could likely think its a conventional attack.

This is brilliant Shadow, good work!



You have voted ShadowXIX for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




[edit on 23-10-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
We can detect missile launches this is what triggers the response, not planes taking off that are invisable to radar.


- Why would you assume a mass launching of those (originally intended hoardes of) B2's (along with the necessary tankers etc) would go unremarked and unnoticed?
You are describing something that would have required huge planning and enormous effort to accomplish.

The Russians were and are not stupid and would have known something was, very definitely, 'up'.

I think you are fundamentally wrong about what would have triggered a response.
In any case 'Launch on warning' is simply a refinement of the old insanity of the 1950's/1960's 'tripwire' doctrine, a doctrine so dangerous that everyone abandoned it as soon as possible as it's implications became crystal clear in a world with so many ICBMs on each side.

The idea that those (originally planned) hundreds of B2s would simply have not been noticed or seen at all is IMO extremely simplistic wishful thinking.
(especially if they were all converging for a synchronized attempt to knock out the USSR's ICBMs.......and what about their SLBMs?)

It still won't 'work'.
We would still have had WW3 with the end result of everyone a loser.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
An example is in 1996 Ford spent 2.8 billion redesigning the Taurus...and that isn't factored in to its per unti price tag.


- I think you'll find it most definitely is.
(mind you, whether that figure is anything more than 'meant to sound so impressive ad-speak' is another matter entirely
.).

Ford have access to profits, savings, share-holder's funds, commercial loans and at the end of the day know they will be able to sell umteen million Taurus/Mondeos ( or *whatever* the name of the local derivative and the 'sister' and subsequent model(s) also utilising that investment) worldwide and are able spreading those costs on that basis.

The tax-payer and the utterly different funding arrangements inherent in a publicly funded 'defence' contract are a different story altogether.

Of course unit costs matter but ultimately less fundamentally than the final whole program cost.
At the end of the day - whilst the amount of 'bang' is very important - the real question for the tax-payer is surely 'how many bucks'?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well, I thought it was obvious that the B-2 was for a nuclear first strike, but I never thought about having it carry stealth nuclear missles.

That would make a lot of sense actually - ESPECIALLY if you factor in Brilliant Pebbles to this strategy!

Think about that one for a second. The US brings in it's B-2 force, and pummles the USSR with their guard down. The USSR launches the missles it has left, but then the US has an anti ICBM system in place. Such a system wouldn't stand a chance against a full out launch by Russia, but if we cut down their forces to 15%? With the funding Reagan was giving the military, I think that such a system could probably protect the US reasonably.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

The cruise missile you are refering to was known as "Senior Prom" and the ATS thread (started by yours truly) can be found Here


Thanks for posting that link
I wanted to link information on that project. I remember reading that thread but couldnt remember the name of the project. Amazing that we where working on a stealth cruise missiles as early as 1979 I knew it was years ago but forgot it was that long. Thats what I believe went black as they started making ones with the newer generation of stealth. Think how small a cruise missile would look on radar using the same stealth that makes a Bomber with a 172ft wingspan look tiny on radar.

Another factor I see as important to using stealth Cruise missiles with a stealth bomber is that you can now use them from a stand off range. This in my opinion would make the B-2 and its attack all the harder to detect and stop. Also when using cruise missiles it make possible a much large coordinated strike over a much larger area.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Why would you assume a mass launching of those (originally intended hoardes of) B2's (along with the necessary tankers etc) would go unremarked and unnoticed?
You are describing something that would have required huge planning and enormous effort to accomplish.



Your kidding right? Your saying Russia can detect 130 or so stealth aircraft taking off in the USA and mark it as unusual? You understand the USA has over 2500 aircraft in the sky every second of every day right? Thousands and thousands of planes taking off and landing at any given time, all day and night. Russia has no way in the world to detect any specific plane or group of planes taking off and single them out as an attack force among the thousands and thousands of comercial and private planes, let alone stealth aircraft, in a territory they have no direct equipment set up to monitor such traffic thousands of miles away. Last time I checked there werent any advanced Russion radar sights in the USA.

Russia would have ZERO ability to see a fleet of B2's take off. And Russia would have enormous difficulty seeing stealth aircraft flying in areas they didnt have direct control over that didnt house detection equipment (no ability really).

The very first possibility of Russia detecting a stealth invasion would be over their own territories, not one second sooner. And even then there is a good chance that the stealth technology could fool the Russion radars long enough to mount the attack.

You have totaly over estimated Russias capability of detection.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
ummm wrong they (USSR) have quite few sat flying that can detect activity in airbases during the height of the cold war and not to mention human intelligence network in US and Europe and across the globe . an attack that will consist of hundreds if not thousands of birds and i don’t mean commercial ones I mean fighters tankers AWACS and other assets all in the air. This would have triggered multiple alarms across the board. which means immediate launch of every thing they got. their was/is no credible way any one could get away with first strike.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
You can also be certain that Russia and other players have assets (read spys) on the ground near any major US airbase where B2 and B-52's are staged. A couple of planes go up = training run, 10 go up and you can bet a message is sent....

I may or may not be a spy....



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I can't believe the number of people on here who are talking about a nuclear war as being winnable!


Hello? Even with B-2's, you are still gonna get nuked to kingdom come. Do you think the Russians HAVEN'T got deep buried concrete reinforced installations designed to remain operstional in the event of a nuclear strike, just like America has?

Supposing the B-2 force remains completely undetected the whole time, do you think the Russians are going to sit in these installations and wonder where the hell all those nukes just came from?

Doh!

NO exchange of nuclear weapons is winnable or survivable, that why it has remained a last resort since Nagasaki.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightdeamon
ummm wrong they (USSR) have quite few sat flying that can detect activity in airbases during the height of the cold war and not to mention human intelligence network in US and Europe and across the globe . an attack that will consist of hundreds if not thousands of birds and i don’t mean commercial ones I mean fighters tankers AWACS and other assets all in the air. This would have triggered multiple alarms across the board. which means immediate launch of every thing they got. their was/is no credible way any one could get away with first strike.



Stealth gets rid of the massive amounts of planes older non stealth planes would need to carry out such a attack. No need for AWACS or anything besides tankers when using B-2s and those tankers only have to refuel the B-2 every 6000 miles. You also dont need One tanker for each B-2 a single tanker can refuel many.

It would require alot less planes then people might think. You wouldnt be stupid enough to just all of a sudden drastically up the amount of tankers flying before such a attack you would make that number in the air apear to be normal everyday activities. If needed you could slowly up the number of tankers in the air at any given time over a extended peroid.

The Key to such a attack would be to make it seem like a normal day. As UofCinLA mentioned spys would be a concern so you would have to have the utmost secrecy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join