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.

 

B-2 Question

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I have studied the B-2 for many years, so I know a lot about the plane. However, there are still things about the B-2/ATB/Senior Ice PROGRAM, that I don't get!

It's a known fact that when the B-2 was first concieved, Stealth Technology was still considered a "Black" art. The ATB was even given the special access code name Senior Ice. All of the early research and development into stealth was carried out in Black Porgrams. For it's time, the B-2 was the most strategically important of the early stealth programs because of it range and penetrating capibilities. It was concieved to tip the strategic balance in the USA's favor, by allowing SAC to attack targets anywhere inside of the USSR without being intercepted. (NOTE: I'm only listing the intended goals. I'm not trying to debate what the B-2 did or didn't achieve!) It also would bring a whole new class of capibilities to military bombers. It was intended to be as revolutionary strategically as the Atomic Bomb was in 1945!

It's seems like the USA Wanted Russia to know about it's "Ace in the Hole"! Doesn't that defeat the whole point of why the original stealth projects like Have Blue and Tacit Blue were secret for so long!

If the B-2 was considered that important to SAC at the time, Why wasn't it a Black Program that was hidden as well and as long at the U-2 or the F-117? Why did they choose to show it to the world before it was operational? Shouldn't the B-2 have been kept at Groom Lake unitl 2000 or 2001?

After all, surprize is the best weapon, so why tell everyone what you have before it's ready?

Tim

[edit on 7-8-2006 by ghost]




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The ATB programme that led to the B-2 was publicised as far back as 1979 when a Boeing 'moth shaped' flying wing bomber proposal 'for the 1990's' was printed in Flight International, which got this particular 14 year old lad wishing his life away to see it in the air!

However nobody actually got to see the real ATB until the prototype was unveiled at its roll out in 1988 or so. Maybe the fact that it was a huge 172ft span monster that flew subsonically led them to surmise that they might as well show it?

Another thing that occurs to me is that maybe it was this fact coupled with the intention to put 132 of them into service that made secrecy impossible and pointless, for instance I read some time ago from a US source that "a small force of 50 or so fighter bombers can be operated secretly but not a major front line component of your armed forces, it just can't be done".

Bearing this in mind, if only they could have known that production would end after 21 aircraft perhaps they might have kept it secret after all?



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
It was easier to keep the F-117A secret because it was intended for operational use at night. Most test flights occurred at Groom Lake in the first hour after sunrise. Operational test/training flights at Tonopah Test Range took place at night. There was little chance of an inadvertent sighting by uncleared personnel.

The B-2 test program was always envisioned as taking place during daylight hours. The B-2 is also a much larger airplane. There was no question that it would be seen by non-program personnel, so they simply didn't bother to hide it.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
F-117 was intended to be used in SF support and deniable tactical level strikes, thus it was kept as a secret asset.
B2 on the other hand was an exellent deterent weapon intended to make sure USSR would't allow things to get too tense, because they knew that USA could strike first with "impunity"....



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The B-2 test program was always envisioned as taking place during daylight hours. The B-2 is also a much larger airplane. There was no question that it would be seen by non-program personnel, so they simply didn't bother to hide it.


Strange! why would you do all the testing in the daytime if it's meant to be used at night?

Also, the initial testing of the F-117 was done during the day!

Tim



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
It's seems like the USA Wanted Russia to know about it's "Ace in the Hole"! Doesn't that defeat the whole point of why the original stealth projects like Have Blue and Tacit Blue were secret for so long!

If the B-2 was considered that important to SAC at the time, Why wasn't it a Black Program that was hidden as well and as long at the U-2 or the F-117? Why did they choose to show it to the world before it was operational? Shouldn't the B-2 have been kept at Groom Lake unitl 2000 or 2001?

After all, surprize is the best weapon, so why tell everyone what you have before it's ready?

I would expect that aside from the cost and security issues of keeping such a large aircraft secret AND operational, the unveiling of the B-2 ATB to the public was political in nature; perhaps to put the final nails in the coffin of the Soviet military economy already reeling from trying to go "toe to toe" with Reagan's Star Wars (SDI) program.

Bringing down the Soviet regime economically without firing a shot was no doubt of exponentially greater value than keeping such an asset as the B-2 in hiding for some "what if" scenario in the obscure future.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Good point Intelgurl!

I didn't think of it that way.

Tim



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Because in or them to unveil it if it had been kept secre they would of had to go to war which is of course, not what either side wanted. This way it could be used to warn the USSR that we had mightier strenght.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
.........
Strange! why would you do all the testing in the daytime if it's meant to be used at night?

Also, the initial testing of the F-117 was done during the day!

Tim


Because its not too easy to find the airfield or an improvised landing strip at night, OR find a region to bail out that is NOT directly above a lake you could drown in, OR to find an uninhabited patch of land you could crash your big flying wing into without creating too much media buzz and criticism


Thats why test flights are during daytime (of course there are boatloads of other reasons, too. For example, Working at night usually results in higher stress levels and less "performance" because we´re daytime animals).

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Well in this case it's about like standing behind someone with a very, very large stick and smiling at them. They turn to face you, and you're still behind them smiling. We tell Russia we have a plane you can't detect that can drop nukes on you whenever, wherever and they go, "OH SH**!" And try to find everything about it. It makes a very good deterrent. Now very few people know much about the program even now.

As for why during the day, that's easy. Training and learning is easier during the day. It's easier to understand why and how everything works. Then you train at night once you understand all the systems and how they work. Then you go refueling at night and dropping ordinance at night (for practice not like bombing civvies or Russia). Which is easier, reading with the lights on or off. Also, a lot of times stealth aircraft have chase planes with them (so ATC can see where they are not being the least of the reason) and it makes it easier for them to see the plane to see if anything is wrong as well.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
It's a known fact that when the B-2 was first concieved, Stealth Technology was still considered a "Black" art.



Not really, if you've a computer that can simulate it [note, not model, fully simulate], then its not really a black art.

From what I know, the FEM approach is used to perform RCS analysis [at least, it is now, don't know about then], and it should be possible to put iterative procedures into the code, optimising the shape without much in the way of user input.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Not really, if you've a computer that can simulate it [note, not model, fully simulate], then its not really a black art.



Kilcoo316,

I meant black in the classified sense! Back in the earily 1980's when the B-2 was created Stealth technology was still considered Top Secret in the USA. It was not publically discussed and all government research into stealth was officially denied!

Tim



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf

B2 on the other hand was an exellent deterent weapon intended to make sure USSR would't allow things to get too tense, because they knew that USA could strike first with "impunity"....


This is really close to what I think. My enemy has a bomber that can penetrate our airspace and bomb targets without detection (past the large explosions and craters). Our aircraft can be shot down when they pass over enemy airspace. Do I want to attack my enemy? Heck no. Not with a weapon like that on their side-as said before, it would make an excellent deterent.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
The B-2 is for Bombers what the F-22A is supposed to be - only for fighters (although the B-2 is a truely revolutionary aircraft and is useful).

It's sort of a figurehead of technology and what the U.S. is capable of producing technologically and how we can pretty much walk all over you with you shooting at 'ghosts' in the sky.

It's sort of a form of propaganda - on one side - you've got people with the mentality of "I am NOT pissing that thing off" - and then you have the other mentality which becomes trigger-happy and begins shooting SAMs at birds in fear of them being an American 'Stealth' aircraft.

That - and it works as a nice figure to draw the confidence and support of the U.S. populous. People are constantly awed at 20 year old technology flying overhead because of the simple fact that it has no verticle stabilizers and is 'invisible' to radar. That and it makes a HELL of a lot of noise if it passes over your head at a few hundred feet.

Not to be mean to the airplane - it really is an amazing aircraft... I just like to step back and take a look at some of our behavior - especially group-psychology.... which I'm convinced that the collective reasoning ability of people drops exponentially with the number of individuals included.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I'm rather impressed at what people consider "loud". I've had B-2s fly over me at less than 200 feet, and barely heard a thing until they were right in front of me. Not to mention the fact that the mission design is for HIGH ALTITUDE insertions. But the B-2s I saw were the quietest planes I've encountered yet.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
It depends upon when you see them and what they are doing at the time. If they are at about 65-100% throttle - a flight of three of those things will shake windows miles away. We got that experience on 9/11 when they scrambled the bombers into the air, following protocol. A number of kids from my school had both parents work on-base in some manner, and went home alone (that wasn't cool) since the base was in lock-down for a period of time (I forget how long....). No one went in or out - period.

If they are cruising - then, no - you don't hear them very much. Since they are always low altitude around here, I would also assume that there is a good thermal layer that gives them added protection from sound (even if they were going supersonic) - much like thermal layers in the ocean shield submarines from sonar.

But through many flybys over football stadiums and airshows - they are pretty noisy. More on the low frequency end - they seem to shake you from the inside, out rather than send needles into your eardrums (my favorite noise in the world - I love the squeal of jet engines...).

But, yeah - compared to a couple F-15s practicing ACM over your house.... it's quiet.

A pair of F-15s can make it sound like the whole damned base is taking off. Although, I could have sworn that I saw an F-14 in amongst them this morning.... but the angle was such that I could have confused it with an F-15. I also have little explaination for why an F-14 would be anywhere near here - unless it was a form of training engagement between the two branches. I know there are Navy aircraft operating out of Kansas City because I'm assigned to a unit there upon my completion of A-School. There're also some operating out of Springfield - since it was brought up that I could attempt to transfer there should I go to UMR. But that's all a longshot and it's more likely that I saw an F-15 from a weird angle. Especially since I was in the middle of watching the commentary on the making of the movie Top Gun (great timing for a dogfight over my house, though).



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Ghost,

>>
I have studied the B-2 for many years, so I know a lot about the plane. However, there are still things about the B-2/ATB/Senior Ice PROGRAM, that I don't get!
>>

Well here's a couple I wonder about:

1. AvLeak reported that at one of the 90's Le Bourget airshows, 'select dignitaries' were taken into a sealed hangar and shown a B-2 with a photoluminescent/electrochromatic paint scheme that could change colors and intensities to match the background. Yet only /now/ are the words 'optical LO' suddenly important or relevant?

2. You have a very clean basic airframe design with very little fuselage weight that has less range than the B-52 it is replacing, despite the need to nominally loiter over Russia looking for mobile rail/road TELs for the SS-24/25. WHY add yet more 'vortices all over' inherent to the compound camber that _must_ mess up the entire cruise mode efficiencies as a result? Are you dissipating longwave impedence loads somehow or just admitting to the 'lets not make a backflip stallable airframe' that is otherwise configurationally inherent to all FWs?

3. The nominal thrust to weight ratio of the four F118s looks particularly pathetic, somewhere in the .19 to .22 range. Even the BUFF, admittedly with twice as many flaming holes but also weighing almost 200,000lbs more, manages a T/Wr of .26 at gross and as high as .32 at intermediate takeoff. At the same time, the B-2 is characterized as having 'light, almost fighterlike' performance characteristics. Even more so than the B-1B. Why?

4. You are trying for maximum LO at the same time as you shoot for maximum search areas and standoff while looking for mobile targets. Yet you install /twin/ APQ-181 antennas that are veritable billboards of surface area directly imbedded into the wing LE. And then you make them Ka band which is like driving through whiteout level fog with Christmas tree lights. Additionally, there are NO optical sensors on the entire jet. ANYWHERE. Which means that you get no freebie exploitation of secondary target signatures (thermal or contour map) even though you nominally WILL put such classification-capable systems on both the AGM-129 and the AGM-158. You also lag your ability to deliver tactical PGMs until the arrival of inertial munitions and /even then/ you are attacking 'aimpoints' not visible (mobile = transient presence remember) point targets.

5. You claim that there is nothing to Russian 'plasma stealth' research because of the ambient effects it has on broadband background noise haloing (among many other problems related to composites and large-body electrical field generation in an ionizing-polarizable atmosphere) but then in two different official publications and one fictional book series you allow references to both electrogravitic 'propulsion augment' and added stealth inherent to 'gas dynamic field generators' and 'charged proton sheath' active-cancellation fields.

6. You have an ULTRA high value asset. One which nominally cannot afford to be exposed to even post-SIOP rollback threats. Yet you cancel the SRAM replacement which lets even a B-1 standoff upwards of 70nm from 40,000ft and 35nm from 25,000ft. At the same time, you design a weapons bay which is 'half incompatible' (the missiles are so fat the MPRL won't rotate) with the only remaining standoff weapon, the ACM. Similarly, in even higher threat conditions of a tactical environment, you vest the jet with a QRC IAM (no booster, no glide kit) that is more or less incompatible with the rest of the fleet in the urgency to justify the bomber roadmap towards a tactical munitions carrier role. Yet you then, in AvLeak, _specifically describe_ the manner in which the jet still requires multiple SAR+INS programmed offsets and time intervals to achieve reliable 'GATS' accuracies. Making the asset more or less a predictable overflight weapons system with predictable banduse radar target mapping and at least 'guessable' LAR driven ballistic requirements. i.e. Eminently Killable using the same system of ballistic/EOCG fires as downed the F-117.

>>
It's a known fact that when the B-2 was first concieved, Stealth Technology was still considered a "Black" art. The ATB was even given the special access code name Senior Ice. All of the early research and development into stealth was carried out in Black Porgrams. For it's time, the B-2 was the most strategically important of the early stealth programs because of it range and penetrating capibilities. It was concieved to tip the strategic balance in the USA's favor, by allowing SAC to attack targets anywhere inside of the USSR without being intercepted.
>>

Well, since one Democratic president tried to reinvent his 'hawkish defense preparedness' political stance by disclosing the existence and basic configuration (flying wing) of the ATB early on and another Republican one tried to bankroll both the program and whitewash his own deep-in-the-mire political woes by announcing it upon first flight. And since the very _development center_ where it had been under R&D had had 4-5, scale-silouhettes painted on it's outdoor rotunda area for YEARS prior to the unveiling. Since, indeed, AvLeak themselves flew right over the top of the jet and showed the hush-hush so-secret back end on the day of the rollout.

The real question you have to ask is not whom the United States was fooling but who you think you are as a 'dedicated researcher'? OF COURSE we wanted The Russians to know. The question is whether they were as (espionage) deeply into the technology and engineering phase as they have staunchly maintained 'from the outset'. From the Alamagordo to the NSA, the Russians typically know more than we would like to believe they do. And still, for 50 odd years, they insist on following in our lead-dog, yellow-trail, footsteps rather than strike out on their own. COULD IT BE that this is an intentional effect and if so, how deep does it go? Is it some kind of deliberate economic retardation effect to allow for time while society adjusts to massive changes in out perception of the way things 'really are'. Or is it just a game of public paranoia and private handshakes to keep the powerful ensconced?

>>
(NOTE: I'm only listing the intended goals. I'm not trying to debate what the B-2 did or didn't achieve!) It also would bring a whole new class of capabilities to military bombers. It was intended to be as revolutionary, strategically, as the Atomic Bomb was in 1945!
>>

Well, if'n I want to preempt WWIII, my first effort is going to be ASW on the boats in their various operational areas even as I creep up a boomer for DT shot at about 7 critical BMC2 sites. All off hand delivered, sealed, sailing orders.

I will then follow up with additional SLBM/ICBM strikes against the major interior missile fields. And only at the last 'stand by' with as much of my tactical air force as practical, to field from whatever is left in the way of flushed bombers.

There is NO DAMN WAY I am going to be caught with a jet '2hr in, 3 left to go' as an initial strategic decapitation asset. Certainly not with only freefall munitions.

NONE.

Not even in Russia whose huge landmass, lack of a lackey state fronting the pole and relatively poor satellite systems all equate to Air Defenses that are about as holely as you can get without calling them saintly or a sieve.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
...

For this alone, I would say that the B-2 was neither as useful as the development of atomic weapons (which, throughout the Cold War, inhibited a major conflict between superpowers which had otherwise been the norm 'every 15-25 years' for the preceding three centuries). Nor as ultimately useful in what it COULD have allowed us to achieve vs. what it MIGHT have prompted the Russians to do by way of countermeasure. Namely TAV/FOBS as an untouchable, fractional, strategic bomber. Or rapid orbital insert of nuclear weapons on very short tethers.

>>
It's seems like the USA Wanted Russia to know about it's "Ace in the Hole"! Doesn't that defeat the whole point of why the original stealth projects like Have Blue and Tacit Blue were secret for so long!
>>

Well, the sooner they know, the sooner they can start to waste money on development of a CM. OTOH, the B-2 was 'so secret' that they developed a covert comms system for it which ultimately proved useless as the network around which it was supposed to be noded was shut down before the plane ever flew. Is it a 1,000 dollar hammer or just a cover for how we waste-to-win?

>>
If the B-2 was considered that important to SAC at the time, Why wasn't it a Black Program that was hidden as well and as long at the U-2 or the F-117? Why did they choose to show it to the world before it was operational? Shouldn't the B-2 have been kept at Groom Lake unitl 2000 or 2001?
>>

Actually, I think the period phrase you are after is 'SAR' or Special Access Required for the general briefing with a secondary N2 (Need To KNow) proof of entry clearance into each specific subcompartment which includes a bunch of 'must meet secondary spec' factors on other programs and political requirements (can't lie to Congress etc. etc.). As far as this goes, you need only read _The Five Billion Dollar Misunderstanding_ by James Stevenson to see how 'zealously' the AF snow-job guarded their development effort on the ATB from any cross-service sharing of technology hurdles. Basically destroyed the ATA-12 program they did.

>>
After all, surprise is the best weapon, so why tell everyone what you have before it's ready?
>>

The B-2 is a major disappointment. It's LO system only 'sorta' works (as the SecAF and/or COSAF admitted after going to Russia, wherein he was shown a system that could reliably track the Batarang). And this would only truly be proven after E-3 AIRSAR (try parking a Skywarrior off the wing of a B-2 in total 0-dark-30 conditions) tests of the fullscale preproduction article showed that against a dynamic rather than static range background, a lot of the assumptions about the B-2's signature suppression failed to integrate into a 'Lower LO' as had been predicted. Then there were the multiple material failures in everything from debonded wing seals (replaced) to titanium panels in the exhaust trenches (redesigned, twice) to overall material-qualities and maintenance proofing (the notorious 'rainstorm effect' on butter and speedtape).

Again even in nominally third world nobody regions like Kosovo and AfG, the B-2 is a KNOWN blackhole of support missions. Sucking up every sortie for DAYS around it's arrival to the theater. Wherein it's supposed ability to enter completely unescorted or 'enabled' by jamming and DEAD and OCA is shown, every combat flight, to be an utter lie. Add to this the conditions of deployment from Whiteman (44hr trips to AfG with recovery into Diego before -another- crew took the beast home) and again, you are looking at an asset which is a much vaporware propoganda tool as 'etheric' in it's real world utility. Especially now that tacair finally has IAMs the B-2 simply can't compete as a sortie generator, DMPI-to-DMPI.

Anytime somebody pounds a drum real hard to 'make sure you hear' the secret that he doesn't want to talk about, you have to assume that he's selling something harder than he should have to or want to and the indians over in Missouri are whackin' that tom-tom all the damn time.

CONCLUSION:
The B-2 is a strategic force figurehead if not showboat whose only real quality is that all that came before it are worse. Older and harder to maintain. Or a poor (re) design from the start. Only the B-3, if it happens, will truly show the way forward as an _affordable_, ETOPS capable, MODERN MUNITIONS exploitative (no more 2,500-3,500lb bombs and CM!) and netcentric adaptive platform. If it has third or fourth generation (maintainable) LO, good. If it doesn't (to make it GSTF reliable in a sortie generation and basing mode sense), _also good_. Because it will be functionally closer to the B-52 as a weapons truck than the Batarang.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

>>
If the B-2 was considered that important to SAC at the time, Why wasn't it a Black Program that was hidden as well and as long at the U-2 or the F-117? Why did they choose to show it to the world before it was operational? Shouldn't the B-2 have been kept at Groom Lake unitl 2000 or 2001?
>>

Actually, I think the period phrase you are after is 'SAR' or Special Access Required for the general briefing with a secondary N2 (Need To KNow) proof of entry clearance into each specific subcompartment which includes a bunch of 'must meet secondary spec' factors on other programs and political requirements (can't lie to Congress etc. etc.). As far as this goes, you need only read _The Five Billion Dollar Misunderstanding_ by James Stevenson to see how 'zealously' the AF snow-job guarded their development effort on the ATB from any cross-service sharing of technology hurdles. Basically destroyed the ATA-12 program they did.


Actually the B-2 was a Special Access Program, and still is. It operates under the code name Senior Ice!



The B-2 is a major disappointment. It's LO system only 'sorta' works (as the SecAF and/or COSAF admitted after going to Russia, wherein he was shown a system that could reliably track the Batarang). And this would only truly be proven after E-3 AIRSAR (try parking a Skywarrior off the wing of a B-2 in total 0-dark-30 conditions) tests of the fullscale preproduction article showed that against a dynamic rather than static range background, a lot of the assumptions about the B-2's signature suppression failed to integrate into a 'Lower LO' as had been predicted. Then there were the multiple material failures in everything from debonded wing seals (replaced) to titanium panels in the exhaust trenches (redesigned, twice) to overall material-qualities and maintenance proofing (the notorious 'rainstorm effect' on butter and speedtape).


Perhaps you should read up on the B-2 a bit. Yes, the B-2 did have some major growing pains (if I denied that, I'd be a liar!) However, you are referrring to issues that were found during testing in the R&D phase and have since been fixed!




Again even in nominally third world nobody regions like Kosovo and AfG, the B-2 is a KNOWN blackhole of support missions. Sucking up every sortie for DAYS around it's arrival to the theater. Wherein it's supposed ability to enter completely unescorted or 'enabled' by jamming and DEAD and OCA is shown, every combat flight, to be an utter lie. Add to this the conditions of deployment from Whiteman (44hr trips to AfG with recovery into Diego before -another- crew took the beast home) and again, you are looking at an asset which is a much vaporware propoganda tool as 'etheric' in it's real world utility. Especially now that tacair finally has IAMs the B-2 simply can't compete as a sortie generator, DMPI-to-DMPI.


Please check your facts!





CONCLUSION:
The B-2 is a strategic force figurehead if not showboat whose only real quality is that all that came before it are worse. Older and harder to maintain. Or a poor (re) design from the start. Only the B-3, if it happens, will truly show the way forward as an _affordable_, ETOPS capable, MODERN MUNITIONS exploitative (no more 2,500-3,500lb bombs and CM!) and netcentric adaptive platform. If it has third or fourth generation (maintainable) LO, good. If it doesn't (to make it GSTF reliable in a sortie generation and basing mode sense), _also good_. Because it will be functionally closer to the B-52 as a weapons truck than the Batarang.
KPl.


Your conclusing shows that you haven't really studied the aircraft. Case in Point! the b-2 carries some of the most advanced smart bombs in use today. It's also the only bomber that has a 2-man crew.

Tim



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
ch1466, in my years of living in a city where about 1 out of every 30 people you meet currently work on, or have worked on the B-2, I have picked up and heard a lot about the B-2 that I can't find in any other fact sheets or publicized documents. Granted, some of this is just talk. However, I can tell you assuredly that the B-2 is worth every dime and penny spent on it. Partially because it wasn't just a bomber - but a testbed for an arsenal of new concept technologies.

And as far as being able to be tracked by radar - any airplane can - unless you build it out of near solid granite to absorb the radar energy completely. It's all a matter of filtering and how it's applied.

Being tracked by a radar is rather miniscule, though - the signature is not necessarily within threshold for a SAHR missile - and a data-link signal to the missile (just flat-out guided in on the aircraft's current location) would be detected - as would the switch from search to tracking mode of the radar.

Air threats are the only realistic concern. That's part of what the job of the ATF is for - not to be a multi-role assailant - but to achieve air superiority in spite of standard ground defenses in order to allow our stealth bombers to work in clear skies and with near immunity to surface launched missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join