posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:52 PM
Which facts didn't I get 'straight'?
Actually the B-2 was a Special Access Program, and still is. It operates under the code name Senior Ice!
No. It operates under a program name whose overlying code architecture has changed since the declaration of Senior Ice.
Special Access Required remains the same but is only the term describing the overall program security level which means that noone with access will
acknowledge the true program name or objective _existence_ to anyone without the same access.
N2 requires that EACH further subelement of the program be keyed into with a codeword held only by select personnel who have a proven 'need to know'
about that part of the program.
That you know what Senior Ice means in fact only proves that the words themselves have no power anymore as an SAR restrictive useage.
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!
Perhaps you should act less like a fanboy and more like a dedicated researcher. The Russians can detect the B-2. Our own SecDef has admitted as
much. As such, you have a fleet of 20 airframes which cannot functionally achieve the primary strategic mission they were designed for. Anymore than
the 60 B-1B and B-52 fleets that at least have the numbers and standoff munitions respectively to sustain losses while delivering penetrating SIOP
equivalency of megatonnage yields
And are equally able to stage forward to regional operating bases where they have a tenth the distance to go to reach the combat area in those
theaters where high technology detection systems are not a factor in the deployment of unescorted assets.
That's right. Both the B-1B and the B-52 receive only incidental support from surrounding tacair operations. OTOH, the B-2, forever 'queen for a
night' has a veritable bevy of handmaidens which constantly accompany it as direct and standoff support supplied for every mission. Sucking away
those missions from rather more useful tacair platforms left naked to support the Batarang.
All because, as a figurehead platform, we can no more afford to lose such a symbol of misplaced national pride than we can a nuclear carrier. Which
is ridiculous amount of 'valueing' to place on ANY exposed asset without a nuclear reactor, 6,000 men or 100,000 tons of steel to back it up.
Please check your facts!
Please stop whining because my facts make your obsession look like the exercise in worshiping technology for technologies sake that it is.
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.
The entire reason for the 'bomber roadmap' CMUP was to give the Air Farce a reason to conserve the bomber fleet as SAC and the SIOP mission died.
If they hadn't given the bombers IAM capabilities first, Congress would have cut this vestigial appendix from the gross overburden of the taxpayer
donkey carrying the military's worthless weight a decade or more ago.
Having said that, once the AF had proven their union-dues loyalty to the heavy-air segment of their fraternity population, they subsequently gave IAMs
to the tactical fleet as well. Which promptly went on to prove that even with a moronic approach to 'look out I got both pylons loaded today I
tell'ya!' platform:munition densities; fighters STILL beat the tar out of the worthless strategic force and in particular the complete leach of the
B-2 on a sorte:radius basis of attacking defended targets with 'DMPIs per day' average servicings (not just numbers dropped but numbers dropped on
spatially disparate target groups in achieving synergized theater-goals performance).
With the GBU-38/BRU-57 now in tactical use (4 vice 2 munitions) and the GBU-39 going to the F-15E and F-22 LONG before it reaches the Batarang
community (8-16 per airframe); the only munitions, 'advanced' or otherwise, which the B-2 routinely employs that others do not or cannot, are all
Even the GBU-37, as a 'bunker buster', can be matched by the GBU-28 with dual GPS/SALH guidance and superior accuracy off the F-15E.
As for two crew, who cares? The B-2 could achieve the same mission role with one man. Or none. Because it is utterly helpless when caught. And on
autopilot 90% of the time, whether the crew are 'resting' or not.
In terms of combat capabilities, flying along like an airliner at ultra high altitude, what matters is that (as a stealth asset) the Batwing neither
has the EO options nor can afford to make active RF emissions sufficient to act as it's own targeting agency on small and/or fleeting targets typical
of most realworld-useful ATO lists.
Nor can it perform as a network hub for other ISR platforms (not that these are likely to be present on D1/R1 or SIOP anyway) already in the theater.
Because not only it's EMCON status but it's very comms /suite/ remain dated.
Instead, it is used as a heavy interdiction asset on premission briefed fixed targets or those which are relayed BEFORE combat area entry. Delivering
all of 16 heavyweight or 80 lightweight bombs (compared to /several hundred/ equivalent from tacair) in a given 30-50hr period.
It does so by using offset LPI SAR snapshot and doppler driftrate updates to it's GATS derived onboard inertial bombing system. A system ultimately
no different in method than the radar blind bombing laydown approach used by B-36s from the late 50's onwards.
The only real difference being that the munitions now can compensate for their own ballistic/wind variables after release.
The combination of a lack of reactivity and limited force size makes the B-2 an airframe in search of a mission. Because nothing it does, it does
well enough to be even a partial replacement for EITHER tactical or strategic mission systems which accomplish either the same or many more missions
than it can, just on sheer presence.