Could the B-2 Spirit Really have Active Stealth?

OK

I hesitate to post this... but here goes

Please see the thread-

X-47B. Northrops big bad beast! Amazing piccies!

(I dont know how to attach a link sorry)

My point was-
the leading edges and hawk like beak of the X47B look very similar to the B2. This could be because Northrop have decided this is the best solution to good aerodynamics and a stealthy shape.. But that would be boring!

SO LETS SPECULATE

Is Northrop's propriety technology pioneered in the B2 (ACTIVE STEALTH or electro-aerodynamics or whatever) being leveraged onto the X47B??

If it is not cost prohibitive Northrop would be insane not to try, I'm sure Nortrop are not insane...although some people thought Jack Northrop was back in the day of his first flying wings and midget parasite jet fighters

LET THE MADNESS BEGIN

Originally posted by Catalytic
I'm sure Nortrop are not insane...although some people thought Jack Northrop was back in the day of his first flying wings and midget parasite jet fighters

LET THE MADNESS BEGIN

I think all great people face that question. They say there is a razor thin line between genious and insanity!

Tim

Ya know, much of the B-2 is still classified - Just because it has a lame radar and archaic (by todays standards) comlinks, etc does not mean that everything on the aircraft is - in a word - crap.

Catalytic - you win the prize of the day!

Has anyone ever noticed the little birdbeak on the nose of the B-2?
It's function is still classified. And whatever function it serves is good enough for the X-47 because it has a little beak on it too.

And what of plasma stealth?
Is it feasible that the B-2 could employ this technology?
In a post that is "sticky" right here on ATS I wrote an article that had to do with Russian plasma stealth.

At the time of the writing everything I said had validity to it. However now things have changed, technologies have matured and there is real plasma stealth "out there" now. From what I hear - on both sides of the playing field.

If you could easily explain it's methodology or do it from COTS products it wouldn't be very secret would it?

This is an area where ATS could truly shine, by digging and researching and finding some characteristics of such tech.

Could the B-2 have such a technology as this?
If not, might it be upgraded to such a technology?
These are questions that could further discussion on this thread.



[edit on 12-21-2006 by intelgurl]

Well the bird beak is an interesting question. on a very quick search i pulled up zip but I agree with intelgurl the ATS shines at sorta information on subjects and trying to understand the situation and come up with a list of possible answers. I'm going to keep searching about the "bird beak" and would encourage anyone with info to come forward or team up with people who are willing to help in the search.

I believe the B-2 and F-22 Raptor share similiar stealth abilities, other than airframe if you know what I'm talking about

This is probably gonna disappoint, but I think the "beak" on flying wings is there moe as an aerodynamic solution for pitching.

Normal aerofoil sections always want to pitch up - its just the way the pressure distribution is. With flying wings getting the weight distribution right to overcome this can be a problem, and the elevator moment arm is usually not incredibly long either. Hence, reprofiling the nose to get the stagnation point on the upper surface of the "leading edge" - giving a bit of nose down force - to balance the rest out presents itself as a tidy solution.

I found the reason for the B-2's Beak on Page 42 of Inside the Stealth Bomber By Bill Sweetman. Here is the explanation behind the Beak:

The leading edge of the wing is a remarkably complex shape, a blend of sharp and blunt edges with changes in camber from root to tip. It evolved as a compramise between aerodynamics and stealth. For a stealth aircraft, the ideal is an infinitely sharp edge, but this would cause flow breakup and excessive drag; the aerodyanamicists wanted a smoothly curved edge. The basic comprmize was based on the fact that most electromagnetic scattering occures at the ends of each straight leading edge. The resulting shape, from the B-2's nose to wingtips, is like a toothpick: fatter and rounder in the middle and tapering off to a point at each end. Toward the nose, to minimize problems of flow seperation, the sharp edge is bent downwards to align it with the free airstream at the B-2's normal cruising angle of attack, giving the bomber its characteristic hawk's-beak profile.

In simple terms, the Beak was created as a compramise between stealth and aerodynamic requirements. The idea is to break up and scatter radar energy without causing flow seperation, which would cause a stall. It's not quiet as WOW as an active stealth system might be, but it does shead some light on how stealth technology works and the trade-offs involve in building a stealth aircraft.

Tim

I found a mention of a how scientists made a copper cylinder disappear to microwaves, could this be a principle of the B2 active stealth?

Less-Visible Stuff
Using a device made up of ten fiberglass rings, scientists at Duke University made a copper cylinder disappear—at least from microwaves. Rather than bouncing off the cylinder, the device made electromagnetic waves bend around it, like a rock in a stream. In theory, the same could hold true for light waves. In theory.

www.pcmag.com...

Good find! if this is possible with light rays, It might also work with Radar since both are forms of Electromagnetic radation. In principle all forms of electromagnetic radation are the same, so the same laws of physics apply equally!

Tim

Originally posted by carcharodon
I found a mention of a how scientists made a copper cylinder disappear to microwaves, could this be a principle of the B2 active stealth?

Virtually impossible.


While the end result is "similar" [and I'll use that term very loosely] to all VLO aircraft the mechanics of the approach are poles apart.


The copper cylinder is being made to dissapear by bending the waves around the cylinder in a manner which means they don't actually bounce off the cylinder at all.

All (current) VLO aircraft direct the waves away from the emitter, and seek to absorb alot of the radar energy at the same time.


The cylinder is NOT absorbing the energy like RAM material.


See something of an explanation here


Also, I cannot emphasis enough the difference between a lab test showing theoretical proof, to applying that in the field. For instance, we can manipulate gravity waves in a lab - doesn't mean we have warp drives either.