 |
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 09:40 AM by GrOuNd_ZeRo
|
What's the big deal with a B-2 crashing anyway? it's ANCIENT technology already, it was cutting edge 17 years ago, the technology we have no is much
more superior to this.
It does look like a B-2 to me but the OP claims it wasn't...
My question is this: what color was it? did it have markings and are you sure the cockpit was just not easy to indentify?
Perhaps it was the ellusive TR-3A Black Manta? however that A/C was reportedly manned..hmmm...
[edit on 5/3/2008 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 01:42 PM by Canada_EH
|
 Originally posted by Dan Tanna
First of all let me say that the aircraft was not a B-2 bomber, the trailing edge was one piece as i tried to show you in the picture. It also was not
that massive, alot slimmer and again no cockpit. 
Thats fine Dan as that is what your eyes saw but when I look at the photo and as I showed in my previous post I've argued that I can see the saw
tooth edge on the B-2 and its exhaust ports. You've said its not and that fine since you are describing a UAV that one would argue is Polecat gone
black.
As for that video on metcalf, that unmanned plane was almost identical, except the engines had a curved lip over the intakes as i tried to
explain, as did the exhaust - other than a slightly larger bulge and slightly wider too it is 90% identical to what I saw.
As far as i can tell the black paint/area over the polecat did have rounded ports. Are you saying the ones you saw where different?
The picture is blurry and for that I make no apologise - its simply all i could get. Sorta understandable since I'm sure you were
rushing to get a shot off. Didd you happen to take more then one? Even if the quality isn't as good I'd like to take a look at em.
Could you tell us where you left from and where you where going to when this was shot (which airport to which airport).
[edit on 3-5-2008 by Canada_EH]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 01:47 PM by Canada_EH
|
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
What's the big deal with a B-2 crashing anyway? it's ANCIENT technology already, it was cutting edge 17 years ago, the technology we have no is much
more superior to this.
How about the fact it is still a $2.2-billion unit cost of for the existing fleet. If I was a tax payer in the states that would be a big deal too me
lol. Anyways back to OP.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 02:07 PM by Canada_EH
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Rasputin13
There has never, and probably will never be a B-2 based in Afghanistan. As for testing, they probably are flying out of one of our bases in country.
If something were to happen, and they couldn't recover it very quickly, I'm sure they would hit it with an airstrike ASAP.
Right on the money Zaph. The B-2 at this time is based out of 3 bases The first of course is Whiteman where its has been for a long time now. Everyone
know about the second now which is Guam, due to the crash a couple months ago and the third is Diago Garcia.
These are the only bases that the B-2 is able to fly out of due to the need for specific shelters to complete maintenance on the planes. There is also
Fairford in the UK but I'm not sure of its current status to handle the B-2.
I think the next logical step it to try and figure out where the B-2s where deployed to as of the July 28 2006 date. I know that some where deployed
to Australia during exercise Green Lightning on July 25 from the 36th Expeditionary Wing at Guam. Not sure about the status of the other bases at that
time.
I'll do some more hunting just so we could "rule out" the possibility of the B-2 if that is the case. I think though there is just as much
"owness" to convince me this thing is a UAV because I still see a B-2 when i look at it.
[edit on 3-5-2008 by Canada_EH]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 09:48 PM by Daedalus3
|
Nobody suggesting that its a fake?
What a/c was that pic taken from? If its civilian then that pic should be a fake IMHO.
At the distance the plane seems to be, even a comm airline radar would pick it up and set off the auto anti-collision climb.
If the jet is military, the the person taking the pic has committed a felony of a very serious degree.
Where are all the fake-foto experts on this?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 09:52 PM by Zaphod58
|
What felony? There is no law against taking pictures of military planes. I have hundreds of pictures taken over the years of them in flight, or
parked on the flight line.
And it wouldn't necessarily have any kind of alert system if it was a UAV. They would rely more on the AWACS to keep them clear of traffic.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 10:44 PM by jensy
|
Originally posted by Canada_EH
There has never, and probably will never be a B-2 based in Afghanistan. As for testing, they probably are flying out of one of our bases in country.
If something were to happen, and they couldn't recover it very quickly, I'm sure they would hit it with an airstrike ASAP.
I always believed that there were temporary shelters for the B2 which would allow it to be deployed at any number of locations around the world,
keeping the humidified like some manner of stealthed airbourne Montecristo. I think Diego Garcia had a number of them until they got more permanent
structures up.
B2 Shelter 1
B2 Shelter 2
Now thinking very theoretically, there is a real use for the B2 to attack nuclear raids on Iran. Flying them out of a base in Afganistan would give
the Iranians very little time to bolster their air defence, much less apply duck tape to their f-14s.
This is of course all massively off topic and indeed asuming this aircraft is a B2.....
Jensy
P.S It also bears a similarity to the original design of the B2 which lacked the 'sawtooth tail'. Going quite insane now: What if they built more
than the 21 'white' B2s?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 11:09 PM by Zaphod58
|
The majority of the missions that the B-2 flew into Afghanistan and Iraq were flown from Whiteman AFB in Missouri. Diego was used primarily as a crew
swap location. They wouldn't even shut down engines while they changed out crews, and the new crew would fly it back to Whiteman. Later in the war
they started putting them at Diego, and flying them out of Anderson.
As for putting them in Afghanistan to attack Iran that is a really BAD idea. One guy with a mortar can cost us several billion dollars in badly
needed combat airpower. You NEVER put your major bombers, tankers, or cargo aircraft into a forward combat zone.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 11:40 PM by Canada_EH
|
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Nobody suggesting that its a fake?
What a/c was that pic taken from? If its civilian then that pic should be a fake IMHO.
Where are all the fake-foto experts on this?
I've looked at the photo Daedalus and as I said before a person who makes his living in Photoshop nothing stands out. But its also a very simple
photo that I know if I wanted to I could create it. I'm trying to place what plane and operator this plane in the foreground would be from. Anyone
else have any guess or could the OP let us know?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 11:47 PM by Daedalus3
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
What felony? There is no law against taking pictures of military planes. I have hundreds of pictures taken over the years of them in flight, or
parked on the flight line.
And it wouldn't necessarily have any kind of alert system if it was a UAV. They would rely more on the AWACS to keep them clear of traffic.
Taking pics isn't a felony. Its the audience you share them with that may raise eyebrows. Now you being the US national and me being the foreigner, I
believe that you would be a better judge of whether somebody taking that photo and uploading it to a public internet site would be a concern or not.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 12:00 AM by Canada_EH
|
reply to post by jensy
In 2002 there was talks in the white for the need or interest of some air force members in putting a B-2 base in the middle east.
 Besides these, the Air Force is looking at one other forward operating location - a Middle East location that the Air Force will not identify
publicly but which Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, said "we're looking at" for what he termed "other capabilities."
I think there is lots of issues with this as mentioned before and with less airframes now I don't see them putting any airframes into undue danger.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 02:53 AM by waynos
|
Having considered this carefully for a few days before posting here is my personal take;
Firstly I agree with Canada in his exposition on why it is a B-2, this was exactly the line of study I was following and was surprised to see someone
posting almost exactly my own thoughts (spooky!). The trailing edge is not clearly defined but there is enough irregularity to suggest the 'triple
spike' of the B-2, especially from that angle, which has been smoothed out through the lack of definition. I viewed the image also as if it was a
single spike, like some fakes I have myself (I'll post them if you like - the best way to see how a fake looks is to make some  ) but this cannot
be as, although blurry, it is clearly not a straight line. So in conclusion - deffo a B-2 from some distance away and at an awkward angle.
Is it a fake? Technically, it could easily be (even the ones I knocked together looked completely real to me) but you would have to ask yourself
what's the point? If it is a fake it is just a waste of effort as it depicts something that has been going on for years (we do all know that B-2's
over a war zone is to be expected, yes?) and is nothing out of the ordinary. Surely the point of a fake would be something exciting, like an unknown
plane (as opposed to a very much known one) flying? News to me would be if B-2's had NOT flown over Afghanistan, when they take off from UK bases
they have to be going somewhere
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 03:08 AM by Zaphod58
|
reply to post by Daedalus3
So what? It's a picture of an aircraft! It shows no classified details, it was taken god only knows where.... There is absolutely nothing wrong
with sharing it. I used to have pictures of a B-2 that showed a LOT more detail than this picture does. If I still had access to them I'd gladly
post them here. The only things you can not show are the cockpit, unless it's an open house and people are allowed up to the cockpit to look
(fighters), and anything classified.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 04:36 AM by waynos
|
Originally posted by Daedalus3
At the distance the plane seems to be, even a comm airline radar would pick it up and set off the auto anti-collision climb.
Not really, if the photo has been taken out of a plane window with a zoom camera (my own does 10x optical plus 4x digital but is nothing special)
distance is impossible to estimate, I have photos of similar clarity to this of airliners flying over my house (trying my camera when it was new, I'm
not obsessed!  )
If the jet is military, the the person taking the pic has committed a felony of a very serious degree.
Not at all there are thousands of photos of B-2's freely available on the web, why should a vague shape in the sky be a problem?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 06:19 AM by Stoo
|
*nod*
He's hardly in trouble if pictures like this are freely available:
www.af.mil...
www.aviationexplorer.com...
upload.wikimedia.org...
*slightly* more detail in those..
[edit on 4-5-2008 by Stoo]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 06:46 AM by Harlequin
|
reply to post by Canada_EH
theres 3 bases outside the US , Guam , Garcia and Fairford
www.indymedia.org.uk...
New hangars establish bomber deployment option
by 1st Lt. Ed Gulick
509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs
12/17/2004 - WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFPN) -- The B-2 Spirit now has a new home away from home.
Officials at Royal Air Force Fairford, England, recently unveiled two climate-controlled permanent hangars specifically designed for the B-2. The new
50,000-square-foot facilities allow specialized low-observable-surface maintenance to be performed.
“Low-observable maintenance is the backbone of the B-2,” said Col. Chris Matson, 509th Maintenance Group commander. “Having the (dock) at
Fairford allows us to do this critical process faster and better.”
The maintenance is essential to maintaining the specialized coatings that cover the aircraft’s composite and metal skin. Applying these coatings,
and ensuring they cure correctly, must be done in a climate-controlled environment, said Master Sgt. Brian Tobin, of the 509th Maintenance Squadron.
Forward basing B-2s at Fairford saves about 16 hours of flight time across the Atlantic Ocean and will enable the bombers to reach targets sooner,
Colonel Matson said.
“Staging the B-2 closer to potential theater engagement areas will provide a deterrent to adversaries of the United States,” said Lt. Col. Tom
Bussiere, 325th Bomb Squadron commander. “The completion of the B-2 shelter is a step in the right direction in making RAF Fairford a fully
operational B-2 forward operating base.”
The $19 million hangar complex was completed seven months ahead of schedule, officials said.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 03:26 PM by Canada_EH
|
reply to post by Harlequin
I had already mentioned all of the above in the post u linked but I was unaware of the state of the Fairford base. Thanks for the info Har!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 03:31 PM by Canada_EH
|
Originally posted by waynos
Firstly I agree with Canada in his exposition on why it is a B-2, this was exactly the line of study I was following and was surprised to see someone
posting almost exactly my own thoughts (spooky!). .... I viewed the image also as if it was a single spike, like some fakes I have myself (I'll post
them if you like - the best way to see how a fake looks is to make some)
Is it a fake? Technically, it could easily be (even the ones I knocked together looked completely real to me) but you would have to ask yourself
what's the point?
Why bother reposting? I already got you cover 
If you recall I've been building a lil thread called "Debunked" I recently linked up the images you mentioned and the issues surrounding them. Now
if you still have some of them or can find the link waynos I'll be sure to add on to the thread with the extra images and explanations.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 04:19 PM by Canada_EH
|
For the sake of the fact that this could be a UAV that is based on Polecat I've done a bit more research and here is the time line as I know it right
now for the Polecat program.
Program begins in Mar 03.
Project is completed 18 months later in July of 04
UAV flies for the first time a year later in july 05
Program turns white on july 19th 06
Demonstrator crashes in dec 06 as well.
Bit a of info and insight into skunkworks as of july 06
According to Frank Cappuccio, the head of Skunk Works, the Polecat demonstration programme was configured to give Lockheed Martin an insight into
three areas critical to next-generation UAVs: reducing the manufacturing costs associated with new, largely composite airframe designs; lowering the
capital cost of UAV manufacture through advanced tooling techniques; and integrating a fully autonomous flight control and mission-handling system
that will allow future UAVs to conduct their missions, from take-off to landing, without the intervention of human operators.
Polecat technology could lead to two operational vehicles, according to Cappuccio: an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle with
a U-2-like (1,800 kg) sensor payload and a 24-hour endurance; or a long-range strike aircraft with a 6,800 kg payload and a 3,700 km operational
radius. He added, however, that Lockheed Martin is still pushing the idea of a supersonic UCAS for the LRS mission, citing studies that show that it
would be seven times more survivable than a subsonic UCAS and five times better than the FB-22 bomber derivative of the F-22 fighter
The possibility of the Polecat going black is very much real. Or at least the teams involved could be in the black now. given that the plane was built
in 18 months and we are a year and a half after the crash its very possible that another demonstrator could be testing its covert abilities over the
middle east. I'm still unconvinced about the image but the description for the OP is clearly pointing towards a UAV much like Polecat.
[edit on 4-5-2008 by Canada_EH]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2008 @ 10:39 PM by FredT
|
Hmmmm. Its been a very interesting discussion just thought I would throw in my few cents.
I have to admit Im a bit sckeptical of the pic.
For starters, B-2's would not operator out of Afganistan as there is too much risk being caught on the ground. Why risk the airframe when you can
easily fly in from Diego Garcia etc. which is waaaaaaay more secure.
Nor would they they be operating B-2 flight ops at the same time civilian aircraft are taking off etc.
Nor would the B-2 if it saw a civilian craft simply sly on by in such close proximity but rather would evade (IMHO) to avaoid a sighting.
ATC would not allow two such craft to get that close either.
The same issue applies to to UAV's which require special clearance to transit commerical airspace etc. Now it is a combat zone, but why would you be
operating the Polecat or other UAV so close to civilians is beyond me.
And lastly the Polecat could very well be blacker than black and its grey counterparts crash may have been part of that cover.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
