Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
What's there to "Enjoy"? For that matter, does your post add anything to the discussion?Stas Bush wrote:*looks around* I'm going to massively enjoy this.
I'll enjoy your discussion with Skimmer. There's been more than one debate on military technology here, you know. Your position and his are obviously irreconcilable, so (if there's an argument which is built on physics and what we know), one will have to concede.SilverHawk wrote:What's there to "Enjoy"? For that matter, does your post add anything to the discussion?Stas Bush wrote:*looks around* I'm going to massively enjoy this.
Everything I have said I have supported with facts. What I will "Enjoy" is perhaps getting an actual discussion going instead of thinly veiled threats and dodging any relevant points of the topic.
Stas Bush wrote:I'll enjoy your discussion with Skimmer. There's been more than one debate on military technology here, you know. Your position and his are obviously irreconcilable, so (if there's an argument which is built on physics and what we know), one will have to concede.SilverHawk wrote:What's there to "Enjoy"? For that matter, does your post add anything to the discussion?Stas Bush wrote:*looks around* I'm going to massively enjoy this.
Everything I have said I have supported with facts. What I will "Enjoy" is perhaps getting an actual discussion going instead of thinly veiled threats and dodging any relevant points of the topic.
I'm not really sure, but we can expect Stuart, Starglider, Shep (gah, hope I didn't miss anyone out) come here as well, defending the XB-70 as the Ultimate Weapon of Doom (TM) undefeatable by any SAM, including most currently in operation and even in development. *shrugs*
Of course! At the speed the (X)B-70 travels (Or the SR-71 for that matter.) and the height it's usually found at, it's less like shooting down an aircraft and more like shooting down a missile, in terms of physics and engagment envelopes involved. The SA-5 Gammon was a decent first step and S-300/S-400 did well to advance on the line of thought. (Though, more to intercept ICBMs then Mach 3 Bombers.)Simon_Jester wrote:As I pointed out the last time this came up, the B-70 would be nasty from the point of view of a lot of SAMs... because no one ever built a SAM designed to counter an extant B-70 threat. Mach 3 capable combat aircraft are a technology that could have been used, but weren't, and it's no surprise that the counters to them were never developed.
I'm sure we could build SAMs to shoot down a B-70 equivalent, and that the Russians could too, but it would probably be expensive and involve trade-offs that historically there was no reason to make. The most interesting idea I heard (can't remember who suggested it) was using a big first stage rocket to loft a cluster of air to air missiles into the B-70's flight path, rather than forcing the "seeker" component of the missile to labor all the way up from ground altitude.
I don't know if that would work, but I'm fairly confident something would work, or at least work better than historically-developed systems that were never meant to counter a Mach 3 threat because the only time the systems would actually face such a threat was during a Martian invasion.
Speed differential very much depends on altitude. By and large the difference runs in favor of the B-52H, especially up high where the B-2 operates. That's of marginal importance though because botha ircraft are too slow. Also, the B-2 is not invisible to radar. It is less visible to radar thus can be detected by the targeted radar groups at shorter ranges. When the B-2 appeared at the Farnborough Air Show, several missile systems got locks on it to the great delight of the crews and spectators.SilverHawk wrote: The B-2 operates at the same speeds as the B-52 with the added benefit of being practically invisible to ground radar and anything lower then Irbis-E and the Zalson-M won't even get a clean lock on it.
So could a Boeing 747 carrying the same missile.Anyway, with the AGM-129, the B-2 could engage anything with-in 2000 nm with impunity.
Flat wrong. Speed and altitude do save your ass. We learned that with the XB-70 and the SR-71. Even now, the SR-71 is virtually uninterceptable and the B-70 was faster, flew higher and could turn much tighter. The B-70 would also have had a much more impressive EW fit and would have carried its own active defenses.Speed doesn't save your ass either. We learned that with the XB-70.
Also flat wrong. As it happens the B-2A has a serious weakness (think about skin temperatures) and can be seen optically and by using the right kind of radar. B-2s have been tracked at long range using the Australian Jindalee radar for example.You have to find it first. A B-2A flying at Angels 40 is invisible to the naked eye from the ground, you can't hear it and you can't see it on radar. Stating the obvious that aircraft fall down and go boom when hit by cannon fire does not add anything useful to the discussion.
Again, flat wrong. The SA-2 in any of its incarnations was utterly useless against the B-70. The SA-5 was of so little value that it could be neglected (its circle of intercept against a B-70 was less than half a mile wide). Again, look at experience with the SR-71. Both missiles were used against SR-71s and neither came close to scoring a kill despite being fired in dozens against each target. And, say again, teh B-70 was faster, flew higher and could turn tighter p[lus had much better defenses. There is much more to this issue than just looking at claimed performance data for the missiles. (and using Russian designations - which I approve of by the way - doesn't change that).The SA-2F was a pretty large threat to the B-70 unless it was operating at the very limit of it's flight ceiling. Not to mention the 2K11M "Krug-M", S-200V "Vega" were also huge threats in the early 70's to the B-70.
Nothing's an ultimate weapon. The B-70 was a very difficult target and remains that way (as was the SR-71). That doesn't mean it's invincible, merely that it will be hard to kill. Interestingly, the USAF is coming around to that viewpoint. One of the phrases used in briefings on the new bomber effort is "speed and altitude is the new stealth" - yes, I did get some pats on the back and my hand shaken when the spokesman came out with that). It's beginning to look as if the reason why there was such a determined effort to kill the B-70 was that it was too effective. Back then the watchword was "stability" and an offensive system as lethal as the B-70 was considered destabilizing. ***Guesswork follows*** My guess is that the following was the logic was really behind the death of the B-70. 'The B-70 is uninterceptable and will remain that way for at least twenty years. Probably thirty. The USSR will only be able to defend against it by investing ruinously large amounts of cash in entirely new air defense systems of a type and capability as yet undeveloped. This will destroy them economically. Therefore, there is a good chance they will pull a pre-emptive attack on us before the B-70 can be deployed. So we won't deploy the B-70.'I'm not really sure, but we can expect Stuart, Starglider, Shep (gah, hope I didn't miss anyone out) come here as well, defending the XB-70 as the Ultimate Weapon of Doom (TM) undefeatable by any SAM, including most currently in operation and even in development.
Of course! At the speed the (X)B-70 travels (Or the SR-71 for that matter.) and the height it's usually found at, it's less like shooting down an aircraft and more like shooting down a missile, in terms of physics and engagment envelopes involved. The SA-5 Gammon was a decent first step and S-300/S-400 did well to advance on the line of thought. (Though, more to intercept ICBMs then Mach 3 Bombers.)
That was me. Once of the things about the B-70 effort that gets neglected was that there was a parallel program to determine "how do we stop the B70ski." Assume the USSR produced an analog to the B-70. How do we defend against it? That question kept being asked right up to the late 1980s. There was a big scare back then because there were rumors that the Soviets really were going to deploy an analog to the B-70 (it turned out to be an intel hash-up of what became the Tu-160 and an abortive Sukhoi design. Shooting down B-70s proved to be a real pain in the ischial tuberosities. The problem was it came in so fast that the situation was changing faster than the ground links could cope with. In fighter mafia parlance, it got inside the ooda loop of the ground defense network. I was actually involved in the air defense system design art at the time and even dealing with mach 2 aircraft was causing a world of trouble. Facing existing threats (ie Su-22 and Su-24 plus Tu-22M) the systems worked as long as there was one aircraft facing one ground defense installation. As soon as the threat aircraft began to maneuver, more ground defense stations had to be added to the system and the whole system crashed. Over and over again. Look up the history of IUKADGE for that sad story. Basically, the state of the art was only just barely capable of handling Mach 2 threats; Mach 3 was way beyond anything that the system could handle. (Note here, we're talking about systems; the actual weapon characteristics were irrelevent).Simon_Jester wrote: I'm sure we could build SAMs to shoot down a B-70 equivalent, and that the Russians could too, but it would probably be expensive and involve trade-offs that historically there was no reason to make. The most interesting idea I heard (can't remember who suggested it) was using a big first stage rocket to loft a cluster of air to air missiles into the B-70's flight path, rather than forcing the "seeker" component of the missile to labor all the way up from ground altitude.
I remember not disagreeing with you as wellStas Bush wrote:Um... didn't I say one time ago that large OTH radars would pick the B-2 or other VLO craft far away.
So they are but they do give a warning that something is happening and that's worthwhile. The real weakness of low-observable technology though is thermal. They can be picked up using IRSCAN at operationally-significant ranges and that's bad for them. The real lesson here is that stealth isn't a magic formula that allows obne to bypass defenses as if they aren't there. It's a tool in a toolbox that has uses and liabilies.The reply was "They're useless for targeting SAMs", which they obviously are. And that the OTH radars would be taken out early in the combat.
Could have been either of us. It's not so much hard as different. A different way of fighting and a different approach to interception. The real problem is that designing effective low-observable aircraft means accepting extremely high costs and low operational rates. The maintenance on a B-2 for example is many times than of a B-52 - even allowing for the fact that the Gray Lady was designed at a time when maintenance ease was not a design consideration. That means one doesn't get many aircraft and one doesn't get much use out of them. They also don't have long lives; the B-2 won't be around for that long. So, put together this means that it doesn't take much in the way of losses to neuter a low-observable forceWasn't it you, Stu (could've been Sea Skimmer)? Fighting VLO objects is very hard, in my view. Doable, but hard.
Different rather than harder. Although there is an important factor; an interceptor capable of engaging a high, fast bomber also has the capability of taking down a low-observable bird. The same isn't true in reverse. People are beginning to come around to the idea that it is possible simply to burn through a defended zone given some tactical skill and a lot of ECM. This may be linked to the fact that propulsion developments are allowing the 90,000 feet/Mach 3.5 barrier to be broken at last. In the future, high/fast could easily mean Mach 9 - 15 and 150,000 - 200,000 feet. Once we're in that bracket, an aircraft that can make it all the way up to orbit is within reach at long lastAnd I wouldn't say that a high-speed bomber poses a greater challenge than a VLO one.
Personally I think low-observable technology was a dead end. We're already seeing that now. The ultimate low-observable aircraft was the F-22 and its being succeeded by the F-35 that marks a retreat from low-observable. There is a niche where low-observable is valuable but it is a niche. We've had two decades where it was the norm and we paid for it with mushrooming unit costs. Anyway, the simplest way to have a low observability on radar is to blow up the radar set.At least as things stand now, both are an immense challenge fundamentally straining the system with requiring top, unreachable IRL performance.
When you can get 90% closer to ground based radar and 98% closer to air based radar, I consider that a great deal close to invisibility. There seems to be a lot of my post being taken at of context for cheap jabs that dodge the larger issue. (That being the lock was done by IR, not Radar by a short-range Rapier missile system on a B-2 that was more concerned about showing off to the public then avoiding detection.)Speed differential very much depends on altitude. By and large the difference runs in favor of the B-52H, especially up high where the B-2 operates. That's of marginal importance though because botha ircraft are too slow. Also, the B-2 is not invisible to radar. It is less visible to radar thus can be detected by the targeted radar groups at shorter ranges. When the B-2 appeared at the Farnborough Air Show, several missile systems got locks on it to the great delight of the crews and spectators.
You were doing well up until the part you used a very radar visible aircraft.So could a Boeing 747 carrying the same missile.
I still can't stop laughing at your claim I said "Zero infrared", I said "practically zero infrared".I still cant stop laughing at SilverHawks claim about the AGM-129 having zero infrared emission. Yeah physics breaking Star Trek style cloaks are now possible in his mind.
I don't see any official statements that the JORN has tracked stealth aircraft with-in it's zone of detection. Only typical self-promotion but Aussie defense forces. Anyway, I'd like to know how you could optically detect a B-2A from the ground when it's flying at angels 40 when you don't even know where to start looking or when.Also flat wrong. As it happens the B-2A has a serious weakness (think about skin temperatures) and can be seen optically and by using the right kind of radar. B-2s have been tracked at long range using the Australian Jindalee radar for example.
I seriously doubt the B-70 could fly higher, faster and turn tighter then the (Hybrid)Ramjet powered Blackbird. (Which was reputed to be able to climb as high as Angels 120) (XB-70' 2,056 MPH compared to the SR-71's 2,200+ MPH.)And, say again, teh B-70 was faster, flew higher and could turn tighter p[lus had much better defenses. There is much more to this issue than just looking at claimed performance data for the missiles. (and using Russian designations - which I approve of by the way - doesn't change that).
As much as I'd like to believe you, I haven't seen any testing data by NASA that shows the XB-70s #2 doing such manuevers at speed and combat altitude. (Much less unrealized improved proto-types.)Actually that's not correct either. The B-70 is not like a missile, it can pull turns up to a relatively high specified G. About three times the maximum allowable G force for the SR-71. I think the misunderstanding here comes from using the XB-70 AV-1 as a basis. AV-1 was a B-70 in name and general outline only. It had much less internal fuel, was significantly slower and its structure was much weaker. AV-2 was a big step forward but it crashed before its performance envelope could be explored. AV-3 would have been a further step forward and much closer to the B-70A but it was never built (think 3.5 in terms of Mach and G). That means the B-70A creates a large area of probability that it could occupy by the time the ground-launched missile reached it. That area was much larger than the circle of intercept gained by the ground missile. SA-5 was not a good start, it was operationally useless against a B-70 style target. S-300 is only very marginal; S-400 might be better if they can ever get it to work which they haven't
The point is that the 90/98 figures you quote are neither accurate nor sustainable (I am by the way aware of the circumstances under which the lock was obtained - I am also aware that a twin 35mm Skyguard mount was also tracking the B-2 because I was in the fire control unit while it did so). The point is that the RCS reductions apply only under specific circumstances and against specific systems. They have holes that can be exploited.SilverHawk wrote: When you can get 90% closer to ground based radar and 98% closer to air based radar, I consider that a great deal close to invisibility. There seems to be a lot of my post being taken at of context for cheap jabs that dodge the larger issue. (That being the lock was done by IR, not Radar by a short-range Rapier missile system on a B-2 that was more concerned about showing off to the public then avoiding detection.)
And you were doing so well until you made yourself look a complete moron. At 2,000 miles from the target. the launching aircraft doesn't need to be anything other than a big flying launch platform. A 747 will do the job as well as anything else. All that money wasted on reduced signature is wasted.You were doing well up until the part you used a very radar visible aircraft.
Only one does know where to start looking because the aircraft stands out in a bright flare.I don't see any official statements that the JORN has tracked stealth aircraft with-in it's zone of detection. Only typical self-promotion but Aussie defense forces. Anyway, I'd like to know how you could optically detect a B-2A from the ground when it's flying at angels 40 when you don't even know where to start looking or when.
Well done. You've just completely discredited yourself by repeating the SR71 bullshit. FYI, the SR71 was limited to around 85,000 feet and Mach 3.25. The XB-70 AV-1 was capable of 77,500 feet and Mach 3.1 (later restricted to Mach 2.8 due to skin problems). AV-2 achieved Mach 3.3 and 85,000 feet; AV-3/B-70A were to be Mach 3.5 and 90,000 feet.I seriously doubt the B-70 could fly higher, faster and turn tighter then the (Hybrid)Ramjet powered Blackbird. (Which was reputed to be able to climb as high as Angels 120) (XB-70' 2,056 MPH compared to the SR-71's 2,200+ MPH.)
Then you need to read a bit more. Start with Jenkins and Landis.As much as I'd like to believe you, I haven't seen any testing data by NASA that shows the XB-70s #2 doing such manuevers at speed and combat altitude. (Much less unrealized improved proto-types.)
Then refute what I've said with proof. I am aware the article is now 14 years old and the figure has shrunk by some margin, but I have no reason to believe that Aviation History would knowingly or willingly print false information about the F-117A's performance. (And by extentsion, the B-2As.)The point is that the 90/98 figures you quote are neither accurate nor sustainable (I am by the way aware of the circumstances under which the lock was obtained - I am also aware that a twin 35mm Skyguard mount was also tracking the B-2 because I was in the fire control unit while it did so). The point is that the RCS reductions apply only under specific circumstances and against specific systems. They have holes that can be exploited.
Wasted money is wasted, eh? You don't say. Also, you were doing so well up and to the point when you "forgot" that with the B-2, the launches can come from un-expected angles and at much closer respective distances to allow much less response time to the incoming threat. Unless the Russians were totally cool with having enemy aircraft flying right along their coast line. (Which they weren't.)And you were doing so well until you made yourself look a complete moron. At 2,000 miles from the target. the launching aircraft doesn't need to be anything other than a big flying launch platform. A 747 will do the job as well as anything else. All that money wasted on reduced signature is wasted.
During the night? The B-2A is sheathed in anti-reflective paint and painted black. (Well, bluish-grey.) The flare won't make the B-2A stick out any more. Not to mention it's pretty hard to see something flying 8-10 miles above your head.Only one does know where to start looking because the aircraft stands out in a bright flare.
I'm discredited by using the word "reputed"? Also, I was comparing both craft's service ceiling. As for the AV-2, I only see information that it reached 3.08 mach and reached a height of angels 74.Well done. You've just completely discredited yourself by repeating the SR71 bullshit. FYI, the SR71 was limited to around 85,000 feet and Mach 3.25. The XB-70 AV-1 was capable of 77,500 feet and Mach 3.1 (later restricted to Mach 2.8 due to skin problems). AV-2 achieved Mach 3.3 and 85,000 feet; AV-3/B-70A were to be Mach 3.5 and 90,000 feet.
Some Book/Journal titles would be nice.Then you need to read a bit more. Start with Jenkins and Landis.
Wrong. You produced the assertion; the onus is on you to document it. So document or retract.SilverHawk wrote: Then refute what I've said with proof. I am aware the article is now 14 years old and the figure has shrunk by some margin, but I have no reason to believe that Aviation History would knowingly or willingly print false information about the F-117A's performance. (And by extentsion, the B-2As.)
One can achieve exactly the same thing by dog-legging the missiles. Trying to claim an extreme stealth platform is of use with a standoff range of 2,000 plus miles is an absurdity. There are much less expensive ways of doing the job.Wasted money is wasted, eh? You don't say. Also, you were doing so well up and to the point when you "forgot" that with the B-2, the launches can come from un-expected angles and at much closer respective distances to allow much less response time to the incoming threat. Unless the Russians were totally cool with having enemy aircraft flying right along their coast line. (Which they weren't.)
Wrong again. We're not talking about reflected light.During the night? The B-2A is sheathed in anti-reflective paint and painted black. (Well, bluish-grey.) The flare won't make the B-2A stick out any more. Not to mention it's pretty hard to see something flying 8-10 miles above your head.
If you are who you claim to be you would know that the 120,00 feet figure is nonsense. Therefore you are either lying about your identity and didn't know the figure is nonsense or you are who you say you are and produced it in a deliberate effort to mislead. Either way, you're discredited. By the way, the constant reference to altitude in "angels" also discredits you.I'm discredited by using the word "reputed"? Also, I was comparing both craft's service ceiling. As for the AV-2, I only see information that it reached 3.08 mach and reached a height of angels 74.
I DID document. Last page.Wrong. You produced the assertion; the onus is on you to document it. So document or retract.
What can I say? I love adaptability. The B-2A provides it in spades operating with the AGM-129. If the USAF wanted to go your way, they would use it on the B-52 (Which they did.)One can achieve exactly the same thing by dog-legging the missiles. Trying to claim an extreme stealth platform is of use with a standoff range of 2,000 plus miles is an absurdity. There are much less expensive ways of doing the job.
And why would the B-2A reflect directed IR energy?Wrong again. We're not talking about reflected light.
I worked with B-1Bs at Ellsworth, not SR-71s, before my time, boy-o. Also, I like saying Angels, it's shorter. So I don't see how it has anything to do with discrediting me besides you dodging issues you can't win on.If you are who you claim to be you would know that the 120,00 feet figure is nonsense. Therefore you are either lying about your identity and didn't know the figure is nonsense or you are who you say you are and produced it in a deliberate effort to mislead. Either way, you're discredited. By the way, the constant reference to altitude in "angels" also discredits you.
During my '04-05 deployment the AEGIS vessels in our ESG successfully tracked a B-2 that was transiting to Guam(as another example). While the B-2 may work well against the air defenses of The Peoples Republic of North Assholostan, our peer competitors are likely able to get around the B-2s defenses.Stuart wrote:
Also flat wrong. As it happens the B-2A has a serious weakness (think about skin temperatures) and can be seen optically and by using the right kind of radar. B-2s have been tracked at long range using the Australian Jindalee radar for example.
Restricted to night operations for conventional bombing anyway. Nuclear weapons change that -- as everyone is all wearing these:Stuart wrote:It's too slow and is restricted to night operations. In daylight, it's a sitting duck to anything from a MiG-19 upwards.
The thing is; they have to be in predetermined patrol areas -- because we don't want a P-3 dropping a nuclear depth bomb on a SSBN launch that turns out to be one of our boats. Ooops.At the moment we don't; we're better off letting the submarines get lost in the ocean. They're essentially unfindable until they start shooting and by then it's too late.
That's the crux of the matter. It used to be that in order to detect stealth at operationally useful ranges (something greater than visual range) -- you needed either very long wavelength radars or very high powered radars -- and those were very big, large, expensive, and immobile; applying virtual attrition on the defender.Lonestar wrote:During my '04-05 deployment the AEGIS vessels in our ESG successfully tracked a B-2 that was transiting to Guam(as another example).
Um... is saying that okay, and by tracking you mean tracking with enough precision to actually guide a weapon and shoot the thing down? *wonders about the lax rules of secrecy* Damn.Lonestar wrote:During my '04-05 deployment the AEGIS vessels in our ESG successfully tracked a B-2 that was transiting to Guam(as another example).
Altitude records usually exceed the typical operational ceiling (they're also done with a reduced load, reduced fuel, etc.). Perhaps that's the problem with flying higher. That's a general rule of thumb, but if you have something that would decisively prove the opposite, I won't insist on my being right.SilverHawk wrote:But I don't see why it couldn't go higher
Stas Bush wrote: Um... is saying that okay, and by tracking you mean tracking with enough precision to actually guide a weapon and shoot the thing down? *wonders about the lax rules of secrecy* Damn.
Considering this discussion was about nuclear capability around the late 80's and early 90's with MKSeppard. I'd say the B-2A was pretty much untouchable at that time. Not sure how we got to present day in the discussion.Lonestar wrote:Stas Bush wrote: Um... is saying that okay, and by tracking you mean tracking with enough precision to actually guide a weapon and shoot the thing down? *wonders about the lax rules of secrecy* Damn.
I mean we could see it, and it took coordination between both vessels to see it. My understanding is that it transited fairly close to the ESG.
(I didn't work in CIC so I couldn't tell you how precise it was, other than someone saw something that got permission granted to light off the SPYs on both ships, and then it was figured out what it was.)
I will say that for all the "rah rah stealth" wankery that Silverhawk is doing based upon his (apperent) time in the USAF, there is a lot of snorting and sneering done by AEGIS techs in the USN.
(Obligatory Grain of Salt: I was asleep when it happened, so I got it by way of RUMINT rather than listening to chatter on the 'Net on watch)
SilverHawk wrote:
Considering this discussion was about nuclear capability around the late 80's and early 90's with MKSeppard. I'd say the B-2A was pretty much untouchable at that time. Not sure how we got to present day in the discussion.
Haha...seriously? That's your argument?And again I shall say it, I dealt with B-1Bs out of Ellsworth, all this information I've gotten/getting is in the public space. (For the B-2A)
Edit : I'm also waiting for somebody to come forward with proof of detection of a B-2A under combat conditions, not detecting it as it does a low fly over of an air show or ferrying to a new basing across the pacific.
Active avoidance of high powered radar locations would be a good start. Flying over a pair of Ticonderoga-class cruisers seems like a good way to get spotted. But that's just me.Yeah, good luck. I would like you to explain why the B-2 would suddenly be less stealthy flying to Anderson then in combat conditions. I'll help you out: The aircraft in question was NOT transmitting anything, which of course would be one way that it's suddenly less stealthy.
Glad we established this is all hearsay and speculation then. You know, since the point of debate is to use verifiable sources and not what you heard circulating around a ship.Haha...seriously? That's your argument?
"I'm waiting for you to pull up a publication in the public domain that the USAF put out showing how vulnerable their silver bullet bomber is, or that someone else(Russia? China?) put out showing the extent of their capabilities in tracking stealth aircraft."
