Articles: "Nuclear Warfare 101".

[Lonestar]

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.

You know, I'm not sure they would know we were there. The SPYs are normally turned off and even the -49 radar is switched off at night unless we're in an exercise(which I recall we were, we had spent the day shelling some atoll).

And only my ship was a CG, the other was a DDG.

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.

Fine. Let's turn on the Way Back Machine(tm) and see what the USAF and politicos were sayingin the early 90s about it:

Key Senate Backer of Stealth Bomber Sees It in Jeopardy
By ERIC SCHMITT,
Published: September 14, 1991

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13— The Stealth bomber, already imperiled by shrinking military budgets and a diminishing Soviet threat, was dealt another setback today when a key Democrat who had supported the program in the Senate warned the Air Force that the B-2 was in jeopardy.

The action by Senator Jim Exon of Nebraska was the most significant erosion of support for the plane since the Air Force told Congressional leaders this week that the B-2 had failed a test of its ability to evade enemy radar.

"I am not closing the door on the B-2," Mr. Exon said, "but I wish to send a very loud and very clear signal that they had better get their act straightened out or the program will die a fast, rather than a slow, natural death."

Senate aides said that Mr. Exon, who heads the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic arms, consulted with Senator Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, before he made his statements today.

Mr. Nunn, the Senate's leading supporter of the B-2, was briefed on Tuesday about the technical deficiencies by the Air Force Secretary, Donald B. Rice. On Thursday, Mr. Nunn said in a statement that he did not consider the problem a "permanent setback.'

Opponents of the bat-winged aircraft, which is built by the Northrop Corporation, have long criticized the plane's cost of $865 million a plane, and have challenged the need for a long-range bomber to penetrate Soviet air defenses since the thawing of cold war tensions.

But the plane's technical abilities had been largely above reproach. The concession now that the plane may not be as stealthy as promised could seriously weaken the program's support in Congress.

At a news conference today, Mr. Exon said, "The Air Force's credibility is now at a new, all-time low in the halls of Congress." He expressed frustration at conflicting accounts of the B-2's problems that he said were coming from different Pentagon officials.

"The powers that be in the Pentagon are going to have to sell me on the program all over again," he said. Drop in Company's Stock

Northrop's stock closed today at $22.875, down $1.50 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Northrop's stock has dropped $4 in the last two days.

In an attempt to defuse the brewing crisis, Mr. Rice met with reporters at the Pentagon today, saying, "I would not characterize this as a major problem." He refused to give details, citing the program's highly classified nature.

But the Pentagon's spokesman, Pete Williams, said on Thursday that if the B-2 "continues to have this problem, then it is a major problem."

Mr. Rice said today that the Air Force had created a special advisory panel, composed of scientists from the Air Force and military industries, to make recommendations. He said the panel was expected to report back by the end of next month.

Bad news about the B-2 could not have come at a worse time for the plane's supporters. House and Senate negotiators started work on Wednesday to reconcile their differences on the B-2 and other programs in the $291 billion military budget for the fiscal year 1992.

The Air Force wants to buy 75 of the planes at a cost of more than $60 billion, including 4 in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The Senate supports the Air Force request, but the House has voted to cancel the program after the 15 planes Congress has already ordered. More than $30 billion has already been spent on the program; three planes are flying test flights.

Mr. Exon canceled a meeting today with House negotiators and withheld support for the B-2 at least until next Tuesday, when he said he would meet with Air Force Gen. George L. Butler, the head of the Strategic Air Command, for a detailed briefing on the program's problems.

Congressional critics of the Stealth bomber said they would use new evidence of flaws in the plane's ability to elude detection by radar as ammunition to cancel the program.

"The statement by the Air Force that the B-2 is not living up to its advertised technical capabilities just adds to the reasons the plane should be terminated," said Representative Ronald V. Dellums, a California Democrat who has opposed the aircraft because of what he says is an obsolete mission.

As details of the B-2 flaws dribbled out today from under the veil of the highly classified program, a major opponent of the B-2, Representative Les Aspin, a Wisconsin Democrat who heads the House Armed Services Committee, remained conspicuously silent on the issue.

"We're not saying anything about this," said a senior aide to Mr. Aspin, who met with Mr. Rice for an hour on Thursday.

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who opposes the Stealth bomber, said today that the deficiencies "clearly weaken the B-2's position in Congress."

But Stealth bomber supporters rallied to defend the plane, which they say could play a crucial role in the early hours of a regional crisis like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait last August.

Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said the technical deficiencies "were not substantial" and would not delay the program.

Asked if the flaws had weakened the Senate's bargaining position in the conference with the House, Mr. Warner said the Senate negotiators would "deal with the cards we have."

Pentagon officials have also expressed concern about the technical flaws, but Mr. Williams, the Pentagon spokesman, said that the B-2's failure on a test flight at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on July 26 was not a "showstopper."

Mr. Williams refused to discuss the flaws in detail, citing classified information, but he ruled out problems in the shape, design or production of the plane.

He said the Air Force and Northrop "were confident they knew what the problem was," but he said he could not predict whether the proper fixes could be made or how much they would cost.

Mr. Rice, struggling today to explain the technical problem without disclosing what he described as top secrets, said, in essence, that the B-2 had failed to show an expected improvement during a test of one component in the plane's overall radar-evading ability.

Mr. Rice said even with the flaw, the B-2 was still better able to evade detection in the one problem area than the F-117, a hero of the Persian Gulf war and the Air Force's stealthiest plane in operation. But he refused to say whether the flawed B-2's overall radar cross section was smaller than the F-117's.

The Air Force has long asserted that while not totally invisible to enemy radar, the B-2 would be extremely difficult to track, casting an image the size of a "hummingbird."

In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Rice said that "testing had confirmed the fundamental soundness of the B-2's Stealth design," a conclusion certified by the Defense Science Board, the Pentagon's chief scientific adviser.

In a recent report to Mr. Rice, the defense board said, "Although we think the Air Force should be commended for their open and forthright approach, we recommend that these early diagnostic testing results be treated as preliminary data."

[SilverHawk]

Link on Cope India 04 excercises :

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-co ... cle02.html

You know, I'm not sure they would know we were there. The SPYs are normally turned off and even the -49 radar is switched off at night unless we're in an exercise(which I recall we were, we had spent the day shelling some atoll).

And only my ship was a CG, the other was a DDG.

They probably didn't have their APQ-181 on then, nor were they concerned about possible RWR returns.

[Lonestar]

Link on Cope India 04 excercises :

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-co ... cle02.html

So...what's the point of the article? FYI, it's considered good form to at least post the section you want to make your point with, rather than a link and "there you go".

[SilverHawk]

Link on Cope India 04 excercises :

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-co ... cle02.html

So...what's the point of the article? FYI, it's considered good form to at least post the section you want to make your point with, rather than a link and "there you go".

3rd Paragraph in :

Code: Select all

The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.

But you should really read the whole thing anyway, it's a good read.

As for the article you posted, it's certainly worrying to hear about, shame they didn't give any details. Though I assume the issue must of been solved in one of the BLOCK programs the Spirits were released in. (BLOCK 10, 20 and 30, all B-2As are BLOCK 30 as of 2000)

Slight Edit : F-15Cs now use the APG-63(V)3 radars.

[Lonestar]

So...you agree that Stealthy aircraft are maybe not that great when put up against a Peer Competitor that has the resources to track them?

[SilverHawk]

So...you agree that Stealthy aircraft are maybe not that great when put up against a Peer Competitor that has the resources to track them?

They are certainly better then a B-52 or B-1 (using the B-2) in extremely high density air defence situations. Nothing is for sure in war, but the B-2 would give you the highest chance of being able to complete your mission and come back alive.

Stealth is only as good as the people using it are, I would like to think that the B-2A pilots are some of the most experienced and well trained in SAC .(Then ACC, then SAC again.) We all saw what happened when you get operationally lazy with your aircraft because you have Stealth in Bosnia when the Nighthawk was lost to Vietnam Era bracket SAM fire and jury rigged long wave emission radars.

But yeah, of course, the rule of thumb is to take nothing for granted in war. Always assume the foe you're facing knows what you're doing, how you're doing it and when you're going to do it. History is littered with the corpses of those that under-estimated their enemies.

[Stuart]

I DID document. Last page. http://www.historynet.com/stealth-secre ... eature.htm

Does not support your argument or the 98/90 figures you quoted for teh B-2

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.)

Of course the USAF used the B-52 - it was an in-service asset. It also has a radar cross section about the same as a B-52. The basic point was that any aircraft can fill the -129 shooter role. The incorporation of penetration assets onto that platform is a waste of resources.

And why would the B-2A reflect directed IR energy?

You're still not getting it, Keep trying.

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.

The angels bit makes you sound like a 15-year old wannabee - which is what I think you are at this point. You have given me no cause to think otherwise. You're trying too hard to speak aviation-talk and it gives you away. I haven't dodged any issues. What I'm not doing is giving you any information to work with. That way we can see what your eally know and it is not impressive.

I know of the confirmed record height of SR-71 (85,135 Feet) and record speed (2,193 Mph). But I don't see why it couldn't go higher, same thing with you claims that the AV-2 went faster and higher then it actually did.

If you were who you claim to be, you would know the answer to why the SR-71 was being pushed to its max and what the odd characteristic of the Mach 3 aircraft is that explains that. The fact that AV-2 was significantly faster than AV-1 is well documented in the source I gave you.

So it is you, who is discredited, if you want to play that game.

Grow up. It's that kind of remark that adds to the impression you'er a wannabee.

[Stuart]

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.

That's not rare. Both the B-2 and the F-117 had serious problems with detectability when they were over the sea. It isn't restricted to U.S. radars either; the Type 1022 radar on British destroyers during ODS was picking up and gaining firing solutions on F-117s. MarkS put his finger on the problem; any RCS reduction technology is fairly specific to radar frequency. The differences in shape between the F-117 and the B-2 for example are largely determined by the different types of radar they are suppose dto be able to evade. Therefore, if they run across a radar that is out of the ordinary, both types have (or had) problems. Also, both types were designed with monostatic radars in mind (that's why they have serious problems at sea although the mechanism is a bit different). Faced with multistatic radars, they have serious problems.

There's other tricks that can be used for tracking as well although now we are getting somewhere where the structural integrity of our fingers is getting into significant jeopardy. Fascination with RCS reduction really peaked in the last half of the 1990s; in some ways it was a classic 'secret weapon'. It was stunningly successful when first used, had a limited service window and then started to drop off as people thought about it and came up with answers. Now those answers are being introduced into service, RCS reduction has ceased to be the be-all and end-all of development and is being balanced out against other requirements. Which is a return to sanity,

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask since the issue intriques me. Stuart, would you be referring to skin temperature increase caused by air friction when you talked about the B-2's detectability?

It's also very interesting to hear your thoughts on the reasons behind killing the B-70. A few months back I was theorizing on the same issue with a friend and arrived to similar conclusions regarding the motivations driving the cancellation.

[Shroom Man 777]

And why would the B-2A reflect directed IR energy?

You're still not getting it, Keep trying.

Flare lights up the entire dark sky, EXCEPT the big black flying wing-shaped object that's flying in the dark sky, which stays dark and is thus silhouetted by the flare's light, thus becoming visible to people on the ground?

It's also very interesting to hear your thoughts on the reasons behind killing the B-70. A few months back I was theorizing on the same issue with a friend and arrived to similar conclusions regarding the motivations driving the cancellation.

The XB-70's existence as a threat that can't be defended against, thus forcing the Soviets to act drastically, is strangely similar to how the existence of a superpowered being (Doctor Manhattan) forced the Soviets to also do drastic things in Watchmen.

[Stuart]

Flare lights up the entire dark sky, EXCEPT the big black flying wing-shaped object that's flying in the dark sky, which stays dark and is thus silhouetted by the flare's light, thus becoming visible to people on the ground?

As a basic principle, that's a good idea. Only, we can do much the same thing with bistatic or multi-static radars. Create a field of energy and pick up the shadow moving through it. Another is snap-down. If a monostatic radar source is above an aircraft like a B-2 or F-117, the aircraft appears as a shadow moving across the ground return.

[MKSheppard]

Let me put it this way as to how advanced radars are going to be in the next decade:

Right now, the US military is working on a Total Urban Moving Target Radar; which can track moving objects as small as people; given a low enough density of people.......using radar reflections off buildings via reflected doppler shift.

Basically, losing LOS no longer means absolute certainity of loss of a radar track.

The precision is expected to be good enough to identify specific models of cars.

There's also the fact that radars are becoming fully digital -- not just the sensor processing back-end, but also the active front end -- letting them do all sorts of crazy things like scan targets in multiple wavelengths at the same time using the same antenna.

So as you can see; pure stealth is going to be closed in a decade or so; but there will be emphasis on stealth -- e.g. a future heavy bomber might have a a frontal RCS of 0.1 m2 -- which is a hell of a lot better than a B-52's 100m2; a B-70's 40m2 (Actually it was 1,000m2 but RAM was expected to lower it to 40m2); or a B-1B's 1m2; while still being less complicated than the F-117's 0.01m2 to 0.001m2.

[MKSheppard]

You're still not getting it, Keep trying.

*waves hand up and down*

OOH OOOH OOOH. CAN I ANSWER? CAN I?

*Stuart waits for an answer from the class, and when none is forthcoming, sighs and points to me*

"It's because the way many radar absorbent materials work -- they absorb the incoming radar energy, and then convert it into a different form of energy -- usually in the form of heat or infrared energy, and then radiate it back outboard.

So if you began to paint a stretch of sky with a MiG-25 radar sweeping back and forth, while the radar might not get a good enough lock on a B-2 due to the low sensitivity of the MiG-25's electronics; the amount of energy being converted to IR/heat by the B-2's stealth coatings would make it stand out on the MiG-25's IRST."

*sits back self confident*

[Shroom Man 777]

Flare lights up the entire dark sky, EXCEPT the big black flying wing-shaped object that's flying in the dark sky, which stays dark and is thus silhouetted by the flare's light, thus becoming visible to people on the ground?

As a basic principle, that's a good idea. Only, we can do much the same thing with bistatic or multi-static radars. Create a field of energy and pick up the shadow moving through it. Another is snap-down. If a monostatic radar source is above an aircraft like a B-2 or F-117, the aircraft appears as a shadow moving across the ground return.

So flares can help radar systems acquire targets, or at least detect stealthy objects moving through em?

[SilverHawk]

Does not support your argument or the 98/90 figures you quoted for teh B-2

That's because I quoted it for the F-117A. (which is around the same rcs performance of the B-2A)

Of course the USAF used the B-52 - it was an in-service asset. It also has a radar cross section about the same as a B-52. The basic point was that any aircraft can fill the -129 shooter role. The incorporation of penetration assets onto that platform is a waste of resources.

A B-52 has an RCS of a B-52, huh...I'm surprised. Also, I fail to see how increasing the capability of a platform is a "waste of resources".

The angels bit makes you sound like a 15-year old wannabee - which is what I think you are at this point. You have given me no cause to think otherwise. You're trying too hard to speak aviation-talk and it gives you away. I haven't dodged any issues. What I'm not doing is giving you any information to work with. That way we can see what your eally know and it is not impressive.

I don't live for your approval, so you can stuff it on what you do or do not believe about me.

If you were who you claim to be, you would know the answer to why the SR-71 was being pushed to its max and what the odd characteristic of the Mach 3 aircraft is that explains that. The fact that AV-2 was significantly faster than AV-1 is well documented in the source I gave you.

Because above mach 3.5 the SR-71 ate it's own air shock and the engines quit? Yeah, I know about that. Also you didn't GIVE me a source on the AV-2.

Grow up. It's that kind of remark that adds to the impression you'er a wannabee.

At least I don't judge people by their ability to spell properly (you seem to miss "the" and "you're" a lot.) Also, again, not living for your approval, so move along.

As a basic principle, that's a good idea. Only, we can do much the same thing with bistatic or multi-static radars. Create a field of energy and pick up the shadow moving through it. Another is snap-down. If a monostatic radar source is above an aircraft like a B-2 or F-117, the aircraft appears as a shadow moving across the ground return.

I already knew about this, it's just a refinement of principle on long wave emission radars. There was talking of using cell phone signal towers to create oceans of emissions to wade through, causing stealth aircraft to leave notable wakes and holes in the emission pattern.

So flares can help radar systems acquire targets, or at least detect stealthy objects moving through em?

Assuming the flare was launched high enough and close enough to the unknown B-2A to silhouette it's airframe in the darkness to create a noticable hole in the sphere the flare lights up. If you catch it near the edge, you won't even notice it visually.

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

And yet somehow, both those systems failed against the SR-71 every single time they tired. Real impressive record. In fact neither of those SAMs has any real hope against a B-70 class target unless its kind enough to fly directly overhead and not even try to make a turn. You really have to be kidding me though that you think the SA-2 can shoot down a plane that flies almost as fast and high as the actual missile itself can reach. Do you realize how preposterous that makes the intercept geometry? Meanwhile the mighty S-200, which can barely reach the B-70 ceiling either, and which was actually the Soviets second choice lower end backup system after the Dal program, failed relies on an search radar which rotates at just 4rpm. That means a B-70 can move close to ten miles in-between radar paints, which makes tracking hopeless unless the B-70 flies straight and level. Good luck cuing the mechanically scanning illuminator against a target you can’t track.

Only an idiot calls another person an idiot when that idiot assumes the person meant visual invisibility when the person obviously meant radar invisibility. (Excluding the fact that the F-117A and B-2A had design features to defeat IRST systems looking down from above.)

Except visual sighting was the MiG-19 point from the onset. The F-117 and B-2A certainly have steps to reduce thermal signature. Nothing will 'defeat' IRST because the plane will be hot from friction of the air if nothing else.

I honestly don't care if you believe me. You're free to look yourself, you will find the same answers. As for Baghdad, they went crazy after the first Nighthawks dropped their payload, giving you those spectacular light shows in the old videos in the harrowing stories of Nighthawk pilots worried about the Golden BB.

Hey, turns out I did look it up and long before you ever showed up. The Gulf War Air Power Study says the Iraqis fired first. Plenty of reasons why this could be, ground observers, nighthawks detected turning turns, fact remains it happened. Far from being worried about a mere golden BB more then one Nighthawk was physically thrown through the air and had its bombing run ruined by near miss SAM bursts. A lot of those first night missions completely missed the target because they ran into such heavy resistance. Laser guided bombs don’t work when you can’t hold the laser on target.

You're free to experience it yourself, just go to an airshow that will have a B-2 Demostration. But you'll find I'm telling the truth.

It doesn't really matter one way or another as far as this discussion is concerned. Hearing the plane at all is good enough for ground observers, who in any case will simply see the aircraft in daylight, and sound locators would always be stuck trailing the target, though a couple cross bearings are easily enough to vector a fighter to find the bomber visually.

Actually, no, they won't find it with infra-red. The Williams F-112 that powers the AGM-129 has practically zero IR emissions.

Engine missions create the medium wave IR signature. That's the larger part of an overall aircraft IR signature but you also have the long wave emissions from skin heating. That becomes much worse in daylight when the sun heats the plane too. Certain composite materials will reduce emissions but nothing will remove this source of heat. Given 1,000+ PVO fighters flying around that kind of detection is a quite realistic threat.

I suggest you actually address the discussion instead of issuing vague threats. If you want to call my bluff, it is totally within your power to do so, but you will find no information that contradicts what I have stated.

No. Sorry but your first response is wrong out of hand. You meanwhile have showed up, alluded to knowing all sorts of classified secrets and acted like a jerk, its almost stereotypically the way posers act. You do know something, but you have so far acted exactly the way a person who knew anything that wasn't in fact totally open source would not. So I don't buy the 'I know the secrets but I'm not telling crap'.

Nothing really too classified involved here, you can find all of what I said on the internet/JANES or through personal experience. Here, I'll even help you out, Boy-O.

Wow, I really hope you use something better then wikipedia for information. But wait, that's right, just a minute ago you were claiming to know classified secrets while repeating nonsense we've known is untrue for years. If you knew anything you’d know Janes sucks in the modern day, they’ve basically become a web crawling service and wikipedia is simply not credible.

F-117A IR Stealth : Exhaust deflection panels push heat up, away from ground based sensors, the split-v tail covers the deflected exhaust, blocking it from air based sensors looking down.

I don't know of any jet other then the F-35 which has an IRST that can look directly down, so that tail isn't going to matter much. Nor for that matter can such a small tail even come close to shielding all angles from above in the first place. Exhaust deflection isn't enough to avoid heating the interior of the plane either, that's why supposedly the B-2 has bypass ducts above and below the engines to jacket them in cooling air. But this still doesn’t do anything about the entire skin of the plane being warm. The plane being painted very dark gray would really not be helpful in daylight either. That is why the F-117 and B-2 always fly at nigh, ceding as much as two thirds of the24 hour day to the enemy.

Air Battle of Baghdad : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign . Gunners were tipped off by Raven ECM corridor and eventual LGB strikes of first Nighthawks.

Argument by wikipedia, what amazing skill considering that the article doesn't even say anything specific on the matter. How about you use a real resource like say, the Gulf War Air Power study?

AGM-129 IR Stealth : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_F112

So once more you totally ignore skin heating, did you even know that’s an issue? You can buy FLIR sights that will pickup the long wave IR emissions of a human for a hundred bucks. Systems designed for air defense and actively cooled will be immensely more effective.

B-2A Aural Stealth : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwnKPa5O ... re=related I think this video covers what I've been saying.

I live off the end of an airport runway, planes are passing over me as we speak. And yeah I’ll give you that the B-2 is quiet for how big it is, but aural stealth? I don’t think so. You don’t hear passing airliners until they are almost on top of you either because the plane is moving a significant fraction of the speed of sound. This does not prevent ground observers from being effective in daylight, nor would it defeat computerized sound locators in anything but bad weather when they won't work against any aircraft.

[Shroom Man 777]

Does not support your argument or the 98/90 figures you quoted for teh B-2

That's because I quoted it for the F-117A. (which is around the same rcs performance of the B-2A)

I thought the B-2 had a much smaller RCS than an F-117, since the F-117 was designed in the 70s and the B-2, being made later, had lots of improvements or something.

[Spoonist]

I don't live for your approval, so you can stuff it on what you do or do not believe about me.

On other boards that might be true, but you might want to read through the official board policies again. Specifically

Be Honest. Around here, dishonesty is much worse than rudeness. We take a particularly dim view of anyone who pretends to be someone he's not, or who brags about false accomplishments.

So if you claim to be X and people don't believe you based on a lack of knowledge or similar suspicious behavior, then they can call you on it and you would have to provide evidence of you being X. If you mind your privacy you could probably do that off the board to someone.

So far I don't think anyone has made that demand yet so consider this a heads up.

[SilverHawk]

I thought the B-2 had a much smaller RCS than an F-117, since the F-117 was designed in the 70s and the B-2, being made later, had lots of improvements or something.

Both have been said to be as small as a humming bird. Only able to find RCS on the F-117A, so the B-2A would be at least as stealthy as the F-117A.

Argument by wikipedia, what amazing skill considering that the article doesn't even say anything specific on the matter. How about you use a real resource like say, the Gulf War Air Power study?

Knowing what a EF-111A Raven does and why they would be escorting the F-117A Nighthawks and deducing that from other operations of Ravens in Desert Storm that they'd be there to operate as an ECM Corridor for the strike package, not rocket science.

The plane being painted very dark gray would really not be helpful in daylight either. That is why the F-117 and B-2 always fly at nigh, ceding as much as two thirds of the24 hour day to the enemy.

This material was not actually RAM, but RAM was used selectively where needed. The B-2 is painted in a bluish-gray anti-reflective paint to reduce its visual signature. It is not painted black, as is the F-117, since the B-2 is expected to perform both daylight and night attacks, and black is a high-visibility color for daylight flight operations.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avb2.html

Wow, I really hope you use something better then wikipedia for information. But wait, that's right, just a minute ago you were claiming to know classified secrets while repeating nonsense we've known is untrue for years. If you knew anything you’d know Janes sucks in the modern day, they’ve basically become a web crawling service and wikipedia is simply not credible.

Considering we're talking about late 80's/early 90's, I think JANES will suffice.

No. Sorry but your first response is wrong out of hand. You meanwhile have showed up, alluded to knowing all sorts of classified secrets and acted like a jerk, its almost stereotypically the way posers act. You do know something, but you have so far acted exactly the way a person who knew anything that wasn't in fact totally open source would not. So I don't buy the 'I know the secrets but I'm not telling crap'.

The only thing I alluded to was below the Zalson-M and Irbis-E, soviet/russian aircraft wouldn't be able to get a solid missile lock on the B-2A.

[SilverHawk]

Additional post due to edit lock-out :

I live off the end of an airport runway, planes are passing over me as we speak. And yeah I’ll give you that the B-2 is quiet for how big it is, but aural stealth? I don’t think so. You don’t hear passing airliners until they are almost on top of you either because the plane is moving a significant fraction of the speed of sound. This does not prevent ground observers from being effective in daylight, nor would it defeat computerized sound locators in anything but bad weather when they won't work against any aircraft.

The entire point was you didn't believe what I said, as far as I'm concerned, I proved my point that I was correct on the statement on how quiet the B-2A is.

So if you claim to be X and people don't believe you based on a lack of knowledge or similar suspicious behavior, then they can call you on it and you would have to provide evidence of you being X. If you mind your privacy you could probably do that off the board to someone.

Sorry, I had to turn in my Military/Geneva Convention ID when I mustered out and I have no intention on showing people on the internet my discharge papers.

[Zixinus]

Sorry, I had to turn in my Military/Geneva Convention ID when I mustered out and I have no intention on showing people on the internet my discharge papers.

Who said anything about discharge papers? You can show yourself in full military uniform at the base you served/trained and under who. You can tell us where were you trained and what you did there. Who taught you, who was there as well, who was the officer where you first served, etc.

But if you don't want to do any of that, then don't expect us to believe you. Or rather let me put it this way: no one will believe you, at all, and will rather assume that you are lying, especially as you refer to your personal experiences to make an argument. We are under absolutely no obligation to believe that you are who you say you are.

So, either give us your identity so we can believe who you are or stop referring to your personal experiences as a foundation for an argument.

[SilverHawk]

Sorry, I had to turn in my Military/Geneva Convention ID when I mustered out and I have no intention on showing people on the internet my discharge papers.

Who said anything about discharge papers? You can show yourself in full military uniform at the base you served/trained and under who. You can tell us where were you trained and what you did there. Who taught you, who was there as well, who was the officer where you first served, etc.

But if you don't want to do any of that, then don't expect us to believe you. Or rather let me put it this way: no one will believe you, at all, and will rather assume that you are lying, especially as you refer to your personal experiences to make an argument. We are under absolutely no obligation to believe that you are who you say you are.

So, either give us your identity so we can believe who you are or stop referring to your personal experiences as a foundation for an argument.

See, the thing is, none of the personal experiences I've referred to happened during my enlistment in the USAF, so your point is moot. (The B-2A Flyover, remind me if I made any other allusions to personal experiences and I shall do my best to explain them.)

As for the B-2A Flyover, it happened when I was doing Airshow logistics (Not sure if that's the proper word, I was guiding aircraft into their assigned parking spots and take-off order) as a Cadet member of CAP back in 2002 as part of the Wild Rivers Composite Squadron. (WI-053)

[Simon_Jester]

Nothing really too classified involved here, you can find all of what I said on the internet/JANES or through personal experience. Here, I'll even help you out, Boy-O.

Wow, I really hope you use something better then wikipedia for information. But wait, that's right, just a minute ago you were claiming to know classified secrets while repeating nonsense we've known is untrue for years. If you knew anything you’d know Janes sucks in the modern day, they’ve basically become a web crawling service and wikipedia is simply not credible.

(emphasis added)

Now, now, we've been over this. They sucked back in 1914 too, and they'd only been around for a few years then.

[SilverHawk]

Nothing really too classified involved here, you can find all of what I said on the internet/JANES or through personal experience. Here, I'll even help you out, Boy-O.

Wow, I really hope you use something better then wikipedia for information. But wait, that's right, just a minute ago you were claiming to know classified secrets while repeating nonsense we've known is untrue for years. If you knew anything you’d know Janes sucks in the modern day, they’ve basically become a web crawling service and wikipedia is simply not credible.

(emphasis added)

Now, now, we've been over this. They sucked back in 1914 too, and they'd only been around for a few years then.

Really? I didn't know JANES was that poor a source, if they aren't good, then I guess I don't really have anything.

[Sea Skimmer]

Everyone who loves nuclear weapons ought to read the second paragraph of this page, from 'The Air Force and Deterrence 1951-1960'. Nuclear weapons are conventional!