Somebody doesn't like the B-2

This page here is the most anti-stealth anti-B-2 page I have managed to find, yes I deliberately went out looking for links that knock the B-2 for whatever reason.

My point here is that surely these people would have absolutely leapt upon the shooting down of a B-2 as representing the final coupe de grace in their argument against having it. Althought the shooting down of a F-117 is siezed upon within their arguments don't you think its odd that the destructionm of any B-2, let alone three, is something thast they would just let go?

Likewise, anyone fortunate enough to shoot down the worlds most expensive combat aircraft would never shut up about it and would be waving bits of wreckage at TV cameras at every opportunity, the argument that they would keep quiet about it so as not to give their capability away is bollocks;

Firstly the USAF would KNOW it had lost a plane so what would secrecy achieve?

Secondly its not like the USA can say "right, scrap all those and we'll build a better one" is it?

The kudos to be gained from publicly demonstrating the ability to bring down the mightiest plane in the worlds mightiest Air Force is absolutely immeasurable so where is the evidence?

Of course the answer to all this is that allegations of the shooting down of a B-2, sorry three B-2's, are pure fiction.

have you ever taken into account, in the war in Yugoslavia, after the war would end, which nation, or group of nations would assist Yugoslavia with financial support? it's a pretty simple question, obviously it would be the UN(which is dominated by european nations)

now, if Yugoslavia went on television, and reported and claimed that they shot down B-2 bombrers, a bomber that costs $2.2 billion each, America could just easily also go on TV and internationaly broadcast, that it was a lie, they have done this with other military incidents

or, the UN could cut their finacnial aid, now Yugoslavia can't complain about this, because who would hear their complaint, the UN, thus, no one would give a tiny rats ass, they'd say, oh they're just lying, they want more money, really, read this, it explains where venik got his info from, and this exact topic that were talking about right now

www.aeronautics.ru...

Like I said Dima, where is the wreckage? I remember the US denying the loss of a F-117 until bits of it turned up. A B-2 spans 172ft, where did it all go? you are talking about THREE vast bombers here.

The very idea that a B-2 would be lost in Yugoslavia of all places is just crazy! Even the Russians can't shoot down a F-117a how did the Yugoslavs manage to do that??

IAF>>

[edit on 6-1-2005 by IAF101]

You know what proves to me that these are great aircraft? It's an extremely big deal for one to be shot down.

There's a definite one confirmed F-117, and, though I have my doubts, for the sake of argument, we'll assume 3 B-2's. Who ever claimed these things were 100% invisible and would NEVER be shot down?

Now with the above total, we have 4 aircraft, but of course, our government has to lie, since it's what everyone expects, so let's inflate that to 20 stealth aircraft lost in combat. We'll make it even: 10 F-117's and 10 B-2's.

Now, take into account the number of missions that have been undertaken with these stealth planes, but not just the number of missions, but also the type of mission. Stealth sorties don't tend to be the easiest to begin with, and let us not forget what potential cost for these sorties could be if less capable aircraft were used, and that's cost of aircraft, lives, and complications from a failed mission.

It would be hard to determine, but I wonder what type of losses stealth aircraft have inflicted on opposing forces. Like I mentioned, hard to tell, but I'm willing to bet they've given more than they've taken.

I did leave out monetary cost of the aircraft. Sorry I can't remember the price tags for either, but the 2.2 billion for the B-2 will work just fine.

Send five regular aircraft on a mission that would be ideal to use stealth for. I'll be liberal and say mission accomplished with loss of only one plane. The plane was an F-? that only cost 20 million, the pilot survived, and was rescued immediately, so there's no cost having to replace and retrain a pilot. The thing about war, there's never just one sortie. For a considerable conflict, sorties tend to reach the thousands rather quickly. Take the above scenario, and think about it a 100+ sorties later. Somewhere around 100 F-?'s have been lost at a cost of 2 billion. Now the basis for that is just assuming that after 100 sorties, a B-2 would eventually be downed. Again liberal is a bit of an under statement. For one, some pilots would die, so you have loss of life and cost to replace them. The price tag for the F-? is rather low for a fighter, and down right ridiculous for a bomber. Even after all that, the odds are still in favor of a B-2 to be around after that 100 sortie.

LOL LOL! 16 JDAMs?? 2000lbs JDAMS, correct, but it can carry 80 GBU-30 500lbs bombs! 500lbs bombs are more than enough.

Waynos, did you read the link that i provided, it explains, where he got his sources from, from several news agencies around the world, even American and British ojnes, actual people that were in Yugoslavia(i have something to add to that)

and i think it's the second or third point, that says why Yugoslavia didn't unviel more pictures and photographs, here, let me give you the link again

www.aeronautics.ru...

actually, the first one explains why Yugoslavia didn't show anymore pictures or videos, its really short

the second one explains where he got his information from

the fifth explains why NATO is keeping their loses secret

and towards the 1/4 of the page towards the end, people asked questions that went against his info, and he answers them all, so you should really read it, its not really that long

okay, concerning the B-2, i probably wouldn't believe them being downed, unless i had some insider information, my mom has a really good friend that lives in Yugoslavia, they were best friends way before i was born, so they're really close, she phones her every month or so now, but her 17-year old son and her husband, were outside drinking and smoking, when they heard this huge crackling, and then a massibe BANG, the sky lit up, it looked like it was day, and they saw something rip accross the sky, with flames attached to the wing, pieces of the plane were falling of of it and it crashed into a mountain, the kid isn't really bright to put it nicely lol, but he is a part-time carpenter and construction worker, so he knows how to measure, well, he said that the object had a width of 140 maybe 150-180 feet, fits exactly with the parameters of the B-2

well, yea, thats why i believe that a B-2 was shot, he also said that it looked unlike anything he had ever seen, and he was surprised by it could still fly, it had no fuselage, and you couldn't see the wings"separating" from the body. it was an al- in-one airplane that was shaped like an isosceles triangle

well, thats all

"The very idea that a B-2 would be lost in Yugoslavia of all places is just crazy! Even the Russians can't shoot down a F-117a how did the Yugoslavs manage to do that??

IAF>> "

That's funny, because the F-117s that were shut down in Yugoslavia were spotted by an old Soviet-era Russian radar.

One very important point is missing from these posts, and that is the fact that these aircraft have never been used in a theatre, or scenario, where the opponent has owned hi-tech defences or even an airforce.
Talking about their successes in Iraq and Yugoslavia is no indication of their invulnerability as they were hardly challenging scenarios.

Same goes for all current modern aircraft, many of which just haven't gone up against a technically competent opponent in real combat. It's all very well having the paperwork that shows how technically superior your equipment is but combat can sometimes prove to be a different matter entirely.

The B-2, costing more per unit than a U.S. Space Shuttle is a waste of money, especially in context of today's threats. But they are good planes. Any U.S. stealth plane brought down was probably either an extremely lucky pot shot or the result of mechanical failure.

lol, yes, the SA-3 is 44 years old, and the SA-6 is 38 years old

dtmfreak, how do you know that the Russians can't shoot down an F-117A, you see, its stupid assumptions like that makes the B-2 seem undetectable, so what, it has tons of stealth, and just because it costs $2.2 billion doesn't mean that it HAS to be the greatest bomber, or doesn't contribute to it being undectectable, radar technology is advancing rapidly, scarily, stealth technology(or conventional stealth technology such as utilizing RAM and coat paintings will become obsolete, maybe even RAS)

plasma will be and is the future

Good point if anyone shot down a B-2 they would parade the debris on TV just like they did with F-117A. The reason there is no footage is because one has never been shot down.

Even the fact that they claim the F-117 was shot down with old Soviet-era Russian radar is bunk if you ask me. A lie within a truth yes one was shot down but not with old crap radar. They want to test their new radars against the best the US has (Stealth) Since the US and Russia does not go to war very often they have to do this through a third party.

Most likely they sent there best radar to see how it stacks up with western stealth. The info this would give them would have been invaluable at the time.

Originally posted by Dima
lol, yes, the SA-3 is 44 years old, and the SA-6 is 38 years old

dtmfreak, how do you know that the Russians can't shoot down an F-117A, you see, its stupid assumptions like that makes the B-2 seem undetectable, so what, it has tons of stealth, and just because it costs $2.2 billion doesn't mean that it HAS to be the greatest bomber, or doesn't contribute to it being undectectable, radar technology is advancing rapidly, scarily, stealth technology(or conventional stealth technology such as utilizing RAM and coat paintings will become obsolete, maybe even RAS)

plasma will be and is the future

If you put a "stealth" aircraft, in particular 1st generation stealth, close enough to any radar it will be detectable. It has been said over and over, the US made a mistake by using the same flight paths and flying below clouds, which allowed visual observation. You know how many stealth planes have been shot down since then? Zero, of course. Not bad for a group of aircraft that get sent into area's with the highest concentration of threats...

The B-2 is also detectable given the right circumstances - but far less than any other aircraft in the world. If the B-2 is as succeptable as you suggest, why did the Soviet Union financially collapse while trying to find a way to counter it? To this day the B-2 could fly with realitive immunity through virtually all of Russia. It is a threat that no one can afford to comprehensivly protect against - or duplicate.

What you have to understand is that even these "Stealth" aircraft are still detectable by many AA systems, and do not rely on being "undectable" to achieve their missions.

The main advantage of these aircraft is there ability to slip into blind spots of the enemies radar network and exploit weakness with their low radar cross section.

If you imagine an enemies radar network as having certain areas of the sky illuminated, the stealth aircraft will aim to fly in between illuminated areas and use the low cross section to avoid enemy contact on the edge of the illuminated areas.

Having said that, the F-117 can be tracked and downed by British Rapier misslies that work on IR.

hahaha, you think that the USSR crumbled because they were trying to find a counter for the B-2, wait, let me explain this in a moment

no doubt, the Yugoslavs employed their best radars, it was a early-warning radar that caught the B-2

okay, the actual reason why the USSR collapsed, none of this stupid American theory bull#, the Soviet economy had a massive slowdown in the mid 80's, and were no longer to keep spending so much on their military, yet they continued, and eventually, too little money was left over to maintain the other sectors of the budget, such as the infrastructure, the health care, education, reource gathering buildings, let me clear this up for you guys

AMERICA, DID NOT WIN THE COLD WAR, THE USSR WENT THROUGH AN IMPLOSION, simple as that, Shadow, do you realize that America practically has control over half the world, wouldn't it be easy to hide 3 aircraft being shot down, really, you guys control the olympics, the global "economy" everything, the political decisions of other countries, anyways, you haven't read this, here's a link

www.aeronautics.ru...

i have already given it like three times, it explains why they wouldn't admit it, and why Yugoslavia didn't show more photo's

I read through the link Dima, or more accurately I skimmed sections of it because there is quite a lot of it, but I saw no reference to B-2's, could you give me a specific link?

I did notice that there is very much an 'agenda' with the site, i.e. "Yugoslavia is the victim of NATO aggression".

The former Yugoslavian states were fighting among themselves long before NATO got involved, thats WHY NATO got involved. I'm not starting an argument here but the viewpoint of the site can hardly be said to be neutral can it.

Also, I have said before, reports can get mixed up, picture this for example;

1, NATO uses F-117 for bombing ops, it becomes well known in the region.

2, One of them gets shot down.

3, The defending forces gleefully report that they have downed a 'stealth bomber'.

4, someone, maybe Venik, maybe someone else, reasons that the only 'stealth bomber' in service is the B-2.

5, Reports appear on the net and elsewhere based on a combination of this information and supposition that a B-2 has been shot down, a myth is born and perpetuated because of 'crossed wires'.

Does this sound like a reasonable supposition?

Arguing with Dima is useless period. He will remain convinced by the few sites he frequents for all time.

That being said, if the US had lost one B-2, let alone 3, heads would have rolled at the Pentagon, congress would HAVE to be informed. You don't just write off a 2.2+ billion dollar plane without letting people know.

Also, the Yugoslavs (I lived there in 1976-79 and prefered it before the breakup) had a fully intergrated air defence system. There is some evidence (spotty at best) and rumors that the Russians sent advisors and helped upgrade thier equipment along with the Chinese.

No tinhorn butcher/dictator like Milosivich would have passed at the oppurtunity to display a downed B-2 and its crew. Period. Think Francis Gary powers.

If the planes were vulenrable to Mother Russia's SAMS, why were they used is subsequent conflicts without loss.


Face facts, wishfull thinking does not make a B-2 go down.

Edit: Waynos, good find, but the title of the page says it all. This guy would bag on any weapon system

[edit on 1/8/05 by FredT]

Originally posted by Dima
Shadow, do you realize that America practically has control over half the world, wouldn't it be easy to hide 3 aircraft being shot down, really, you guys control the olympics, the global "economy" everything, the political decisions of other countries, anyways, you haven't read this, here's a link

www.aeronautics.ru...

The US does not control Half the world if they did then why would pictures of a downed F-117 come out but then the US is able to hide the B-2

"Us guys control the olympics" Where did that come from

why would he reason that it HAS to be a B-2, okay, here, elt me find where i got it from, if you give me your email, i can give you the entire database, i put it into Micrososft Excel, every NATO plane shot, there were tens, possible 150 unknown NATO aircraft shot down.

here's the first B-2A shot down

www.aeronautics.ru...

its the last article at the very bottom of the page

www.aeronautics.ru...

it is number 236, it was hit by a SAM and crashed into the mountains

www.aeronautics.ru...

its number 370, the first and third ones give a good amount of information, but the second one is kinda vague

i am aware that the site is kind of anti-NATO

There is no such thing as a yugoslav. Dont ever say that again.

And whoever said that they prefered it is ignorant of what happend.