Inside the B-2 Flight Deck

I searched and didn't see this posted anywhere.

The following video appears to be the first ever glimpse inside the flight deck of the B-2 during flight. It's a short video, but it reveals a striking amount of detail.



Here's an interesting article about the same video.

Related article about the video

Could this mean the B-2 is nearing end of life and we're about to see the fabled B-21 or whatever the next gen bomber is?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Amazing.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Maybe they keep running the B-2 but have a surprise waiting on the sideline or backend.
Vid was nice and clear.

Like any other cockpit for the most part.

Not long after it reached FOC they showed Popular Mechanics or Popular Science the cockpit with the power on, and allowed them to publish it in the magazine. I remember because they let me walk around the aircraft, and said I could look anywhere I wanted that didn't allow me to see in the cockpit, and a week later that came out. This is the first video they've allowed with this much detail.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
When the B2 was new and I was covering air shows, I met one of the engineers involved. Did an off the cuff interview with him about the cockpit and asked if they used off the shelf from other aircraft.

"No, and that's all I can say about it."

So now I wonder if that is indeed the case if components from the B2 are/were used in other unclassified aircraft since then (Super Hornet, F-22, F35) that the veil would be lifted. I've been very curious about it since that airshow. Thanks for the video.

One might infer that these were "secrets" that were no longer secret anyway. For whatever reason. The point of secrecy isn't to hide their secrets from some joe sixpack sitting around scratching his balls. They're hiding them from engineers who work for others and they're hiding military secrets from enemy countries. If these secrets have been compromised, what is the point of spending the money and effort keeping them?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
One might infer that these were "secrets" that were no longer secret anyway. For whatever reason. The point of secrecy isn't to hide their secrets from some joe sixpack sitting around scratching his balls. They're hiding them from engineers who work for others and they're hiding military secrets from enemy countries. If these secrets have been compromised, what is the point of spending the money and effort keeping them?

Very valid thought. What always gets me is that when they fly over, it's as if it's a hole in the sky and very hard to focus on like it messes with your depth perception. I was at the same airbase for another show under a media pass when the F-117 was still somewhat secret. They had it in a hanger with Air Force guards, armed, unless it was in the air. They removed parking guides, blocked parking lot while it taxied and didn't put the markers back correctly. Got any idea how long it took to find my car? Luckily a kind gent in a pickup carted a dozen of us around looking.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

my question is what were they loading at the start of the video into the bomb bay


clearly not the B61 from the start of the video as it has a shiny nose and not the right color and the other thing looks like some sort of optically guided weapon, what really threw me off were the big whit disks on the back of both of them but that might be some kind of optical illusion

a reply to: billxam

they aslso weren't flipping thru the menus and options on the aircraft, its a pretty standard flight deck, at;east to me nothing other then some unreadable fuel numbers and stuff are visible

It kind of makes sense to release some of this information have to be 21 to about to be revealed.. did not do a similar kind of thing with f-117? And you're right them bombs had a shiny tip on them !

a reply to: Slys13
cockpit footage of the F-22 was also released which is kind of weird that they do both at the same time

a reply to: penroc3

Might have been simulated B-83s.

a reply to: Zaphod58

the white one fore sure looks like that but the smaller one almost like like a B61 but with a stainless steel very blunt but pointy nose cone that's what throws me off as the strange ends could be repackable parachutes, that nose cone is thowing me off

a reply to: penroc3

Bunker buster. Hardened nose to penetrate concrete.

a reply to: Zaphod58

true true

i know they wanted the REP with the 61 i believe, correct?

i always wondered about the radome placement. as we both know hardened steel/tungsten/DU is not the best radome.


do you know what the plan was for that? there isn't even a laser seeker, i guess they could rely on a JDAM kit but in a highly contested area relying on GPSD alone for a nuclear bomb is pretty risky even more so if it was in a bunker buster role


maybe thats why the REP was nixed

a reply to: penroc3

The 61-12 will use a moveable tail kit with INS guidance, and will have a penetrating capability up to 3 meters, and an accuracy of approximately 30 meters. It's slated to enter production next year, but test drops have been performed from multiple aircraft types.

I was looking for the Plasma button

a reply to: Zaphod58

that's only 10 feet and i wonder what they judged the penetration ability on, like was it sand, packed sand, packed earth, concrete, hardened reinforced concrete, hardened concrete with earth that was packed over it or what.


10 feet is not that deep and seems like just the mass of the actual bomb would carry it that deep, and as long as the detonation was already triggering as it was going in it wouldn't need that much hardening on the bomb.

was it the rockeye that used a solid rocket as a booster? and what was the one that used a parachute to hold the muntion over the runway and then would use giant shaped charges to destroy the runway.


10 feet for a nuclear bomb seems silly, just put it in lay down and detonate it and you'll get more than 10 feet. i guess however if it was already 10 feet down it would couple with the ground around it and it might have better shock fronts on underground bunkers.

if i were going to make a nuclear bunker buster i would use something like the GBU-28(funny side note, they rushed them into DS1 by using howitzer barrels as the main body) and put steel in the tip or use a tungsten or DU penetrator to get past the hardened structure/rock and use some sort of sensor to know when the case was about to crush the warhead then detonate the nuke. i guarantee you that would go way deeper than 10 feet the normal GBU-28 is 5000lbs.

obviously you would make it a JDAM type system but i would add a laser seeker just incase GPS was jammed to hell, you could use a drone to lase the target area right at the terminal phase incase you needed to drop it like a dumb bomb.

if you were worried about massive fallout you could hit the area with a few HE GBU28's then send in the special one and if you want to get fancy drop enough other bombs that would cause the whole area to coplase in and stop the fallout from escaping.

honestly thermobarics and caves are terrifying and there is no need for nuclear weapons in that case. I saw pictures where you could see the shadows where people were burned in the room where the thermobarics hit.

a reply to: penroc3

Previous iterations penetrated less than three feet. At 10 feet the ability to damage hardened underground bunkers is significantly increased over a surface burst, or even 2-3 feet underground.

INS doesn't have to worry about being jammed, and with lasers you're asking people or aircraft to stay in danger close range of a nuclear detonation. The 61-12, as it's designed is pound for pound probably the most damaging nuclear weapon in the arsenal.