B-2 Question

Ghost,

Which facts didn't I get 'straight'?

>>
Actually the B-2 was a Special Access Program, and still is. It operates under the code name Senior Ice!
>>

No. It operates under a program name whose overlying code architecture has changed since the declaration of Senior Ice.

Special Access Required remains the same but is only the term describing the overall program security level which means that noone with access will acknowledge the true program name or objective _existence_ to anyone without the same access.

N2 requires that EACH further subelement of the program be keyed into with a codeword held only by select personnel who have a proven 'need to know' about that part of the program.

That you know what Senior Ice means in fact only proves that the words themselves have no power anymore as an SAR restrictive useage.

>>
Perhaps you should read up on the B-2 a bit. Yes, the B-2 did have some major growing pains (if I denied that, I'd be a liar!) However, you are referrring to issues that were found during testing in the R&D phase and have since been fixed!
>>

Perhaps you should act less like a fanboy and more like a dedicated researcher. The Russians can detect the B-2. Our own SecDef has admitted as much. As such, you have a fleet of 20 airframes which cannot functionally achieve the primary strategic mission they were designed for. Anymore than the 60 B-1B and B-52 fleets that at least have the numbers and standoff munitions respectively to sustain losses while delivering penetrating SIOP equivalency of megatonnage yields

And are equally able to stage forward to regional operating bases where they have a tenth the distance to go to reach the combat area in those theaters where high technology detection systems are not a factor in the deployment of unescorted assets.

That's right. Both the B-1B and the B-52 receive only incidental support from surrounding tacair operations. OTOH, the B-2, forever 'queen for a night' has a veritable bevy of handmaidens which constantly accompany it as direct and standoff support supplied for every mission. Sucking away those missions from rather more useful tacair platforms left naked to support the Batarang.

All because, as a figurehead platform, we can no more afford to lose such a symbol of misplaced national pride than we can a nuclear carrier. Which is ridiculous amount of 'valueing' to place on ANY exposed asset without a nuclear reactor, 6,000 men or 100,000 tons of steel to back it up.

>>
Please check your facts!
>>

Please stop whining because my facts make your obsession look like the exercise in worshiping technology for technologies sake that it is.

>>
Your conclusing shows that you haven't really studied the aircraft. Case in Point! the B-2 carries some of the most advanced smart bombs in use today. It's also the only bomber that has a 2-man crew.
>>

The entire reason for the 'bomber roadmap' CMUP was to give the Air Farce a reason to conserve the bomber fleet as SAC and the SIOP mission died. If they hadn't given the bombers IAM capabilities first, Congress would have cut this vestigial appendix from the gross overburden of the taxpayer donkey carrying the military's worthless weight a decade or more ago.

Having said that, once the AF had proven their union-dues loyalty to the heavy-air segment of their fraternity population, they subsequently gave IAMs to the tactical fleet as well. Which promptly went on to prove that even with a moronic approach to 'look out I got both pylons loaded today I tell'ya!' platform:munition densities; fighters STILL beat the tar out of the worthless strategic force and in particular the complete leach of the B-2 on a sorte:radius basis of attacking defended targets with 'DMPIs per day' average servicings (not just numbers dropped but numbers dropped on spatially disparate target groups in achieving synergized theater-goals performance).

With the GBU-38/BRU-57 now in tactical use (4 vice 2 munitions) and the GBU-39 going to the F-15E and F-22 LONG before it reaches the Batarang community (8-16 per airframe); the only munitions, 'advanced' or otherwise, which the B-2 routinely employs that others do not or cannot, are all nuclear.

Even the GBU-37, as a 'bunker buster', can be matched by the GBU-28 with dual GPS/SALH guidance and superior accuracy off the F-15E.

As for two crew, who cares? The B-2 could achieve the same mission role with one man. Or none. Because it is utterly helpless when caught. And on autopilot 90% of the time, whether the crew are 'resting' or not.

In terms of combat capabilities, flying along like an airliner at ultra high altitude, what matters is that (as a stealth asset) the Batwing neither has the EO options nor can afford to make active RF emissions sufficient to act as it's own targeting agency on small and/or fleeting targets typical of most realworld-useful ATO lists.

Nor can it perform as a network hub for other ISR platforms (not that these are likely to be present on D1/R1 or SIOP anyway) already in the theater. Because not only it's EMCON status but it's very comms /suite/ remain dated.

Instead, it is used as a heavy interdiction asset on premission briefed fixed targets or those which are relayed BEFORE combat area entry. Delivering all of 16 heavyweight or 80 lightweight bombs (compared to /several hundred/ equivalent from tacair) in a given 30-50hr period.

It does so by using offset LPI SAR snapshot and doppler driftrate updates to it's GATS derived onboard inertial bombing system. A system ultimately no different in method than the radar blind bombing laydown approach used by B-36s from the late 50's onwards.

The only real difference being that the munitions now can compensate for their own ballistic/wind variables after release.

The combination of a lack of reactivity and limited force size makes the B-2 an airframe in search of a mission. Because nothing it does, it does well enough to be even a partial replacement for EITHER tactical or strategic mission systems which accomplish either the same or many more missions than it can, just on sheer presence.


KPl.

The B-2A is, respectively, a different aircraft from the B-2.

There were several enhancements to the aircraft that improved its stealth charactaristics. What many of them are, exactly, is unknown. I'll research and see if one of the ones I know of is classified. But it's employment purposes are unknown to me - meaning I can only speculate as to what systems it might be supporting.

That, and as I've already mentioned, it's very possible for even a very modest radar to track nearly any airborne object with the correct filters. So it's not a very fair arguement. Detection will almost always progress faster than the technology to evade them. That's the nature of the battle. I also like how you neglect at what range the radar is capable of tracking the B-2. I would estimate that it is an innefective range - especially consiering that the crew will instantly be alerted to a tracking radar. You also fail to mention how effective the accompanying search radar was at detecting the B-2 prior to relaying coordinates to the tracking radar.

Your arguement for the F-15 being capable of carrying an equivelant weapon system is also not a relevant arguement. The range of the F-15 means it must operate from friendly airfields within theatre - and refueling range limited by the endurance of the pilot who does not have many of the 'luxuries' the B-2 has to accomodate long flights. .... Well... luxuries compared to being crammed in a fighter cockpit on a bombing mission.....

Then you have the JSOW weapons which can be employed in large number on the B-2 - giving one aircraft the ability to almost completely obliterate an entire nation's military infrastructure and, if necessary, assets. The B-2's features will allow it to strike at targets otherwise unavailable to B-1s and B-52s.

The B-2 can operate from more distant theatres and use less fuel-per-munition than the F-15. It is also a rather maneuverable aircraft for its size - giving it added survivability when coupled with its low observable features. The avionics system on the aircraft also nearly make pilot error impossible - as the aircraft will not allow you to stall the aircraft (and send it into a tumble that was a fatal flaw of the XB-49).

In terms of combat capabilities, flying along like an airliner at ultra high altitude, what matters is that (as a stealth asset) the Batwing neither has the EO options nor can afford to make active RF emissions sufficient to act as it's own targeting agency on small and/or fleeting targets typical of most realworld-useful ATO lists.

I know as a matter of fact that the B-2's radar is more than capable of acquiring its own targets without being detected. I know how this is possible, and that current electronics technology allows for such a system, and it's pretty much the inverse of defeating radar jamming combined with mimicing existing static emissions that are not necessarily within the standard radar frequency band.

Nor can it perform as a network hub for other ISR platforms (not that these are likely to be present on D1/R1 or SIOP anyway) already in the theater. Because not only it's EMCON status but it's very comms /suite/ remain dated.

Instead, it is used as a heavy interdiction asset on premission briefed fixed targets or those which are relayed BEFORE combat area entry. Delivering all of 16 heavyweight or 80 lightweight bombs (compared to /several hundred/ equivalent from tacair) in a given 30-50hr period.

It does so by using offset LPI SAR snapshot and doppler driftrate updates to it's GATS derived onboard inertial bombing system. A system ultimately no different in method than the radar blind bombing laydown approach used by B-36s from the late 50's onwards.

I would like to know where you pull your information from. The ground crews here that work on the B-2 and the pilots state otherwise. Also numerous people who worked on the avionics system of the aircraft differ strongly with that set of statements.

The B-2s have a very advanced communications system that is used when placing the aircraft into formation, allowing computers to keep the aircraft apart from each other and able to fly in an extremely tight formation that is calculated to minimize the collective RCS as well as to obscure the true number of aircraft in the airspace.

Are you sure you're not employed for disinformation or something?

www.lazygranch.com...

I'll bow to you all, but the aircrafts all stealthy and stuff, and yet it contrails like a mad one if this picture is correct. Even at night you can see aircraft contrails from jet liners, so whats going to be the difference here??

Oh and another thing, have any of you seen the new tech the B-2's being retrofitted with? Instead of tape sealent every time it need to be worked on (Takes days apparently) there are 5 at the minute with a new type of panel that can just be lifted out and slotted back in with no tape sealent needed.

ill dig for the link for you as i read it last night.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
www.lazygranch.com...

I'll bow to you all, but the aircrafts all stealthy and stuff, and yet it contrails like a mad one if this picture is correct. Even at night you can see aircraft contrails from jet liners, so whats going to be the difference here??

Not all the time but when being as stealthy as possible, the B-2 injects a chemical into it's exhaust that decreases or gets rid of entirely any hint of contrail.

woah really?? Thats freaking awesome !!

that is so cool - hope its nothing bad for the enviroment though... but there again if its flying in anger then maybe the enviroments a secondary concern..

any how, thanks for the reply and explanation about the B-2. This threads got some great info on it, and im learning tons about stuff i had no idea about.

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
www.lazygranch.com...

I'll bow to you all, but the aircrafts all stealthy and stuff, and yet it contrails like a mad one if this picture is correct. Even at night you can see aircraft contrails from jet liners, so whats going to be the difference here??

Not all the time but when being as stealthy as possible, the B-2 injects a chemical into it's exhaust that decreases or gets rid of entirely any hint of contrail.

Right Intelgurl,

The chemical used to suppress contrails is stored in special tanks that go into the so called Libs 28 bays (No I don't know what Libs 28 means). These bays are located outboard of the main landing gear bays.

Tim

AFAIK the contrail suppression chemicals (which were very nasty) have been dropped, not it uses a much more eco-friendly method which uses a rear-facing LIDAR - this detects any contrail being formed so the pilot can descend altitude (and find a height where there is no contrail formation)

www.ophir.com...

Contrail formation can also supposedly be suppressed with plasma, but I wouldn't know anything about that

Speaking of these chemicals, I'm not sure if it's correct, but I have heard that they use Chlorafloriasulpheric Acid (I'm not sure about the spelling). This is a strong acid, and is very corrosive.

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't want to work with the stuff!

Tim

Originally posted by ch1466
No. It operates under a program name whose overlying code architecture has changed since the declaration of Senior Ice.

Special Access Required remains the same but is only the term describing the overall program security level which means that noone with access will acknowledge the true program name or objective _existence_ to anyone without the same access.

N2 requires that EACH further subelement of the program be keyed into with a codeword held only by select personnel who have a proven 'need to know' about that part of the program.

That you know what Senior Ice means in fact only proves that the words themselves have no power anymore as an SAR restrictive useage.

KPl.

KPl,

Your information is only partially correct. You need to investigate the difference between an acknowledged SAP (like Senior Ice) and an unacknowledged SAP. If you get lucky, maybe you might even discover the purpose of a waived SAP.

The B-2 umbrella program has not changed. Senior Ice is still effective. There is no operational requirement for a new, unacknowledged SAP compartment for a system that has been in service an open for public consumption for 15+ years, nevermind the tremendous cost burden that a "black" program requires.

One may speculate that other complimentary programs associated with weapons, sensors, and system improvements are controlled within separate compartments and/or program channels. They may or may not be unacknowledged (if they even exit). However, the master B-2 program has essentially remained unchanged since the beginning.

>>>> I know as a matter of fact that the B-2's radar is more than capable of acquiring its own targets without being detected. I know how this is possible, and that current electronics technology allows for such a system, and it's pretty much the inverse of defeating radar jamming combined with mimicing existing static emissions that are not necessarily within the standard radar frequency band.