B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber...

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Colt45
No need for a B-2 when there is basically no AA operating in Iraq.

as for F-117A.. owned

Are they holding hands? :shocked:

hehe. kinda looks like it. maybe they are. maybe theyre just holding themselves up. i dont know.

I couldnt find a pic with babushkas dancing on it. thats comedy.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/search.php?q=miramar_b2

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Colt45
No need for a B-2 when there is basically no AA operating in Iraq.

as for F-117A.. owned

i wonder how much classified material we see in that photo....

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Colt45
No need for a B-2 when there is basically no AA operating in Iraq.

as for F-117A.. owned

i wonder how much classified material we see in that photo....

I see the blades of a turbofan engine 😛

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Colt45
No need for a B-2 when there is basically no AA operating in Iraq.

as for F-117A.. owned

i wonder how much classified material we see in that photo....

there are more pics of the F117 intact and blown up at fas.org
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm
there is a little video too, of the wreck..

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: NFS4
You always hear a lot about the B-52, but you never hear much about the B2. Have we been using them over in Iraq and has their stealth technology really paid off in war time?

Have you seen them on the news about Iraq? ...pretty stealthy, huh. 😀 😛

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: yllus
As far as I know, they're sort of a failure in the wars of today. Their mission was to be long-range bombers capable of flying unsupported and unaccompanied by conventional aircraft. Fly in, penetrate the air defences, drop the payload, fly out. They can do that alright - but the problem is that a B-2 bomber costs so damned much that nobody wants to risk sending one out to fly alone, or risk leaving the target's air defences intact prior to a B-2 mission. Imagine one got shot down? :Q This caution babies the B-2 and in effect makes its advanced technology and stealth almost wholly unnecessary.

Of course, in a war to end all wars where our air assets are limited and needed all over, they'd prove their use very quickly. But today, they're sort of a waste.

If you ever had to drop a nuclear weapon with zero warning to the target, they would be worth their weight in gold.

Actually, I'd bet that they actually cost more than a comparably heavy lump of gold. Think about it.

 

[MisterYu]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: yllus
As far as I know, they're sort of a failure in the wars of today. Their mission was to be long-range bombers capable of flying unsupported and unaccompanied by conventional aircraft. Fly in, penetrate the air defences, drop the payload, fly out. They can do that alright - but the problem is that a B-2 bomber costs so damned much that nobody wants to risk sending one out to fly alone, or risk leaving the target's air defences intact prior to a B-2 mission. Imagine one got shot down? :Q This caution babies the B-2 and in effect makes its advanced technology and stealth almost wholly unnecessary.

Of course, in a war to end all wars where our air assets are limited and needed all over, they'd prove their use very quickly. But today, they're sort of a waste.

If you ever had to drop a nuclear weapon with zero warning to the target, they would be worth their weight in gold.

Actually, I'd bet that they actually cost more than a comparably heavy lump of gold. Think about it.

I think you're right.

Here's comes the math:
weight of B-2 w/o payload or fuel ( 296500 lbs -> 4744000 oz )
Avg cost of gold in 1990: $383/oz
Cost of B-2's weight in gold: ~$1.8 billion
Cost of B-2: ~$2.1 billion (not including upgrades to dated avionics)

Couple things worth mentioning:
1. The venerable B-52 may weill keep flying long after B-2 and B-1B have long retired. (I think the first plot is wrong, because it shows that the US has over 4 times as many B-2's as we actually possess.)

2. I remember reading in some aerospace industry journal (sorry can't dig up link), that the Czech's have developed a radar they claim can overcome stealth technology. The reason it hasn't been widely distributed is the US will block the Czech Republic's entry into NATO.

 

[0roo0roo]

so many more b52's u can have one in the air when its needed by the troops calling in a strike or whatever i guess.

 

[So]

The ability that the B-2 gives us to obliterate an enemy's air defenses completely and without losses allows the venerable BUFF to continue operating with impunity, essentially by spending on the B-2 we don't have to replace our already paid for and relatively cheap to maintain B-52 fleet with expensive new B-1's or something even pricier. The B-2 is a force enabler.

 

[nineball9]

Originally posted by: MisterYu

I think you're right.

Here's comes the math:
weight of B-2 w/o payload or fuel ( 296500 lbs -> 4744000 oz )
Avg cost of gold in 1990: $383/oz
Cost of B-2's weight in gold: ~$1.8 billion
Cost of B-2: ~$2.1 billion (not including upgrades to dated avionics)

Couple things worth mentioning:
1. The venerable B-52 may weill keep flying long after B-2 and B-1B have long retired. (I think the first plot is wrong, because it shows that the US has over 4 times as many B-2's as we actually possess.)

2. I remember reading in some aerospace industry journal (sorry can't dig up link), that the Czech's have developed a radar they claim can overcome stealth technology. The reason it hasn't been widely distributed is the US will block the Czech Republic's entry into NATO.

Actually, it's worse than that!

In the US, everyday items - bombers included - are measured using avoirdupois weight. Gold, on the other hand, is measured in troy weight. Unfortunately a troy ounce is not the same as an avoirdupois ounce. In the US, an ounce of gold, at 480 grains, actually weighs more than an ounce of bombers (or feathers for that matter) at 437.5 grains. (Sigh. Will we ever convert to the Metric system?)

One can find conversion factors in reference books or on the web. The common base for avoirdupois and troy weights (and apothecaries' weight) is a grain, where 1 grain avdp = 1 grain troy = 1 grain apoth.

An avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains.
A troy ounce is 480 grains.

Given the stated figures:
B-2 w/o payload or fuel = 296,500 avdp pounds.
Avg cost of gold in 1990: $383 (USD) / troy oz.
Here's the math again:

(296,500 avdp. pounds) * (7000 grains per avdp. pound) = 2,075,500,000 grains.
(2,075,500,000 grains) / (480 grains per troy oz.) = 4,323,958 troy oz.
(4,323,958 troy oz.) * ($383 per troy oz.) ~ $1.66 billion.

yuck.

 

[K1052]

Ok, then worth their weight in Platinum.😛

I just want to convey just how valuable it is to have the option to use them if the need ever arose. In the grand scheme of military weapons expenditures, it is not unjustified.

 

[Ikonomi]

Originally posted by: nineball9

Originally posted by: MisterYu

I think you're right.

Here's comes the math:
weight of B-2 w/o payload or fuel ( 296500 lbs -> 4744000 oz )
Avg cost of gold in 1990: $383/oz
Cost of B-2's weight in gold: ~$1.8 billion
Cost of B-2: ~$2.1 billion (not including upgrades to dated avionics)

Couple things worth mentioning:
1. The venerable B-52 may weill keep flying long after B-2 and B-1B have long retired. (I think the first plot is wrong, because it shows that the US has over 4 times as many B-2's as we actually possess.)

2. I remember reading in some aerospace industry journal (sorry can't dig up link), that the Czech's have developed a radar they claim can overcome stealth technology. The reason it hasn't been widely distributed is the US will block the Czech Republic's entry into NATO.

Actually, it's worse than that!

In the US, everyday items - bombers included - are measured using avoirdupois weight. Gold, on the other hand, is measured in troy weight. Unfortunately a troy ounce is not the same as an avoirdupois ounce. In the US, an ounce of gold, at 480 grains, actually weighs more than an ounce of bombers (or feathers for that matter) at 437.5 grains. (Sigh. Will we ever convert to the Metric system?)

One can find conversion factors in reference books or on the web. The common base for avoirdupois and troy weights (and apothecaries' weight) is a grain, where 1 grain avdp = 1 grain troy = 1 grain apoth.

An avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains.
A troy ounce is 480 grains.

Given the stated figures:
B-2 w/o payload or fuel = 296,500 avdp pounds.
Avg cost of gold in 1990: $383 (USD) / troy oz.
Here's the math again:

(296,500 avdp. pounds) * (7000 grains per avdp. pound) = 2,075,500,000 grains.
(2,075,500,000 grains) / (480 grains per troy oz.) = 4,323,958 troy oz.
(4,323,958 troy oz.) * ($383 per troy oz.) ~ $1.66 billion.

yuck.

I am really, honestly impressed that you know that.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
We have used them over Iraq. They're so stealthy they just don't mention them.

In fact, the night the first major air raids started, we all knew hours beforehand if you remember properly - because the airbase watchers saw the B2's leave - and then right on cue, stuff started exploding.

And I'd say it hasn't really been put to the test - since Iraq didn't have any air defense to speak of by the time they arrived.

That's right!! Didn't they like take off from the midwest, fly to Iraq, then make it back to their base on one tank of gas? 😀

No, not on one tank of gas. Give the aerial refuelers their due -- the US Air Force wouldn't be what it is without the KC-135 and the KC-10. I happen to work in a KC-135 squadron. 😉

As far as I know, they're sort of a failure in the wars of today.

I'm really not trying to be offensive, but "as far as [you] know" isn't very far. The B-2 has a role, and it's one that cannot be filled by any other bomber. The sum total of a bomber's capability is NOT its bombload, contrary to what is implied in this thread. That's equivalent to saying that a fighter is only as good as its maximum speed. Therefore, the MiG-25 is the best fighter in the world.

The first 21 B-2s cost $2.2 billion a copy.

The asinine part of figures like this (not directed at you) is that it doesn't take into account the fact that the R&D which went into the "building" cost of the B-2 is being used in other programs like the F/A-22 and the F-35 (any idea why that isn't the F/A-35 since it's designed as a multi-role to replace the F-16? Hmmm...). I hate when they quote those costs. I'd be really interested to see how much in actual material and labor it costs to make a B-2.

 

[rudder]

B2 was designed to sneak into the USSR and take out moible ICBM's. It is slow and has a small payload. The B52's are in no danger of benig shot down and are probably cheaper to operate.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: rudder
B2 was designed to sneak into the USSR and take out moible ICBM's. It is slow and has a small payload. The B52's are in no danger of benig shot down and are probably cheaper to operate.

Hmm, let's see. The most widely deployed surface to air missile system in the world (barring man portable ones) is the SA-2 GUIDELINE, which shot down Gary Powers' U-2 way-back-when while he was flying at an amazingly high altitude. The B-52 cannot fly nearly that high of an altitude so it's therefore quite vulnerable to the aforementioned SA-2.

No danger of being shot down? Why don't you talk to some of the aircrew at Barksdale AFB about that? I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear it.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: rudder
B2 was designed to sneak into the USSR and take out moible ICBM's. It is slow and has a small payload. The B52's are in no danger of benig shot down and are probably cheaper to operate.

Hmm, let's see. The most widely deployed surface to air missile system in the world (barring man portable ones) is the SA-2 GUIDELINE, which shot down Gary Powers' U-2 way-back-when while he was flying at an amazingly high altitude. The B-52 cannot fly nearly that high of an altitude so it's therefore quite vulnerable to the aforementioned SA-2.

No danger of being shot down? Why don't you talk to some of the aircrew at Barksdale AFB about that? I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear it.

I take it you do not like armchair Air Force Enlistees :laugh:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The b-52 has a projected retirement date set in 2055 or later. Effectively giving it a 100 year span of service. That is insane. -watches to much history channel.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
The b-52 has a projected retirement date set in 2055 or later. Effectively giving it a 100 year span of service. That is insane. -watches to much history channel.

Why do you think I posted this thread? I was watching the History Channel last night and they were talking about Northrops flying wing and how the design evolved into the B2 😛

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
We have used them over Iraq. They're so stealthy they just don't mention them.

In fact, the night the first major air raids started, we all knew hours beforehand if you remember properly - because the airbase watchers saw the B2's leave - and then right on cue, stuff started exploding.

And I'd say it hasn't really been put to the test - since Iraq didn't have any air defense to speak of by the time they arrived.

That's right!! Didn't they like take off from the midwest, fly to Iraq, then make it back to their base on one tank of gas? 😀

no, they refueled mid air at least once, and not all strikes are from the US B2 base (Missouri IIRC), there is also Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

edit, someone beat me to it

 

[GTaudiophile]

All I have to say is that the past 60 years were the golden age of aviation.

Because this is the future...and they aren't always piloted by men.

They're just going to get bigger, better, faster, and more capable. We can build hundreds of them for the price of one B2. And best of all, who gives a fvck if they get shot down? (Aside from tax payers I guess.)

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
All I have to say is that the past 60 years were the golden age of aviation.

Because this is the future...and they aren't always piloted by men.

They're just going to get bigger, better, faster, and more capable. We can build hundreds of them for the price of one B2. And best of all, who gives a fvck if they get shot down? (Aside from tax payers I guess.)

I recall a big stink about the Predator that was shot down over Iraq.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: NFS4
That's right!! Didn't they like take off from the midwest, fly to Iraq, then make it back to their base on one tank of gas? 😀

they are based out of whiteman AFB about 30 miles east of my house
they have to refuel a couple times each direction going to iraq from missouri

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: rudder
B2 was designed to sneak into the USSR and take out moible ICBM's. It is slow and has a small payload. The B52's are in no danger of benig shot down and are probably cheaper to operate.

Hmm, let's see. The most widely deployed surface to air missile system in the world (barring man portable ones) is the SA-2 GUIDELINE, which shot down Gary Powers' U-2 way-back-when while he was flying at an amazingly high altitude. The B-52 cannot fly nearly that high of an altitude so it's therefore quite vulnerable to the aforementioned SA-2.

No danger of being shot down? Why don't you talk to some of the aircrew at Barksdale AFB about that? I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear it.

Let me know how many b52's have been shot down over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edit: and before you get your panties in a wad again, I assumed the OP was discussing why do you not hear about the b2 in current operations. I am well aware of the vulnerability of the b52 bomber. Just check out the losses of the b52 during the Vietnam war.

 

[MisterYu]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
All I have to say is that the past 60 years were the golden age of aviation.

Because this is the future...and they aren't always piloted by men.

They're just going to get bigger, better, faster, and more capable. We can build hundreds of them for the price of one B2. And best of all, who gives a fvck if they get shot down? (Aside from tax payers I guess.)

More info about future unmanned combat aircraft here.