• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush is planning on unleashing B2 bombers on Saddam??

NFS4

No Lifer
I was reading on either Reuters or NYTimes this morning that Bush is planning on starting an air assault with B2 bombers dropping 2,000 lb bombs to knock out Iraqi communications links. Interesting...

Just how many B2 bombers do we have? Have we ever lost one in combat? Just how impervious are they to radar? And finally, why can't they fly in the rain? 😀
 
I think there are 20 of them, ability to carry 40,000 lbs of weapons, a very long range.

Now for the rain...umm, beats me. I guess if you had something nice, you wouldn't want to bring it out on a rainy day.
 
They just moved some to an airfield closer to the Middle East. Time-to-target is cut in half when they launch from that new field....can't remember where exactly it is, though.

They're quite expensive, I believe $1-$2 billion a piece. No combat loses (we lost one F117A in Kosovo). Their radar cross-section is that of a bird, much smaller than the F117A. I believe they fly over most rain. 🙂
 
Your fair weather bomber!
Link

WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Missouri (CNN) -- The U.S. Air Force deployed its much-criticized, high-tech B-2 bombers on their most critical mission to date: countering the perception that they are multibillion-dollar, bat-winged boondoggles.

Smarting from a recent General Accounting Office report which called the B-2 a "fair-weather jet" that can't be based overseas without expensive climate-controlled hangars, the Air Force flew dozens of reporters and cameramen to Missouri for an unprecedented, close-up look at the bombers.
Heavy rain causes 'discrepancies'

Goslin admitted that several months ago the B-2 had significant maintenance problems with some of the radar-absorbing materials on its surfaces. Those materials give it the ability to evade detection and tracking by enemy forces.

He said a special tape that seals joints and seams on the B-2's surfaces tended to loosen during flight, requiring time-consuming repairs. It happens less frequently now, he said, but the improvement was too recent to have been reflected in the GAO report.

Goslin insisted that rain has no effect on the B-2's stealthiness, but others were less absolute. Brig. Gen. Bruce Carlson, who is in charge of B-2 acquisition in the Pentagon, said heavy rain can cause "discrepancies" that require repair.

Maj. Eric Single, a pilot with more than 450 hours of B-2 flying time, said that even light rain can have an adverse effect on the special surface coatings, although moisture does not make the plane less capable of evading enemy radar.

"This plane has a lot of serious maintenance issues that need to be resolved before it justifies its $2.4 billion price tag," said Tony Capaccio, editor of Defense Week.

 
I too read something about the paint coating sensitive to rain... real sensitive... and explaining that is why they are stationed in the hi-tech hangars in Missouri and have to fly from there ... long distance to everywhere it's needed....
 
Originally posted by: brtspears2
, a very long range.

.

it doesn't rain at the altitude they fly at

they are based from Whiteman Air Force Base , about 100 miles from where i live, their missions take like 16-18 hours or longer, something like that
they can fly from here in missouri and strike targets anywhere in the world, they do in flight refueling of course

oh and the sooner we start using them to bomb iraq the better
 
After 12 years of pummeling what's left of the Iraqi "integrated air defense network" they could go in there with hand-held gliders and acheive dominance in minutes.

So it makes perfect sense to use B2s. They're very expensive to operate. That must make a lot of people in certain places happy.

 
And all those transport planes require thousands of feet of runway in order to land and take-off. Wow, they suck, and we should throw them all away!
rolleye.gif


Every weapons system has particular operational requirements, and the more cutting edge it is, the more likely that it will have very specific and sometimes stringent requirements. Certainly, the B-2 does have some peculiarities, but it is also an incredibly sophisticated bombing platform without equal anywhere the world.

And morons like Tony Capaccio think that such technology comes cheaply? The idiocy is that critics fail to realize that not only does the monetary outlay give the B-2 revolutionary capability, albeit with growing pains because it is a unique aircraft, but also that money has considerable benefit to future aircraft. I would be highly surprised if the F-22 didn't benefit from the experiences with the B-2.
 
All the news stories about the paint problem are 5+ years old (when the B-2's just started flying regularly). I wonder what has been done since then.
 
Missions to the middle East are ~ 30 hours, round trip and require four refulings at full load (there was a thing on TLC/Discovery just the other day).

They fly out of one place for security reasons. They don't even land 'em at air shows (like Oshkosh).

FWIW

Scott
 
The "Flying Wing's" charcoal gray exterior is coated with special paint, forming a sleek membrane that helps to absorb and scatter radar beams. Whiteman "low observable" maintainers (stealth material specialists) cover every screw, panel, seam and gap with special tape, further adding to the plane's stealthiness.

"The surface treatments are the frosting on the cake," Percival said. "The basic stealth of this plane comes from its shape and structure."

But it's just this frosting that took a licking in the press. Rain and bad weather had peeled back the tape and pelted off paint on the plane's leading edges, possibly making the bomber more vulnerable to detection. Fixing this fault required time-consuming repairs, which resulted from lengthy cure times needed to set adhesive foam, glue and tape. Furthermore, maintenance crews made these repairs in "climate-controlled" hangars, called docks, which facilitate the curing process. The docks took knocks in the press, too.

Today, the wing uses new tapes, and better adhesives that dry faster and stay on longer, resulting in less LO damage and dramatically less "re-LO" times. Whiteman maintainers, working with Northrop Grumman, have cut cure times from 50 to 90 percent. For instance, one tape that took 72 hours to cure now only takes three hours.

"A little nick here and a little ding there would be no big deal on any other bomber," Stotler said. "A B-52 isn't going to sneak up on anybody. But on the B-2, it could mean the difference between getting shot down or coming home alive. That's why we don't fool around when it comes to LO."

With these improvements, Percival said the Spirit is a weapon for all seasons, rain or shine.

"We actually welcome bad weather for combat missions," the colonel said. "We prefer flying into enemy territory on dark and stormy nights; it adds to our stealthiness. We can guarantee target destruction through 20,000 feet of bad weather.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0598/spirit2.htm
 
I think the B2 were used to bomb Yugoslavia a couple of years ago. After neutralizing the Iraqi air defense networks with the stealth bombers, the B-52 will probably come in.
 
Oh BTW the premise of this thread is false

Since Saddam will most likely be anywhere else but where the B2 bombs fall, those killed will not be Saddam. Just the technically picky side of me
 
Yeah but I have a feeling Bush has 'pre-selected' several bombing options . . . likely coinciding with the locations of Saddam's "palaces". If I was on the war footing, I would certainly support those choices. I guess we missed the sale, the B-2 program cost $44B to produce 21 planes including development costs. Unless Northrup-Grumman is waiting on a $29B mail-in-rebate, $735 million is a press release not cost.

B-2s are technological marvels. But I'm in the camp that questions the value.

I heard one report that US/British bombing patterns have been pre-emptive b/c Iraq was utilizing a low-tech method of triangulation that might facilitate detection of B-2s.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
B2 is a worse waste of money than the Space Shuttle.

Yeah, you're right. So was the moon landing. And the Lewis and Clark expedition. And Columbus' exploration of the West Indies.

I guess we should all just stay home and play Scrabble, right, SuperTool?
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: SuperTool
B2 is a worse waste of money than the Space Shuttle.

Yeah, you're right. So was the moon landing. And the Lewis and Clark expedition. And Columbus' exploration of the West Indies.

I guess we should all just stay home and play Scrabble, right, SuperTool?

Let's do cost/benefit analysis here.
Columbus discovered America which provided huge benefit to Spain, which paid for the expedition.
Lewis and Clark opened up the west to a growing US. Huge benefit.
Moon landing is more iffy, but at least it allowed the US to get over the stigma of losing the race to space to the USSR. Still a huge waste of money, with very little benefit aside from symbolism.
Space Shuttle was a huge waste of money. Of course the Russians were stupid enough to duplicate it. But look at all the delays and expense of launching space shuttle. Windy, delay. Rainy, delay. All the high tech widgetry, and it's ROI is horrible. The Russians are using a spaceship design from the 50's (Soyuz) that launches rain or shine, wind or whatever, and way cheaper.
The B2 bomber was advertized as money saving deal, that would eliminate the need for escort planes due to its stealthiness. Of course that is a huge lie, because they are so expensive, noone is taking chances, and they get a way larger escort than a B52. B2 is not a worthy replacement for the B52, which is exactly why the B52 will fly well into this century.
 
Back
Top