BAROBA said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Reminds me of the car that looked like the F-117 Nighthawk; all it needed was the radar-absorbing paint and it would evade radar. Saw it on TV, so links I'm afraid.

This ugly thing?

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/15600
Probably that one! ;D Thanks!
 
B-2 Stealth Bike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JApPK1nbTyY
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JApPK1nbTyY
 
Matej said:
Thanks to all.

One my friend needed this information to confirm the theoretical possibility described in Matthew Reilly´s book Scarecrow, where the B-2 is used for special corps operations. Armored vehicle Commando Scout (5003×2057×2159 mm) is there deployed from B-2 bomb bay. Of course, it cant be done with the current B-2s, its just a theoretical.

Didn't Matthew say in the back of the book(paperback version) that he fudged a lot of the stuff, especially the B-2 Vehicle Container Drop(the ACS was in a shipping container) & the Laser guided MOAB.
 
Interesting fish eye view of 82-1070, AV-5, Spirit of Ohio. -SP
 

Attachments

  • USAF Senior Airman Kenny Holston-sm.jpg
    USAF Senior Airman Kenny Holston-sm.jpg
    94.7 KB · Views: 788
indeed, thanks for posting, an X-rated shot of the B-2 :eek:

any significance of the last picture (other than locating the 2nd pictures chevron shaped assembly in the airframe)?
 
Just to note the depth of trench and wing profile
 
Does anyone know, sorry I'll re-phrase, can anyone say... what is the purpose of the polka dot finish in the engine exhaust trench? I would assume it would be related to reducing IR signature?
 
Catalytic said:
Does anyone know, sorry I'll re-phrase, can anyone say... what is the purpose of the polka dot finish in the engine exhaust trench? I would assume it would be related to reducing IR signature?


My first guess is a CMC material.
 
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123104052
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123154263
http://www.meetingdata.utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2010/proceedings/presentations/P4224.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 090611-f-4070n-003.jpg
    090611-f-4070n-003.jpg
    80.4 KB · Views: 73
  • B-2 aft desk tests 1.jpg
    B-2 aft desk tests 1.jpg
    104.3 KB · Views: 76
  • B-2 aft desk tests 2.jpg
    B-2 aft desk tests 2.jpg
    376.3 KB · Views: 93
flateric said:
To mark the event, I'm posting nice Northrop artist's drawings

some story behind 'em

NORTHROP B-2 BOMBER COMPANY PRINTS

On Nov. 22, 1988 at U.S. Air Force Plant 42, the first B-2 Bomber rolled off the NORTHROP production line.

Large format (11” x 14”) on stiff stock, prints from NORTHROP of the now famous B-2 Bomber. These were promotional prints given to VIP’s and selected attendees at the rollout. The number of each print can also be seen in the lower right corner.

The first (NB-88-29 Sunrise Lift Off) was created by Jerry C. Curtis, the artist, who was the Art Director of Northrop Electromechanical Division at the time. “His dramatic work contrasts the random form and color dynamics of a sunrise with the utter cleaness of line, and a lack of color inherited in every aspect of the B-2. The power and potential of this revelutionary new aircraft leap right off the page.”

The second (NB-88-28 Over the Ice) was created by Craig Kodera. “At 17, Craig earned his private pilot’s license. For eight years he flew HC-130 and KC-10 aircraft for the Air Force Reserve at March AFB. He now flies copolot on American Airlines Boeing 737’s. His more than 4500 flying hours obviously have much to do with the authenticity of his work. In this view he “ brings to the viewer the colors, perspective, and play of light familiar to those who spend many hours in the air. His use of oils as a medium permits a startling photographic realism particularly appropriate to his subject matter.”

The third (NB-88-26 Release) also by Craig Kodera. “A measure of his professional stature is the inclusion of his works in the permanent collection at the National Air an Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, San Diego Aerospace Museum, and the Pentagon.”

The fourth, (NB-88-25 In-flight Refueling) also by Carig Kodera.

The fifth, (NB-88-27 Night Alert) also by Craig Kodera.

The sixth, and last, (NB-88-30 Rollout) is the photograph of the B-2 in front of the hanger on Nov 22, 1988.
 
Damaged B-2 Returns to US: Following 18 months of intense work, a B-2 believed damaged beyond flyable condition in a fire at Andersen AFB, Guam, successfully landed at Northrop Grumman's Palmdale, Calif., facility for overhaul, last week. "This was a truly amazing effort with tremendous teamwork . ... A very large group of people came together to bring this aircraft home," said Col. Mark Williams, B-2 division chief at the USAF Aeronautical Systems Center. USAF and Northrop Grumman technicians performed significant repairs in Guam, including fabrication of structural components needed to ensure basic flight-worthiness. Accompanied by a KC-135 to minimize fuel weight, "Sprit of Washington" made the 6,000 mile flight under the watchful eye of technical experts monitoring the airframe to troubleshoot any issues from aboard the tanker. The aircraft proceeded Aug. 16 to depot maintenance for a 24-month overhaul before it rejoins the active fleet. (Wright-Patterson report by Daryl Mayer)
 
2010
...experienced a minor engine fire during a routine engine start about 6:50 this morning.
2011
... horrific fire in February 2010 that left it unable to fly.


(first I thought for a second that they has recovered 89-0127)
 
I just heard that they repaired B-2 89-0127 and they've flown it back to CONUS. True? If so, either those planes are really rugged, or they're considered so precious they'll spend enormous amount of money to keep them around!
 
Except that aircraft number 0332, the B-2 bomber named the "Spirit of Washington," hadn't received its scars in battle, but from a horrific fire in February 2010 that left it unable to fly.

I love that the way they're writing about it is as if it's a human being or another alive thing (especially the unable to fly bit). I really like when they do that, because it makes strangers feel more attached to it, as well.
 
The 1995 DOD Heavy Bomber Force Study was a classified study initiated by congressional
direction. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Paul Kaminski, presented
an unclassified summary of the study to the National Security subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee in May 1995. The study concluded the following:
  • the currently planned bomber force of 181 aircraft was sufficient to handle two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies;
  • procuring additional advanced guided munitions was more cost effective than procuring 20 additional B-2s;
  • the planned bomber force with accurate guided munitions would provide a prudent hedge against threat uncertainties; and
  • planned B-1 conventional upgrades were more cost effective than procuring 20 additional B-2s.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34406.pdf ...so much about the B-2C chances.
 
interesting document
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI21-103_AFMCSUP_ADD_O.pdf
 
Catalytic said:
I wish I understood the nods and winks here... must try harder! :(
Maybe its the supposed charged field (or not) generator that keeps getting mentioned, or some new device not spoken of before (down here in the lowly non "senior member" section).....
 
sublight said:
flateric said:
It mentions a low observable subsystem, which is required for LO testing. Could this system be more than just the contrail detection/inhibition system?

Not sure why you think the LO subsystem(s) and contrail mitigation are connected. The contrail mitigation system is more closely connected to the ZSR-63 cloaking device.

The low observables system is just the low observerable-specific aspects of the aircraft. This can include a dependancy on the ground systems that are used to image and verify the RCS of the aircraft, and time on dynamic ranges for in-flight RCS testing. I don't recall if the ground system is still B-2-specific, or if the B-2 is now using the system that should be "standard" at this point.
 
quellish said:
sublight said:
flateric said:
It mentions a low observable subsystem, which is required for LO testing. Could this system be more than just the contrail detection/inhibition system?

Not sure why you think the LO subsystem(s) and contrail mitigation are connected. The contrail mitigation system is more closely connected to the ZSR-63 cloaking device.

The low observables system is just the low observerable-specific aspects of the aircraft. This can include a dependancy on the ground systems that are used to image and verify the RCS of the aircraft, and time on dynamic ranges for in-flight RCS testing. I don't recall if the ground system is still B-2-specific, or if the B-2 is now using the system that should be "standard" at this point.
I am assuming that the verbiage "low observable subsystem" means all the systems for keeping observability down, not just RCS? Also, I thought the ZSR-63 = AN/APR-50??
 
...
 

Attachments

  • B-2A inlet side view.jpg
    B-2A inlet side view.jpg
    414.9 KB · Views: 1,188
sublight said:
I am assuming that the verbiage "low observable subsystem" means all the systems for keeping observability down, not just RCS? Also, I thought the ZSR-63 = AN/APR-50??

Stealth is about much more than just the vehicle's signature. Employing that tailored signature to your advantage is extremely important, but is often overlooked in the press (or on internet forums).

Until the mid-90s the F-117 program used a specialized mission planning system nicknamed "Elvira". One of the things Elvira was designed to do was take intelligence information about threat systems and plan the mission's route accordingly. For example, if SIGINT/RADINT detected a FAN SONG radar in enemy territory, Elvira would plan the F-117's route to present that threat with an aspect of the F-117 that would have the lowest possible signature for the FAN SONG's band.
Later Elvira would be supplemented by other systems (one developed by an F-117 pilot), and eventually replaced.

That is fine for a system that performs surgical strikes - penetrating, hitting a limited number of planned targets, and getting out. For a platform that penetrates and has to loiter, that is a different story.

For a hypothetical penetrating, loitering platform you would have to detect and map your threats in (near) real time. Your platform would need antennas, apertures, and super dupe ESM/RWR/Doodad system to enable this, and those would have to be very stealthy. Once you had detected that shiny new FAN SONG radar that was not at all where the Michellin Guide said it would be, a central threat management system would be needed to update the mission plan to present that threat with the lowest signature possible. That threat management system might also talk to other systems, like the flight control software. Control surfaces on this hypothetical platform have to deflect to maneuver, and in doing so potentially increase the signature of the platform. The threat management system might suggest to the flight control system to limit the control surface deflections by amount X while Y miles from Mr. FAN SONG, and the flight control system may adjust by using differential engine thrust in lieu of control surface deflection. The threat management system would also show all of this to the pilots, put a contrail defect additive in the fuel system, change the shape of the platform's radar beam...
Etc.
Something like that would be very useful on an loitering UAV, of course, penetrating or not. Maybe the same systems used on the manned platform were later also used on a UAV. And let's say that these systems, using really old technology, were getting scarce. It might become very attractive to retire a certain number of those UAVs, and then pull those systems to provide spares for your manned platform.

Hypothetically.
 
quellish said:
Something like that would be very useful on an loitering UAV, of course, penetrating or not. Maybe the same systems used on the manned platform were later also used on a UAV. And let's say that these systems, using really old technology, were getting scarce. It might become very attractive to retire a certain number of those UAVs, and then pull those systems to provide spares for your manned platform.

Hypothetically.
I thought the B2 has been through many extremely expensive upgrades. (the block 30 package for stealth improvements?) So why would you want to use "really old technology" that is getting scarce?
Are there some of the B2's that wont be getting upgrades that will continue to use the "old" systems?
(or is it that the upgrades are software and the systems can just get new EEPROMS?)
 
sublight said:
I thought the B2 has been through many extremely expensive upgrades. (the block 30 package for stealth improvements?) So why would you want to use "really old technology" that is getting scarce?
Are there some of the B2's that wont be getting upgrades that will continue to use the "old" systems?
(or is it that the upgrades are software and the systems can just get new EEPROMS?)

The B-2 fleet has had a number of upgrades, but these upgrades did not replace the defensive management systems. These systems greatly affect the mission capable rates of the aircraft, and use 1970s/1980s era technology. Some of the suppliers for subcomponents of the system no longer exist, and the capability to make some of the parts is gone.
A contract was recently awarded to BAE for a ESM system, which is part of the defensive management suite. One part. Of several.
Originally Northrop was developing the DMS in house, but fell so far behind that the Air Force gave it to Lockheed. Some press reports attribute the designation AN/APR-50 to this system, but that is only the ESM component (which was produced by Loral Federal Systems). That is the component that BAE is developing a replacement for. This has also been characterized as an RWR, which isn't really accurate - it's more like an ELINT/RADINT package. Other components use the information gathered from the ESM and other systems to update the mission plan and actively negate threats. This can range from changing flight control rules to... other things.

One of the reasons for retaining the 3rd crew capability was the perceived risk of this system. If the automated DMS system could not do it's job, the increase in crew workload would have been met by a 3rd crew member.
 
once again, if interpreted correctly.. BAE will likely deliever a overbudget, underperforming ESM in the era where there is no excuse for an AESA, new gen. RWR etc. not to deliver anything short of an absolute threat characterization even in complex environments including jammer filled ones thus easing crew workload. Humans can not operate as accurately and fast enough w/ inferior equipment to protect aircraft in modern context.. seems preposerous to think otherwise. viva Digital Signal Processing. (hypothetically of course ::))

If we are to settle for lesser numbers of platforms all aerial vehicles including UAS will require a central threat management system to continuously update mission plans and present all 'local to far' threats with the lowest signature possible, yes real stealth. Threat management systems directing not only flight controls but also passive/active (especially) sensing & communications accounting for actions/maneuvers which can potentially increase the signature even momentarily. Human-machine interface becomes ever more a central issue. (hypothetically of course ::))
 
A picture from the assembly hall.
 

Attachments

  • B2 manufacturing.jpg
    B2 manufacturing.jpg
    241.1 KB · Views: 632
For all B-2 fans my set of photos

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82678647@N04/sets/72157630588571630/
 

Attachments

  • B2-16.jpg
    B2-16.jpg
    199.1 KB · Views: 482
  • B2-08.jpg
    B2-08.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 468
  • B2-10.jpg
    B2-10.jpg
    184.1 KB · Views: 186
Wow. Kickass pictures!!! It's especially nice to see the B-2 on a cloudy background for a change. Gives it a darker aspect.
 
B-2 separation tests from AEDC videos
 

Attachments

  • AEDC Overviewmpg.flv_snapshot_03.38_[2013.05.29_00.43.00].jpg
    AEDC Overviewmpg.flv_snapshot_03.38_[2013.05.29_00.43.00].jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 1,788
  • Store sep test montagempg.flv_snapshot_00.12_[2013.05.29_00.45.07].jpg
    Store sep test montagempg.flv_snapshot_00.12_[2013.05.29_00.45.07].jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 1,773

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom