John21 said:
Wasn't the stealthy AGM-129 ACM(Advanced Cruise Missile) retired years ago? Would having a classified non-acknowledged super-sonic nuclear cruise missile in service be a violation of START/START II?
Yes it's gone but not the brand new AGM-158C. -SP
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-outlines-b-2-bomber-enhancements-as-usaf-reveals-plan-to-also-boost-strike-fleet-210887/


I've kept this link for years, because of the little part about using the B2 as a stealthy stand off recon asset.
 
bobbymike said:
Air Force seeks new-start authority to arm B-2 with long-range, stealthy cruise missile

The Air Force is asking Congress for funds to arm the B-2 stealth bomber with a long-range variant of the service's supersonic, stealthy cruise missile -- pairing two of the U.S. military's most advanced offensive capabilities to give policy makers the option to attack high-value targets during the early stages of a campaign.

As usual, this is a case of the press screwing things up.

The program in question is 0101127F part of 675345 (B-2 modernization) - B-2 JASSM-ER Integration.
 
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-flying-americas-mighty-b-2-stealth-bomber-15935
 
NeilChapman said:
That would make sense because the decision was made in the 80's. So why was the mission profile changed?

Wasn't the DoD really pushing the idea that the B-2 would be hunting Soviet mobile ICBM launchers?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the DoD really pushing the idea that the B-2 would be hunting Soviet mobile ICBM launchers?

That is the mission the B-2 was designed for, yes.
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-b-2-stealth-bomber-ready-war-until-2050-beyond-16309
 
This said to come from a b-2 base.
 

Attachments

  • B2-Poster.jpg
    B2-Poster.jpg
    215.2 KB · Views: 1,627
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-b-2-bombers-strike-isis-camps-in-libya?utm_content=buffer9bf6a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Now that this article is out I wonder if we are soon to read "Russian General Says We Detected B-2 Bomber Operating in Syria"
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25070/to-libya-and-back-inside-obamas-last-strike-against-isis/
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1757423-new-b-2-computer-processor-1-000-fold-better
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/July%202017/The-B-2-Body-Blow.aspx
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/July%202017/The-B-2-Body-Blow.aspx

Amazing. It also goes to show how badly the USAF needs the Government to up its game regarding their tanker capability.

Have to say though, having seen 6 JDAM smash a target, 85 must of been some thing g of true terrible beauty to behold.
 
Sorry to be politically incorrect but during the video I imagined the camera swinging around to a room filled with middle aged Chinese men all vigorously taking notes, "Yes we're Peninsula Seniors" :D
 
bobbymike said:
Sorry to be politically incorrect but during the video I imagined the camera swinging around to a room filled with middle aged Chinese men all vigorously taking notes, "Yes we're Peninsula Seniors" :D

:)
 
29 years ago today. Magnificent airplane but where's my hypersonic strike bomber?
 

Attachments

  • DPFSR94WsAEhtlw.jpg
    DPFSR94WsAEhtlw.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 478
For the B2 fans... The is single seat cockpit mockup is puzzling as the spirit was not ever even a tandem cockpit airplane. Wonder if that's an Easter egg for a pre-B2 demonstrator or something else still unknown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Single/tandem cockpit probably dates to early days of ATB.... APSA..

index.php
 
Airplane said:
For the B2 fans... The is single seat cockpit mockup is puzzling as the spirit was not ever even a tandem cockpit airplane. Wonder if that's an Easter egg for a pre-B2 demonstrator or something else still unknown.

www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24605/look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-b-2-spirit-stealth-bomber-in-this-intimate-new-video-series

This is not single seat or tandem cockpit. Just an earlier concept with a side stick.
 

Attachments

  • Capture+_2018-11-01-01-45-17.png
    Capture+_2018-11-01-01-45-17.png
    279.4 KB · Views: 757
sferrin said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZsftEfi_Fs


(First seen in Shin Godzilla. ;D )


. . .Imagine 25Mt of sunshine in those suckers. :eek:

I'm curious how they get the aircraft to not tilt when they drop one of those. Can they only drop both at near the same time?
 
I noticed that too, and the fact that the aircraft didn't suddenly gain altitude. My Dad (who served in 617 Sqn while they were using Grand Slams) told me that when talking with some of the crew members after the first attack they made, he was told when they dropped the Grand Slam, the aircraft shot up like an express elevator.
 
there is a gust flap that will certainly counter the upward move. As this is a ~330+klb flying wing bomber, loaded, at cruise speed, this is the amount of upward force generated by the wing. Unloading 10 % of that weight (a MoP weights 30klb) will mean that 10% of that lift have to be canceled. Not something out of reach for the gust flap if we look at its geometry (plus add aileron)
 
You can see a little lurch up there at release. The bays are rather close to the cg, so the moment arm is pretty small for tilt or pitch. Each MOP is probably around 15% of the B-2 mass at release. It's about 20% the empty weight. The Grand Slam was probably close to 50% of the mass of the Lanc at release, and around 66% of the empty weight. The flight control system probably smooths out any lurches as well.
 
I was just thinking that the FCS might have programming that syncs counter-control with weapon release.

And MOP-wise, this is one of the reasons an officer in the military told me a few months ago that "We'll never use nukes, not with the conventional stuff we have now. Why would we want to deal with fallout?"
 
Jeb said:
I was just thinking that the FCS might have programming that syncs counter-control with weapon release.

And MOP-wise, this is one of the reasons an officer in the military told me a few months ago that "We'll never use nukes, not with the conventional stuff we have now. Why would we want to deal with fallout?"

I remember someone (Forget who) saying that even if no one used nuclear weapons during WWIII, there wouldn't be much difference in how the war played out. Conventional weapons really aren't that much inferior when it comes to power anymore.
 
GWrecks said:
I remember someone (Forget who) saying that even if no one used nuclear weapons during WWIII, there wouldn't be much difference in how the war played out. Conventional weapons really aren't that much inferior when it comes to power anymore.

You're kidding aren't you? :eek:
 
I know this is more related to the B-2 Spirit than the Boeing Advanced Bomber studies, but one of my friends' fathers worked for a defense contractor (I think it was Boeing?) and that friend mentioned that there were studies to arm the B-2 Spirit with lasers.

He said that there was one laser in the nose and two in the wingtips, which I thought was a bit odd at the time (I was imagining something like the Boeing All Wing Laser Defense study, where there was one in the front and one in the rear), but looking at the B-2 again it would not have made sense to put a laser in the rear due to the GLAS.

Neither of us were able to get information on whether the laser equipment replaced the ability to carry bombs in one or both of its bays, the operation/output of the lasers, or why the study was done to begin with.

I don't know if this is a real study - it is after all hearsay - but would mounting lasers in the wingtips make sense for a flying wing bomber like the B-2 Spirit? And if it were Boeing responsible for this study, could that mean that it's related to the Advanced Bomber studies?
 
In mid 00s potential of self-defense laser was studied by NG, including using laser-equipped bombers in wargames during fall of 2006.
Hardware should have been installed in empty bays outside MLG wells and volumes that were reserved for rear fuel tanks but never used on certain reasons, with a turret behind MLG door.
It was pretty much powerpoint project.

And of course, every B-2 HAS operational low-power laser onboard above GLAS beaver tail under rotating cover intended for contrails detection.
 

Attachments

  • b-2 laser.jpg
    b-2 laser.jpg
    283.2 KB · Views: 486
  • b-2 laser1.jpg
    b-2 laser1.jpg
    67.6 KB · Views: 487
flateric said:
In mid 00s potential of self-defense laser was studied by NG, including using laser-equipped bombers in wargames during fall of 2006.
Hardware should have been installed in empty bays outside MLG wells and volumes that were reserved for rear fuel tanks but never used on certain reasons, with a turret behind MLG door.
It was pretty much powerpoint project.

And of course, every B-2 HAS operational low-power laser onboard above GLAS beaver tail under rotating cover intended for contrails detection.
Empty bays just outboard of the MLG bays were intended for a system that ended up never being used. They were used for flight test support equipment during the flight testing of the first two B-2s (I worked on some of that) but are empty, as far as I know, on all operational aircraft. I could see elements of a laser system being mounted there on pallets to simplify installation and replacement.
 
Original LIB-28 purpose was revealed somewhat 20 years ago in AWST
 

Attachments

  • LIB-28_.jpg
    LIB-28_.jpg
    622.4 KB · Views: 904
Those spaces were originally intended for carrying something totally different than that article describes. I'm just not certain I'm at liberty to say what. That system did not get installed because an easier and less expensive way to accomplish the intended effect.
 
I always thought that chemicals for contrail supression were replaced with laser PAS (advertised in certain time as program saver SBIR example) in the tail but OK, let's just skip it.
 
elmayerle said:
Those spaces were originally intended for carrying something totally different than that article describes. I'm just not certain I'm at liberty to say what.

Porn.

It was a porn distribution system, wasn't it. Nothing more effective at discomfazzulating uptight Commies and jihadies that free porn falling from the sky like manna from Sky Vegas.
 
Actually, MRS Miggins emporium in Brighton on sea would seem to give more bang for the buck. Sorry.
 
flateric said:
Original LIB-28 purpose was revealed somewhat 20 years ago in AWST

David Fulghum was my neighbor back then. I gave him the tip to ask about the contrail detection system after a B-2 crew chief said something oblique (sort of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge thing) to me at JSOH.
 
elmayerle said:
Those spaces were originally intended for carrying something totally different than that article describes. I'm just not certain I'm at liberty to say what. That system did not get installed because an easier and less expensive way to accomplish the intended effect.

Frankly I'm shocked! So what your saying is that the quotes in that article from an anonymous "defense official" re. Contrail suppression are inaccurate?
It's almost as if the author made him up . ;)
 
I could tell you about it, but then I'd have to dunk you head first in a bucket of chlorosulfonic acid.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3517505A/en
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom