NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2319

I have a big grin on my face on this one. Hey, it's for peaceful purposes, you know! :fluffle:

;)

Hurrah for the B2s, but I can't help feeling they've lost some of their stealth element now with this announcement. :p

Yea and the bombs they'll drop on the plant will be just for peaceful purpose. :D

what do we do if one gets shot down?

what do we do if one gets shot down?
Blame Bin Laden?

what do we do if one gets shot down?

They have to find it first.

what do we do if one gets shot down?
It depends on whether or not they really are peaceful purposes. It would essentially be a risky Bluff call on Iran's part. If they shoot down the plane and it's got tactical (even nuclear?) weaponry on board, Tehran can claim blatant lying on the part of the US and take the diplomatic upper hand. On the other hand, if they shoot down the plane and there really was no sign of an intended attack, they've just shot down a US plane for no good reason (other than being a military vehicle in their own airspace), and will inevitably bear global criticism for it.

what do we do if one gets shot down?

Call it a mechanical failure and carpet bomb the crash site to erase the evidence.;)

It depends on whether or not they really are peaceful purposes. It would essentially be a risky Bluff call on Iran's part. If they shoot down the plane and it's got tactical nuclear weaponry on board, Tehran can claim blatant lying on the part of the US and take the diplomatic upper hand. On the other hand, if they shoot down the plane and there really was no sign of an intended attack, they've just shot down a US plane for no good reason (other than being a military vehicle in their own airspace), and will inevitably bear global criticism for it.

Translates to a slap on the wrist.

Mr. Bush hailed Iran’s “transparent diplomacy” and said, “I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.”

B2 officially does 475 tops...is Bush doing a Johnson ala SR71?

hmmmm

Either way...its a pathetic piece from a pathetic website.

Given the superority of US Stealth Technology and Iran's crappy Radar Technology, I don't think they'll even find the B-2 much less shoot it down.

It depends on whether or not they really are peaceful purposes. It would essentially be a risky Bluff call on Iran's part. If they shoot down the plane and it's got tactical (even nuclear?) weaponry on board, Tehran can claim blatant lying on the part of the US and take the diplomatic upper hand. On the other hand, if they shoot down the plane and there really was no sign of an intended attack, they've just shot down a US plane for no good reason (other than being a military vehicle in their own airspace), and will inevitably bear global criticism for it.

If a foreign military aircraft flew over the US without permission it would be shot down.

The Iranians would be well within their rights to do the same to any US aircraft doing the same.

There is also precedent...Gary Powers anyone?

Given the superority of US Stealth Technology and Iran's crappy Radar Technology, I don't think they'll even find the B-2 much less shoot it down.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/20/stealth_detection_system_disappears/

If a foreign military aircraft flew over the US without permission it would be shot down.

The Iranians would be well within their rights to do the same to any US aircraft doing the same.

There is also precedent...Gary Powers anyone?

I don't know, Cuba once shot down an airplane that they thought belonged to the US militatry, turns out it was just a Cessna looking for refguees. Hopefully the Iranians won't shoot down any US Aircraft unless they are sure that it's from the militatry. Don't need another one of those accidental shootings.

Given the superority of US Stealth Technology and Iran's crappy Radar Technology, I don't think they'll even find the B-2 much less shoot it down.

ah but Iran will put any effort in just to take the piss imagine if a B-2 with nukes is shot down and the plane and its contents “disappear” (plus I’m sure allot of powers will help Iran along with such a plan)

Also you mentioned U.S stealth technology which you should of left out to make it seem more reliable :p

If a foreign military aircraft flew over the US without permission it would be shot down.

The Iranians would be well within their rights to do the same to any US aircraft doing the same.

There is also precedent...Gary Powers anyone?

yup....You'd hink we learned from that little fiasco, but wait theres NO way the Iranians could shoot down a B2 just like there was NO way the U.S.S.R. could shoot down a U2.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/20/stealth_detection_system_disappears/

That is true, but I doubt Iran has it. Maybe in 20-30 years.

That is true, but I doubt Iran has it. Maybe in 20-30 years.

a mobile phone network?

ah but Iran will put any effort in just to take the piss imagine if a B-2 with nukes is shot down and the plane and its contents “disappear” (plus I’m sure allot of powers will help Iran along with such a plan)

If the Iran shoots down a B-2 with nukes, then wouldn't the nukes explode when the airplane is shot down or when it impacts on the ground, either way theres not going ot be anything left of that bird.


Also you mentioned U.S stealth technology which you should of left out to make it seem more reliable :p

Hey, name one other country that game up with stealth technology that can rival the B-2 or F-117 Nighthawk! lol. The F-117 is my favorite one BTW, it's just so bad ass looking.

That is true, but I doubt Iran has it. Maybe in 20-30 years.

The Soviets were very far into a similar system. I don't know if they continued its development, or if Iran got hold of some of it, though.

a mobile phone network?

No, intergrate the technology into their dated radar system. Beside this system has faults, it doesn't really tell you where the aircraft is, as much as it tells you where it was.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2319

I have a big grin on my face on this one. Hey, it's for peaceful purposes, you know! :fluffle:

Normally when you create a troll account you don't openly advertise the fact.

On topic: Bush is taking the piss... this is ridiculous.

edit: Upon closer inspection, is this true or a joke?

This really scares me. Amidenijad is a dangerous and likely crazy man, but the Iranian people are likely the most secular and progressive people in the middle east (Only 6% of the youth are even interested in Islam!). If we could just wait for them to demand better of their government (and Im sure they will) We may have a first-world power in the middle east with more influence to bring peace than has ever existed in the part of the world. A war would destroy that.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

I don't know, Cuba once shot down an airplane that they thought belonged to the US militatry, turns out it was just a Cessna looking for refguees. Hopefully the Iranians won't shoot down any US Aircraft unless they are sure that it's from the militatry. Don't need another one of those accidental shootings.

KAL 007

Russians shot it down..big out cry....not much happens...

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

I'm thinking that too, but it's fun to play along sometimes.

If the Iran shoots down a B-2 with nukes, then wouldn't the nukes explode when the airplane is shot down or when it impacts on the ground, either way theres not going ot be anything left of that bird.

why would the nukes detonate :confused:

Hey, name one other country that game up with stealth technology that can rival the B-2 or F-117 Nighthawk! lol. The F-117 is my favorite one BTW, it's just so bad ass looking.

pffft shiny toys and America’s reputation for electronics isn’t the greatest

KAL 007

Russians shot it down..big out cry....not much happens...

Yep another example. So hopefully the Iranians will be more selective of their targets and make sure they're shooting down the right aircraft. Then again if they do shoot down a peaceful aircraft (non militatry) it would be great publiciity for us.

Ah, yes. The famous Bombers of Peace.

They were collecting doves. :)

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

I hope so but I suspect not having read the comments...

why would the nukes detonate :confused:


Comon, if you denoate something against something else that is created to denonate, it will denonate.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

Here is another article on the same site. :rolleyes: :D

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2316

Hopefully the Iranians won't shoot down any US Aircraft unless they are sure that it's from the military.
I like irony. Don't you like irony?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/20/stealth_detection_system_disappears/

I remember during the Kosovo campaign hearing that the Chinese had developed something that sounded very much like that.

No, intergrate the technology into their dated radar system. Beside this system has faults, it doesn't really tell you where the aircraft is, as much as it tells you where it was.

seems like it only involves: some mobile phone masts, 1 notebook, some receivers and a shit load of rockets

and it tells them exactly where it is up to 10 metres (which you could cover with a rocket volley)

I like irony. Don't you like irony?

Umm, ok, I'm missing something here.

seems like it only involves: some mobile phone masts, 1 notebook, some receivers and a shit load of rockets

and it tells them exactly where it is up to 10 metres (which you could cover with a rocket volley)

Yea, but if those rocket miss, then the pilot in the aircraft knows they been spotted. Kick the throttle up to full power and haul ass.

Ah, yes. The famous Bombers of Peace.

They were collecting doves. :)

Yup. The bombs they drop scare the doves up into their cargo hold of love and cuddles.

Umm, ok, I'm missing something here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm
1988: US warship shoots down Iranian airliner
An American naval warship patrolling in the Persian Gulf has shot down an Iranian passenger jet after apparently mistaking it for an F-14 fighter.
All those on board the airliner - almost 300 people - are believed dead.

The plane, an Airbus A300, was making a routine flight from Bandar Abbas, in Iran, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner.

Navy officials said the Vincennes' crew believed they were firing at an Iranian F14 jet fighter, although they had not confirmed this visually.

more saber rattling:headbang:

Comon, if you denoate something against something else that is created to denonate, it will denonate.

I thought that nukes could only be detonated electronically.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

Ok, yea, that would be ironic if that happened to us.

I thought that nukes could only be detonated electronically.

Drop a nuke onto the ground at very very high speed and watch what happen.

Comon, if you denoate something against something else that is created to denonate, it will denonate.

nukes arn't like gunpowder to detonate a nuke you would have to set of the nuclear chain reaction which is bloody hard to do

especially with the nukes safety features after all you wouldn't want a nuke going off in England because some dick dropped the bomb

nukes arn't like gunpowder to detonate a nuke you would have to set of the nuclear chain reaction which is bloody hard to do

especially with the nukes safety features after all you wouldn't want a nuke going off in England because some dick dropped the bomb

ahh, k. Man I really should take thermo-nuclear reaction classes.

Yea, but if those rocket miss, then the pilot in the aircraft knows they been spotted. Kick the throttle up to full power and haul ass.

1) how could a large volley of rockets actually miss?

2) B-2 aren’t built to go fast or take punishment once the stealth is gone the B-2 may as well be luminous pink and made of paper…with a hello kitty logo on the side

Drop a nuke onto the ground at very very high speed and watch what happen.

It breaks open?

Anyway, according to this (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/significant-nuclear-accidents.htm) there have been a number of incidents of nuclear armed bombers crashing without detonating their warheads.

ahh, k. Man I really should take thermo-nuclear reaction classes.

or watch broken arrow :D

Yup. The bombs they drop scare the doves up into their cargo hold of love and cuddles.

That's them. The ones with the duckies and bunnies print on the outside. :)

Anyway, according to this (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/significant-nuclear-accidents.htm) there have been a number of incidents of nuclear armed bombers crashing without detonating their warheads.

HS how many nukes are missing!

That's them. The ones with the duckies and bunnies print on the outside. :)

Are there Edwin Starr lyrics printed on the side? :p

This piece is from a source like The Onion right? None of the usual services is carrying this piece. Just that Kentucky air crash.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

Not at all.... ;)

Are there Edwin Starr lyrics printed on the side? :p

Sure. Why not? :p

Sure. Why not? :p

http://www.geocities.com/dreadshot/lyrics/edwinstarr-war.html

http://www.geocities.com/dreadshot/lyrics/edwinstarr-war.html

I know who he is. :p

I wikied him before I responded. :D

Yea and the bombs they'll drop on the plant will be just for peaceful purpose. :D

Hmm, maybe Bush is trying to reinvent the Molotov Picnic Basket.

Someone want to construct a mission profile pack?

Only three bases secured for B-2 deployment, correct? Any US field is ER (Emergency Recovery) only.

Whiteman AFB
Anderson AFB on Guam
RAF Fairford
RAF facilities on Diego Garcia

Non-special release (Mk82? GBU? even FAE?).

Operational range may vary with loadout. Take off from Anderson, mid-air refuel en route. KC-135 tank-up based in Saudi.

With advance warning, Iranian OPFOR probable has BCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) up. Probable point-defense cover over the target area. Visual detection likely.

Probability of mission completion? Minimal.
Probability of aircraft survival? Minimal.

Even a Tomahawk barrage, depsite the expense would be a more sound military option. Even so, without Special warheads they'd probably not disable the target.

Someone want to construct a mission profile pack?

Only three bases secured for B-2 deployment, correct? Any US field is ER (Emergency Recovery) only.

Whiteman AFB
Anderson AFB on Guam
RAF Fairford
RAF facilities on Diego Garcia

Non-special release (Mk82? GBU? even FAE?).

Operational range may vary with loadout. Take off from Anderson, mid-air refuel en route. KC-135 tank-up based in Saudi.

With advance warning, Iranian OPFOR probable has BCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) up. Probable point-defense cover over the target area. Visual detection likely.

Probability of mission completion? Minimal.
Probability of aircraft survival? Minimal.

Even a Tomahawk barrage, depsite the expense would be a more sound military option. Even so, without Special warheads they'd probably not disable the target.
You thought about this too much considering it's a joke website.

Modern Stealth technology has not been tested in a high threat environment. We cannot accurately determine what the chances of success/survival would be.

Modern Stealth technology has not been tested in a high threat environment. We cannot accurately determine what the chances of success/survival would be.
And if we're unlucky, more than 2 billion dollars (plus a whole lot of potentially useful technology) end up somewhere in the Iranian landscape.

And if we're unlucky, more than 2 billion dollars (plus a whole lot of potentially useful technology) end up somewhere in the Iranian landscape.

Yup. And that would be bad.

And I think 2 Billion is a little on the conservative side.

Modern Stealth technology has not been tested in a high threat environment. We cannot accurately determine what the chances of success/survival would be.

If our planes are to be easily shot down by the Iranians we don't deserve to be called a super-power.

Modern Stealth technology has not been tested in a high threat environment. We cannot accurately determine what the chances of success/survival would be.

So, when the F-117 Nighthawk flew into Iraq during the first Gulf War and Second one, that wasn't a high threat environment?

If our planes are to be easily shot down by the Iranians we don't deserve to be called a super-power.

A 40 year old Serbian missile shot down a first generation Stealth aircraft in 1999...

Drop a nuke onto the ground at very very high speed and watch what happen.

It sinks into the ground, if what you think is true happened, then there would be a lot of nuclear detonations inside US soil, there are repeated cases in which a nuke actually fell out of a flying plane unactivated... More than once...

Makes you feel all safe doesn't it.

So, when the F-117 Nighthawk flew into Iraq during the first Gulf War and Second one, that wasn't a high threat environment?

Sigh. That' s why I said "modern". Stealth tech on the F-117 is old.

EDIT: Iran's detection network is also far more sophisticated than Iraq's was in 1991.

Sigh. That' s why I said "modern". Stealth tech on the F-117 is old.

The only modern stealth I can see is the F-22 Raptor.

The only modern stealth I can see is the F-22 Raptor.

B-2 is 2nd generation Stealth.

A 40 year old Serbian missile shot down a first generation Stealth aircraft in 1999...

I heard about that. Really pitiful. Our great technology so easily countered by obsolete crap.

B-2 is 2nd generation Stealth.

Ahh, I thought it came out when the F-117 did. Well I'll be damn, you learn something new everyday. :)

Ahh, I thought it came out when the F-117 did. Well I'll be damn, you learn something new everyday. :)

FYI, the first B-2 Spirit was delivered from Northrop-Grumman in 1993.

…with a hello kitty logo on the side
That alone would be a good reason to down the aircraft, don't you think?

Bwahahahahahahaha!
*waits and reads firt post again*
Bwahahahahahahahaha

Of course it was flying over Tehran for peacefull purposes only. I mean, it is a B2 bomber, or otherwise known as The Peace Plane. After all, Bush IS our nation's fearless hero. I'm so glad that he has NEVER steered us wrong and that everyone loves him because he is the greatest man to ever walk the earth. That man deserves a medal of honor or something.

Oooh, I think Nascar is on. Better go buy me a Big gulp drink and a bucket of fried chicken.

Do not mock Fried Chicken.

Given the superority of US Stealth Technology and Iran's crappy Radar Technology, I don't think they'll even find the B-2 much less shoot it down.

Regarding this, and the whole discussion of taking down stealth aircraft, it's a good idea to examine how Serbia shot down the F-117 in 1999 (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005124224417.asp). A lot of the success had to do with good intelligence - knowing when the F-117s were launched, knowing their flight paths, etc.; and poor security on the US/NATO side.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a joke article?

Nope. In addition to the already mantioned story, there are stories on "Unnamed Agency Sends Other Half of UN Force" (implying said agency is Hezbollah) and "Nagin Pledges Recovery Faster than Atlantis, Babylon".

If the Iran shoots down a B-2 with nukes, then wouldn't the nukes explode when the airplane is shot down or when it impacts on the ground, either way theres not going ot be anything left of that bird.

No, it's highly unlikely. But, it is not impossible.

Inadvertent Explosion:
"Nuclear weapons are designed with great care to explode only when deliberately armed and fired. Nevertheless, there is always a possibility that, as a result of accidental circumstances, an explosion will take place inadvertently. Although all conceivable precautions are taken to prevent them, such accidents might occur in areas where weapons are assembled and stored, during the course of loading and transportation on the ground, or when actually in the delivery vehicle, e.g., an airplane or a missile."

-Atomic Energy Commission/Department of Defense, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1962.

It has come close to happening, and pretty close to you.

January 24, 1961, Goldsboro, North Carolina

In what nearly became a nuclear catastrophe, a B-52 bomber on airborne alert carrying two nuclear weapons broke apart in midair. The B-52 experienced structural failure in its right wing and the aircraft's resulting breakup released the two weapons from a height of 2,000-10,000 feet. One of the bomb's parachutes deployed properly and that weapon's damage was minimal. However, the second bomb's parachute malfunctioned and the weapon broke apart upon impact, scattering its components over a wide area. According to Daniel Ellsberg, the weapon could have accidentally fired because "five of the six safety devices had failed." Nuclear physicist Ralph E. Lapp supported this assertion, saying that "only a single switch" had "prevented the bomb from detonating and spreading fire and destruction over a wide area."


Despite an extensive search of the waterlogged farmland where the weapon was believed to have landed, the bomb's highly enriched uranium core was never recovered. In order to prevent any discovery of the lost portion of the weapon, the Air Force purchased an easement which required that permission be obtained before any construction or digging could begin in the area. Three crew members were killed in the crash.


The accident was apparently so serious that it was reported to newly-elected President John F. Kennedy. According to Newsweek, President Kennedy was informed after the accident that "there had been more than 60 accidents involving nuclear weapons" since World War II, "including two cases in which nuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missiles were actually launched by inadvertence." As a result of the Goldsboro accident, the U.S. placed many new safety devices on its nuclear arsenal and the Soviet Union was encouraged to do the same.

Both of the above are from: http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

HS how many nukes are missing!

Depends on how you count. The CDI has a nice comprehensive list of US nuclear accidents (http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm).

Drop a nuke onto the ground at very very high speed and watch what happen.

Not much. Think about it this way. In a fusion bomb, the detonator has a detonator. That detonator has a detonator. (Fission bombs only have two sets of detonators.) Sure, if it explodes you'll get radioactive material over a fair-sized area, but you won't get a nuclear reaction. To set off a fusion bomb, either an electrical signal and/or a certain number of revolutions of turbine thing on the end must happen, which then sets off a number of high-powered explosives. These explosives must go off at the same time, otherwise they won't cause the last detonator (one or more fission bombs) to work. Those bombs must also go off at the exact same time, or the final payload will not undergo nuclear fusion. There are a massive number of safeguards in place to prevent accidental detonation. An accidental detonation is less preferable than the bomb not working completely.

Comon, if you denoate something against something else that is created to denonate, it will denonate.

This is a rather blatant display of ignorance regarding the operation of nuclear weaponry. In the case of implosion nukes, where the fissile material is golf ball shaped, only a synchronuos detonation of all the explosive plates will set off the fission process. Blasting a carrier plane in mid-air won't set off the reaction. Destroy the missile and warhead? Possibly. Scatter the fissile material? Probably. Start a nuclear reaction? No.

Yea, but if those rocket miss, then the pilot in the aircraft knows they been spotted. Kick the throttle up to full power and haul ass.

First, stealth aircraft are generally not very fast. Hitting the burners, even assuming that the Nighthawk and B2 had such a thing, not likely, will make you a big fat thermal target in the sky.

You fail as a wannabe pilot.

Ah, yes. The famous Bombers of Peace.

They were collecting doves. :)
Maybe they're going to drop explosive doves on the reactor.

2) B-2 aren’t built to go fast or take punishment once the stealth is gone the B-2 may as well be luminous pink and made of paper…with a hello kitty logo on the side
You've just described the Japanese airforce B2 planes.

Yea, but if those rocket miss, then the pilot in the aircraft knows they been spotted. Kick the throttle up to full power and haul ass.

B-2s don't haul ass. Ever.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2319

I have a big grin on my face on this one. Hey, it's for peaceful purposes, you know! :fluffle:

;)

To paraphrase Bush himself. "It is a peaceful purpose. Just not a deathless, bombless peace. Or a directed purpose."

what do we do if one gets shot down?

Nuclear strike. Hey, Iran was clearly provoking! :p

* Waits for Israeli F16s to appear in Iran *

Oh, in case this hadn't been mentioned so far, but this has been happening for a long time. I can't remember reading where, but spy planes have been flying "taunting" missions over Iran for years in a way that really looks less like legitimate espionage than an attempt to bait them into a strike in order to cry foul.

Legitimate espionage. Heh.

Montacaros but the Iranian people are likely the most secular and progressive people in the middle east (Only 6% of the youth are even interested in Islam!).

Im curious, do you have a cite on this?

To paraphrase Bush himself. "It is a peaceful purpose. Just not a deathless, bombless peace. Or a directed purpose."

A war for peace. Uh-huh. Try not to bomb any aspirin factories.

what do we do if one gets shot down?

Hmmm.

Iran doesn't have anything capable of tracking or shooting down a B-2.

Next question?

Hmmm.

Iran doesn't have anything capable of tracking or shooting down a B-2.

Next question?

if you would have botherd to read the thread you would of noticed this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/20/stealth_detection_system_disappears/)

and also that a Serbian missile shot down an F-117

if you would have botherd to read the thread you would of noticed this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/20/stealth_detection_system_disappears/)

and also that a Serbian missile shot down an F-117

1. Bistatic radar is nothing new. And tests of bistatic radar in the US show that while you can detect the F-117, you still cannot detect the B-2. No major weapon systems are currently designed to use bistatic radar.

2. The stealth technology in the B-2 is not the same as the F-117.

3. The shootdown in Serbia is something you should read more about. The technical details are in "The Transformation of American Air Power" by Benjamin Lambeth. The shootdown had more to do with NATO rules of engagement putting the aircraft at a lower altitude than it normally would operate, flying the EXACT same route at the EXACT same time each day (a political onus placed on the USAF), and the plane being visually spotted and fired at using a visually boresighted missile (a barrage, in fact). All of which is completely avoidable, if you prevent politicians from drawing your flight routes and plans for you.

SNIP

To this date, the only systems that have been shown to successfully detect stealth aircraft are very old, and use long wave radar systems that have a low resolution. The shooting down of an F-117 over Yugoslavia was attributed to the tracking of the vortices produced by the poor aerodynamic shape of stealth aircraft. It was also reported that the F-117 was downed due to the use of an "electro-optical" (TV) tracking system used in conjunction with the missile battery. The aircraft may be hard to detect using radar, but it is still visible to the naked eye.

An F-117 was also detected by a British ship during the first Gulf War, in this case because the wavelength of the radar was twice the length of the aircraft. This caused the entire aircraft to act as a dipole, leading to a very strong radar return

do you have any sources to back up the claim that Bistatic radar can't detect B-2's?

do you have any sources to back up the claim that Bistatic radar can't detect B-2's?

The book is available at Amazon.

"The Transformation of American Air Power" by Benjamin Lambeth.

The exact details of the F-117 shootdown from primary sources in the US Air Force and Serbia.

The bistatic radar.

The essential technological differences between the F-117 and the B-2.

Given the superority of US Stealth Technology and Iran's crappy Radar Technology, I don't think they'll even find the B-2 much less shoot it down.

Unless it's raining, or the plane gets in a sandstorm which also takes off the outer camoflage paint-stuff.

In which case the plane is pretty obvious.

Unless it's raining, or the plane gets in a sandstorm which also takes off the outer camoflage paint-stuff.

In which case the plane is pretty obvious.

Read the book. That's a myth, too.

Read the book. That's a myth, too.

care to actually put in some sources that we can read?

care to actually put in some sources that we can read?

I can't be blamed if you think that facts are only on the Internet. Or blamed if you think that some Internet hack is a more valid source than a book that researches ONLY primary sources.

It's available on Amazon.com.

Maybe you like to watch TV
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/stealth.html

There's a guy who did a show. In it, he makes it quite clear that the F-117 and the B-2 are NOT USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGY. Which is critical to understanding why bistatic radar DOES NOT WORK AGAINST THE B-2.

Stealth: Flying Invisible explains the history of stealth technology in the military and specifically focuses on three stealth planes built for the Air Force. Stealth is a physical property of reduced delectability by radar which is primarily achieved by using shapes for the surfaces of planes which scatter energy away from radar instead of back towards it. The film also discusses related issues such as surface coverings called composites which are construction materials made up of several things combined together which are structurally more desirable than metals and don't reflect radar waves as much.

* The first stealth plane was the F-117 which first flew in 1981 and remained top secret for most of the 1980s. It had surfaces like a flattened pyramid with intersecting planes like the facets of a cut diamond. It was used to attack the Iraq centralized communications, command and control centers in the first minutes of the Gulf War in 1991. No missile was ever shot at the F-117 at that time, and it sustained no damage from enemy fire. During the rest of the Gulf War, it scored over 1600 direct hits with no losses.

* The second stealth plane was the $2 billion B-2 Bomber which was approved in 1981 and first flew in 1989. The B-2 uses a newer way to achieve stealth called continuous curvature which also directed radar waves away from their source while more naturally supporting aerodynamic shapes. While the B-2 is four times larger than the F-117, its radar cross section is smaller. It can also reach anywhere on earth from the U.S. without refueling, carry heavy payload of 40,000 pounds and operate at 35,000 feet or 50 feet. The point is made that the Air Force expected to build 133 B-2 Bombers, but that was cut to 75 after the Cold War ended and to 20 in 1992.

* A new fighter called the F-22 was initially approved in 1991, took its first flight in 1997, and will probably go into operation in 2002. It is designed to be stealthy, highly maneuverable, fast, and supersonic.

At the end of the film, there are a wide variety of view points expressed about the significance for military strategies enabled by the stealth air planes combined with precision guided weapons, and the film concludes with one analyst making the following claim:

This twenty-first century cloaking device gives hope to some analysts that, because it can be so devastatingly successful, it can deter and prevent conflict. If the United States is clearly seen to have the capability to arrive over any body's terrorist training camp, over any body's capital, over any body's nuclear power or chemical plant, whatever it may happen to be, at any time within an hour or two of provocation, unseen, unstoppable and certain to succeed, the majority of the people, the majority of the time are simply not going to do things to expose themselves to that kind of attack. This technological capability is largely backed by stealth precision and some other things produces a deterrent that has really never existed before.

More information:
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0598/spirit2.htm

And about the rain...
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."

Of course it was flying over Tehran for peacefull purposes only. I mean, it is a B2 bomber, or otherwise known as The Peace Plane. After all, Bush IS our nation's fearless hero. I'm so glad that he has NEVER steered us wrong and that everyone loves him because he is the greatest man to ever walk the earth. That man deserves a medal of honor or something.

Oooh, I think Nascar is on. Better go buy me a Big gulp drink and a bucket of fried chicken.

I'm going to have to call shenanigans: this is far too articulated to have been writting by anyone who voted for Bush.

Bookislvakia disapproves of diplomatic bombing missions, we find them misleading. Instead, we usually paint smiley faces on the heads of our missiles and just go ahead and bomb people.

what do we do if one gets shot down?

Maybe thats the plan.

There's a guy who did a show. In it, he makes it quite clear that the F-117 and the B-2 are NOT USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGY.

I believe this is correct. From what I understand, the B-2 absorbs radar while the F-117 redirects it.

3. The shootdown in Serbia is something you should read more about. The technical details are in "The Transformation of American Air Power" by Benjamin Lambeth. The shootdown had more to do with NATO rules of engagement putting the aircraft at a lower altitude than it normally would operate, flying the EXACT same route at the EXACT same time each day (a political onus placed on the USAF), and the plane being visually spotted and fired at using a visually boresighted missile (a barrage, in fact). All of which is completely avoidable, if you prevent politicians from drawing your flight routes and plans for you.

And the info I posted above (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005124224417.asp) on that, taken from Colonel Dani Zoltan, the man who shot it down, pretty much agrees.

He also had, as I menmtioned, good intel - spotters in Italy and on the Serbian borders, as well as enough open source material to guess at and take advantage of the weaknesses of the F-117's stealth.

It'd be possible to duplicate Col. Zoltan's success and take down a B-2, given the right conditions. But 1) it'll be harder 2) I don't think Iran's intel is good enough.

BUT, the lesson to be learned from Col. Zoltan is never overestimate your equipments capabilities and never underestimate the cleverness of the enemy.

And the info I posted above (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005124224417.asp) on that, taken from Colonel Dani Zoltan, the man who shot it down, pretty much agrees.

He also had, as I menmtioned, good intel - spotters in Italy and on the Serbian borders, as well as enough open source material to guess at and take advantage of the weaknesses of the F-117's stealth.

It'd be possible to duplicate Col. Zoltan's success and take down a B-2, given the right conditions. But 1) it'll be harder 2) I don't think Iran's intel is good enough.

BUT, the lesson to be learned from Col. Zoltan is never overestimate your equipments capabilities and never underestimate the cleverness of the enemy.

The main thing is to NOT allow politicians to dictate combat policies and plans.

It's a first class ticket to being shot down.

Air Force doctrine is NOT to fly the same routes at the same time, even for a group of bombers attacking the same target area - they are supposed to come in from random directions.

Politicians overrode Air Force doctrine.

It's also why the F-16 was shot down - doctrine would have pairs of HARM equipped aircraft covering each other and flying at a distance and altitude designed to make it easier to respond to a SAM launch in a shorter time than the SAM's flyout time. But politicians demanded the planes fly alone, and too far out to use HARM to defend themselves.

Yay, so the big idea is that we, as citizens of the world, will all live peacefully, happily, and contentedly under the implicit threat that if we so much as think of stepping out of line (with what Papa Yankee says), we run the risk of getting smushed like bugs by the heroic actions of the completely uncowardly invisible American airforce.

Go team. Hoo-ray, already.

Now someone tell me this is really 1978 and I've just been having one helluva bad dream. Abba's on the charts, aren't they?

Aren't they?

The main thing is to NOT allow politicians to dictate combat policies and plans.

It's a first class ticket to being shot down.

Air Force doctrine is NOT to fly the same routes at the same time, even for a group of bombers attacking the same target area - they are supposed to come in from random directions.

Politicians overrode Air Force doctrine.

It's also why the F-16 was shot down - doctrine would have pairs of HARM equipped aircraft covering each other and flying at a distance and altitude designed to make it easier to respond to a SAM launch in a shorter time than the SAM's flyout time. But politicians demanded the planes fly alone, and too far out to use HARM to defend themselves.

Yes, indeed. Although I'd add that too often the military is just as much to blaim when, for various reasons, they don't follow their own doctrine.