B-2A Spirit

[Wing Nut]

It's not deadly.  It's useless.  It can't fly in rain, can't fly faster than sound, and isn't even invisible on radar.  They break like a 90 yo with osteoprosis.  It has a low radar shadow, not NO radar shadow.  And they cost around a billion each.  Now add the fact that they have absolutley no mission, and you have the biggest white elephant of all time.

[Woodlouse2002]

Not a million years ago, when on the run in to do a fly past at Farnbrough, the B2 stealth bomber was picked up on a radar test set.

So, it really is useless.

[Ivan]

'Diamond' training...

The thing is stealth under certain angles only, the crew has to learn that

[atotti2000]

personal opinion:

load of codswallop. (rubbish)
im sure the money could have been used more widely. the whole world hunger thing. whats the point of buillding a bomber when there are perfectly good ones which are still in use. i agree, plan for the future and everything. but im sure planning culd cost a little less!

[xFLAMESx]

Not a million years ago, when on the run in to do a fly past at Farnbrough, the B2 stealth bomber was picked up on a radar test set.

So, it really is useless. :P

I agree totally but,

1 : Would it not have to be at a certain height to be "Stealthy"?
2 : They KNEW it was coming
3 : WHEN WAS THIS - WHY WASN'T I TOLD  >:(

Thanx. Carl

[xFLAMESx]

[quote]It's not deadly.

[Ivan]

About the speed: It's a stealth... why do you want a sonic boom if you are trying to sneak in.
They had a mission (dropping nukes on ICBMs in the Soviet Union) , and are in the progress of being adapted for a more fitting mission (Laser-guided bombing with ground support)

[Mr. Bones]

they can make it stealthy if they won't but it isn't always. eg while on training missions or refueling flights, it's interesting for every pilot or controller to have that thing on the radar, not? or, like Farnborough, on airshows!

i know that they put small bricks of aluminium on the fuselage of an Nighthawk to make it visible on radar. i guess they can do the same thing with the budget bomber  ;)

[xFLAMESx]

[quote]i know that they put small bricks of aluminium on the fuselage of an Nighthawk to make it visible on radar. i guess they can do the same thing with the budget bomber

[Sobby]

Lets face it

The B2 is just not a B52

The B52 is supposed to last until or longer then 2040, I can't see the B2 doing that!!

Anyone know of a good B52 for FS2204?

[Mr. Bones]

Lets face it

The B2 is just not a B52

The B52 is supposed to last until or longer then 2040, I can't see the B2 doing that!!

Anyone know of a good B52 for FS2204?

lets first wait for FS2204 before we start searching for add ons for it!  ;D

there isn't really a good Buff available for it...Bonzonie's Buff was made for FS2002 and it's getting old...like the real ones.  ;)

[Sobby]

yeah

[Chris_F]

The B2, like the Seawolf class submarine, isn't about producing a required weapons platform.  It's about maintaining the US defense industry.  Call it "corporate welfare".  The project was a cash infusion for Northrope so that they wouldn't go out of business because the US gov wasn't comfortable reducing the military industrial base in that area (same with Electric Boat and Seawolf and the Comanche and its prime (Sikorski IIRC)).

That said, the US really does need a new heavy bomber.  The only thing in the arsenal other then the B2 is the B52.  The B1 never really worked (though it's a beautiful plane), and its failure has produced a HUGE hole in the US arsenal.  Now that we're in the year 2004 and not 1994 I'd argue that the hole is best filled by something without a human on board, but that's a whole other topic.  So yes, the money spent on the B2 had to be spent to fill a vital role in the US armerment.  That is, assuming you believe the US needs the ability to project air power beyond its boarders.

As for its function, I believe the secrecy surrounding the craft is probably a reason for the perception that it doesn't work.  Any aircraft will show up on radar at an air show.  I'd assume its transponder was on the whole time (not a piece of equipment likely to be used when in unfriendly airspace).  No aircraft is 100% stealthy, but it's likely stealthier then a F117, and that has a radar CS equivelant to a BB (at what range will a defense radar detect a BB?  20 feet?  Not a lot of reaction time to respond to an air threat 20 feet away).  And why would the plane have to fly in rain?  It's mission profile is high altitude heavy bombing.  Take off, fly over the weather, drop bombs, land.  I'm sure it can "fly" in rain, but it may not be able to terrain follow in rain (not that it would ever need to terrain follow in any weather).  As for speed, what part does speed play in survivability for this weapon's platform?

If you're going to criticize a weapons platform at least first understand its role.  Saying a B2 isn't a viable aircraft because it's slow and can't fly in rain is like saying a cessna 172 isn't a good airplane because it won't carry as many passengers as a 747.

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Stealth aircraft such as the F-117 and B-2 have radar reflectors which can be extended or retracted so that they CAN be seen on radar... check go check out some pictures of them and you'll see little pointy black thing sticking up off the wings and stuff.  (And I'm not talking about the pitot tube and other stuff on the F-117's nose)

Also, if you read/watch programs about the aircraft you will know that the aircraft is NOT invisable to radar.  Nobody claims that... they're just a lot tricker to see on the radar.  And as mentioned they use certain tactics to minimize the chances of being seen.  

Also, what makes you think we even know anything about the aircraft?  We probably won't even know how useful it really is untill it's practically retired.  C'mon