arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) (07/29/89)
From: arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling)
b2/e4
THERE'S MORE TO STEALTH THAN RADAR
Many of the discussions about the B-2 seem to lose sight of
several important points.
1. They are not invisible, they are just harder to detect
at a given distance than a B-52.
2. They make a lot of noise.
3. They are highly visible by eye ball.
That's not to say they are of no value but some of the
applications I have heard are ridiculous. For example:
Dropping off and picking up of spies.
{The natives stand around and wonder where all that noise is
coming from?}
Missions where the nationality of the attacker must be
conceled.
{The natives with or without field glass, would have no idea
where that bat winged plane came from?}
A fleet of bombers (or with luck, even one plane) could be
seen by any ship, airplane or other observer that happens to
be in the right place at the right time and the whole
mission and our investment lost.
Lets not get lost in Wonderland. The B-52 is not invisible.
It simply has to be closer to be picked up on radar.
[mod.note: I presume ARF means the B-2, not the B-52. - Bill ]
We are being sold a silver bullet but the Lone Ranger was
not included.
The Amateur Radio Forum (arf) shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (08/01/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) wrote: >THERE'S MORE TO STEALTH THAN RADAR >Many of the discussions about the B-2 seem to lose sight of >several important points. >1. They are not invisible, they are just harder to detect > at a given distance than a B-52. >2. They make a lot of noise. They're really very quiet, compared to comparable aircraft. I think that the overwing engine configuration reduces the noise footprint. This is certainly true for the QSRA (Quiet Short-haul Research Aircraft). It uses the engines from the A-9, which were hardly designed or selected for quiet. The QSRA is extremely quiet. >3. They are highly visible by eye ball. It is less visible than a conventional aircraft of equivalent payload. I can say this from first hand experience. >Lets not get lost in Wonderland. The [B-2] is not invisible. >It simply has to be closer to be picked up on radar. It also has a much reduced IR signature. The overwing engine again. Arf is correct, however, to point out that this is a strategic bomber, not an infiltration/exfiltration aircraft. That worked well with the Mosquito in WW II, but short/rough field capability is nil for the B-2. There are much better aircraft for the infiltration/exfiltration mission--I'd use a fibreglass motor glider myself. Quiet, low observables, good loiter time, good rough field capability.