Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B-2 question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • B-2 question

    1.)
    The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, ELECTROMAGNETIC, visual and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."
    http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82What exactly does electromagnetic mean?? does it mean it can hide fr4om sensors that operate across the EM spectrum or what?

    2.)I hear people talking about detecting AC using some sort of broad spectrum window that can see across the EM spectrum and not just a specific band like an IRST and supercool it. I doubt it would work since looking for or transmitting across the spectrum cuts effficeincy in each band(efficiency). Or if you used a sensor for each band like an UVST,IRST,GRST etc. Any thoughts?????
    Last edited by Shadowsided; 25 Jun 06,, 20:19.

  • #2
    I'm guessing that would refer to the avionics- radar, ecm, etc. In other words, low probability of intercept radars, and other such goodies.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      can anyone answer my second question PLEASE???

      Comment


      • #4
        Patience, Grasshopper, patience. ;) Hyperspectral imaging is the closest I can think of, but that's more of a way of combining data from separate sensors into one image, and I've only heard of it in mapping and looking at stuff on the ground. I'm sure Highsea could give an answer, so wait for him to come online.
        I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          The B-2 is almost invisible to any sensor that depends upon an electrical power source and therefore some sort of electrical beam. Besides the shape of the plane DEflecting beams somewhere else rather than back at the transmitter, special coatings are applied to reflective surfaces to absorb the beams and let them die an oscillating death between the coating and the metal surface. In other words, they don't bounce back.

          The only time a B-2 can be readily tracked on Radar is when it WANTS to be tracked (for landing instructions) and it extends special panels (besides the open wheel wells) designed and located to reflect Radar back to its transmitter.

          Infra-red sighting of the plane is difficult from below it because of the location of the exhausts on top of the plane. Only very sensitive infra-red sensors can detect warmer air behind it but not necessarily identify it as a jet exhaust (the temperature of the exhaust drops drammatically the further away it gets from the plane). An enemy aircraft above, however, will find infra-red detection a little more identifiable but that would be the only target he could shoot at. If his missiles are Radar guided and not infra-red seekers, he might as well save his ammo.

          It all boils down to the fact that the best way to spot and identify a B-2 bomber is in broad daylight with the Mk-1 eyeball.

          Oh, for the second question. I think the only way that kind of detection would work is in the PASSIVE mode and hopefully pick up the B-2 as it is transmitting something, like Radar, radio reports, latest stock picks, etc. If on "Silent Running" using only passive receptors for guidance and navigation with no transmissions of any sort I doubt anybody would even know it was there.
          Last edited by RustyBattleship; 25 Jun 06,, 23:26.
          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

          Comment


          • #6
            Highly expencive bird to be easily lock on.

            1.Passive radars are wrong way to detect stealth.

            2.Best way are big old radars form 40' which operate in metric waves (like German Mamott radar) but this type of radar is very big and cannot guide missiles to target.It miss lot (couple of km) so if you use nuke you could kill B-2

            3.There is some theory about three radars that can pick stealth but this system is very complicate and not proved.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SRB
              It miss lot (couple of km) so if you use nuke you could kill B-2
              Thus inviting a suitable retaliation.

              for you.
              HD Ready?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
                Thus inviting a suitable retaliation.

                for you.
                Well if you kill B-2 with nuke over your sky which is gone to bomb your cities why you will expect retaliation?
                After all nuke exploded over defender land

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SRB
                  Well if you kill B-2 with nuke over your sky which is gone to bomb your cities why you will expect retaliation?
                  For killing two American pilots and vapourising $2.2 billion of US federal government property, I imagine.

                  After all nuke exploded over defender land
                  Yes, because we all know international relations work according to impeccable logic.

                  "INSERT 'BIG GRIN' HERE"

                  Besides, detonating nukes a few tens of thousands of feet over your airspace sounds more destructive than a typical B-2's conventional payload anyway. Owned.
                  Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 26 Jun 06,, 00:38.
                  HD Ready?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    2.)I hear people talking about detecting AC using some sort of broad spectrum window that can see across the EM spectrum and not just a specific band like an IRST and supercool it. I doubt it would work since looking for or transmitting across the spectrum cuts effficeincy in each band(efficiency). Or if you used a sensor for each band like an UVST,IRST,GRST etc. Any thoughts?????

                    please answer my question. Im talking about a group of supercooled sensors that each look in aspecific part of the EM spectrum like Ultraviolent,X ray,Gamma, IR etc.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmm, never heard of this "Ultraviolent" part of the EM spectrum. Sounds pretty cool. Seriously though, I doubt that the high frequencies like UV and up would be very useful in aircraft detection, although to be honest I cannot think of any specific reasons, so I may be BSing. Just doesn't feel like it would work, you know. I don't really see what this would do, apart from those spectra I just mentioned, that isn't already done with IR, advanced video sensors, and of course the myriads of radar types. Sensor integration is of course very desirable. Being able to combine the data from all your sensors into one easily understandable package would greatly increase your capabilities. This would be more on the software end, however.
                      I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by urmomma158
                        2.)I hear people talking about detecting AC using some sort of broad spectrum window that can see across the EM spectrum and not just a specific band like an IRST and supercool it. I doubt it would work since looking for or transmitting across the spectrum cuts effficeincy in each band(efficiency). Or if you used a sensor for each band like an UVST,IRST,GRST etc. Any thoughts?????

                        please answer my question. Im talking about a group of supercooled sensors that each look in aspecific part of the EM spectrum like Ultraviolent,X ray,Gamma, IR etc.
                        Obviously we can't answer that question. We either do not know of any gizmos like that (except perhaps in some science fiction shows such as tracing a Warp trail) or nobody has ever published an official paper on such thing-a-ma-jigs or they simply don't exist. If they do exist however, then no one has been allowed to release their specifications to Readers Digest yet.

                        Your best bet for an answer is to ask the US Air Force.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
                          For killing two American pilots and vapourising $2.2 billion of US federal government property, I imagine.



                          Yes, because we all know international relations work according to impeccable logic.

                          "INSERT 'BIG GRIN' HERE"

                          Besides, detonating nukes a few tens of thousands of feet over your airspace sounds more destructive than a typical B-2's conventional payload anyway. Owned.
                          I agree with you David that it will bigger damage to kill B-2 with nuke than damage for classic bombing with B-2.
                          But if B-2 is send in nuke attack than it is pratical to nuke it over unpopulation area or even over smaller city because his target will surely be big city.

                          This why in 80's US said that B-2 will be second way bomber in nuclear attack on USSR, to some it sound as lie because B-2 is stealth and after first wave EMP many of radars dont work(so you dont need stealth bomber) but we forget that in USSR there was big number of obsolute electric tubes jet intercepors which cant detect B-2 but can survive EMP.

                          But this is irelevent I just what to say that to detect B-2 you need metric radars and to kill B-2 you need nuke because metric radar is not to accurate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Im basically talking about a devices which each see a certain part of the EM spectrum. IRST's see in IR ,certain sensors see in UV, etc
                            Does anyone know if a plane will emit enough UV,X Ray,Gamma,Cosmic rays, etc to be detected by sensors that can look in that part of the spectrum.

                            Well if you got the bottom of the thread here it is.
                            http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ar...hp/t-2097.html

                            Scientists create device to see invisible aircraft

                            From Kalyan Ray
                            DH News Service
                            NEW DELHI, July 28

                            Uniquely coating two glass slides with some chemicals, Indian scientists have come up with a memory storage device, which is capable of seeing "invisible" aircraft used in warfare and can be used in the heart of future target tracking devices.

                            After four years of diligent research, a team at National Physical Laboratory (NPL), here under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) have been able to develop the memory storage device which is superior to existing storage devices as it can store images up to one year. The NPL team got patents on the novel system in US, Japan, Germany UK and South Korea.

                            Using the NPL device, Instrumentation Research and Development Establishment (IRDE) a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory at Dehradun, is working to create an improved target-tracking equipment since the indigenous system is capable of seeing the invisible.

                            Many nations today use aircraft coated with a radar absorbing paint that make such planes invisible to the radar. "But our device converts invisible images into visible images making these planes visible.

                            It can see throughout the spectrum β€” from ultraviolet to visible to infrared range β€” which is an added advantage," NPL team leader Dr Ashok Biradar told Deccan Herald. The system identifies the planes within a fraction of a second.
                            On the civilian side, the device can be used for storing holographic images, Dr Biradar said, adding that the commercial potential of the application had not been explored so far. The device runs on one pencil battery and cheaper than semiconductor-based storage devices used in computers.

                            To prepare the storage device, two-glass plates were coated with a chemical called indium tin oxide. On the coated glass plate, a second coating by a polymer was given. A spacer is used to maintain a tiny gap between the two plates.
                            But what makes the entire system unique, is a grooving which the scientists were able to create on the polymer surface by controlling the polymer formation and manually rubbing the material.

                            β€œThe uneven grooves and the thickness of the coating are the two vital components of the storage device. A slightly thicker coating than what is normally used leads to the memory effect while the grooves hold the images that can be seen on a display,” he explained.

                            For image conversion the optical storage system needs to be integrated with a chemical known as ferroelectric liquid crystal.
                            The problem area is lack of repeatability as the team has failed in repeating the particular pattern on the polymer by manually rubbing the surface in 90 per cent cases. But NPL is importing a machine that scientists feel will do away with the uncertainty by mechanically rubbing the surface in an orderly fashion.

                            http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanhe...uly29/isee.htm
                            I doubt it would work since an aircraft probobably doesn't emit enough EM radiation across the spectrum like UV,X Ray or Gamma to warrant it as a target.I don't think it would help at all. So what do you think???

                            I wish Highsea we're here!
                            Last edited by Shadowsided; 26 Jun 06,, 19:02.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by urmomma158
                              1.)http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82What exactly does electromagnetic mean?? does it mean it can hide fr4om sensors that operate across the EM spectrum or what?

                              2.)I hear people talking about detecting AC using some sort of broad spectrum window that can see across the EM spectrum and not just a specific band like an IRST and supercool it. I doubt it would work since looking for or transmitting across the spectrum cuts effficeincy in each band(efficiency). Or if you used a sensor for each band like an UVST,IRST,GRST etc. Any thoughts?????
                              How do you reduce the accoustic signature of an aircraft?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X