| Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
| B-2 Secret Bays http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1100 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | prism [ Thu Mar 18, 2004 02:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | B-2 Secret Bays |
"The new surface coating scheme has opened new options for the B-2. The aircraft has a bay outboard of each of the main landing gear that was originally supposed to store contrail-suppression chemicals but was never used. The two bays are about 2.75 meters (9 feet) long and as deep as the wing. USAF officials think that the bays could be used to store a pair of mini cruise missiles each. These missiles could be used for strikes, particularly to suppress air-defense radars, or operate as decoys or jamming platforms. " http://www.vectorsite.net/avb2.html |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Mar 18, 2004 20:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
we talked about this around a year ago, but it does have some potential uses. |
|
| Author: | prism [ Thu Mar 18, 2004 23:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
is the discussion still in the forums? if not, what did i miss? |
|
| Author: | Zephyr [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 00:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ehhh I think nothing more than an Aviation Week article detailing the bays when first announced. Your link is interesting because it is the only written confirmation I've seen that the B-2 has two radar antenaes, most sources seem to gloss over this. Zephyr |
|
| Author: | prism [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does anybody know where I can find this artical? I have had no luck with google. |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't get what the point of contrail suppression is I mean the sucker is going to fly at night. Did they intend day operations? A B-2 at 40,000 feet would be impossible to spot even with a contrail on a moonless night and how often do they fly with the moon out in such a way that it would jeopardize them getting silhouetted against the moon? |
|
| Author: | Zephyr [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 20:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You forget the longitude of Siberia and the poles the B-2 was to fly over in the Cold War mission, half the year that's the land of the midnight sun. Also in a full fledged war missions can't wait for the phases of the moon. Zephyr |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 20:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zephyr wrote: You forget the longitude of Siberia and the poles the B-2 was to fly over in the Cold War mission, half the year that's the land of the midnight sun. Also in a full fledged war missions can't wait for the phases of the moon. Zephyr Duh you are right. Precisely okay np whoops! lol |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 21:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cent, get outside NYC. Out here in the boonies it is NO problem spotting airliners at altitude at night just by looking for contrails. |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Fri Mar 19, 2004 21:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
KAPTOR wrote: Cent, get outside NYC. Out here in the boonies it is NO problem spotting airliners at altitude at night just by looking for contrails. Really I would think it next to impossible at night on a moonless night. Crazy. Yeah lol over NYC you can't see crap. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Sat Mar 20, 2004 03:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
also, idle speculation on my part BUT con-trails ARE made of water droplets, water droplets conduct electricity, RADAR is an electricle signal which picks up water dropletts (check your local TV weather report if you doubt me rofl). just wonderin that's all.... |
|
| Author: | prism [ Sat Mar 20, 2004 06:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
aparently they are not using the contrail chemical-injection system anymore, but instead use a IR sensor that alerts the pilot of a developing contrail. he must then drop the plane to a lower altitude. it makes more sense to use the chemical-injection system. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 16:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
THis is because the contrail suppression was a failure... And yes Cent its easy to track an aircraft via contrails. either at altitude of from the ground and Zephyr is correct they show a return on radar... However I do not remember this discussion last year? What segment of the forum was it on? Or perhaps on another one you visit, like ACIG? Either way, please post a link... Thanks, CAG out... |
|
| Author: | prism [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 17:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I read that the chemical injection program was scrapped because it was hazerdous. That doesnt make too much sense, why care about then when you are over enemy territory? |
|
| Author: | Zephyr [ Sun Mar 21, 2004 18:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it was a combo of hazardous to ozone (not really important in nuclear war), but also it just wasn't working enough. Zephyr |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|