How stealthy is the B-2 in reality?

File: 7f3f4d2ef512.jpg (195KB, 2184x2174px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2184x2174px

>>35020279

>>35020297
I've always though the B1 was sexy

>>35020297
Considering the F-117 has a much lower RCS according to this and it's been shot down before, how fucked is the B-2?

File: Capture.png (71KB, 614x923px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 614x923px

>>35020297
Conflicting information here, I wonder which is accurate. Source is "mil-embedded.com", don't know if it's trustworthy or not

>>35020318
F-117 RCS value with bomb doors open is probably a great deal more than 0.025 square meters. If I've understood that incident correctly, they got a lock on it when it had the doors open.

File: Counter-VLO-2008.png (33KB, 750x525px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 750x525px

>>35020342
It also flew the same flight path over and over again at low altitude.

>>35020332
That doesn't sound quite right. One of the basics of stealth is there is no true invisibility to radar.

>>35020362
Do you mean in regards to the statement about the B-21? It does say that it's *virtually* invisible. But how (if) it can be several orders of magnitude more stealthy than a B-2 I don't know.

>>35020332
There's probably a good amount of speculation in any material available, as the true capability is likely to be classified to hell, and on top of that there may be significant differences based on how exactly you measure and weight different measurements together.

>>35020362
>One of the basics of stealth is there is no true invisibility to radar.

Which is why the writer doesn't say true invisibility, but virtual invisibility, and then further clarifies by stating that the RCS isn't zero, but simply comparable to a mosquito.

>>35020279
I would say as stealthy as the Goodyear blimp in the day and very sneeki breeki at night

>>35020318
Not fucked at all.

117 flew the same exact route for multiple runs a day for 3 days straight, it also had all the radar in the area pointed at it's route waiting for it to come through.

>>35020426
I wouldn't be so sure, anon. I live on the approximate path between Whiteman AFB and Guam, and B-2s fly by occasionally. If you are lucky enough to see them rather than just hearing them, they're very faint and are only visible for about 20 seconds.

If the mosquito thing isn't bullshit, are we going to reach a point where nations (realistically, US and China) can operate in eacother's air space with impunity because neither of them can see the other? Since that's like, a sub-10km detection range with current radars. You'll get visual id before anything else.

File: USA USA USA.jpg (34KB, 707x478px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 707x478px

>tfw living in kansas
>tfw going to Arrowhead/Royals stadium and getting badass flyovers
feels good man

>>35020362
>That doesn't sound quite right. One of the basics of stealth is there is no true invisibility to radar.

-70dbm return loss means 99.99999% signal attenuation. For every One watt of radar power you send out, you'll get 0.00001 from the aircraft, assuming a perfect signature return.

>>35020279
>How stealthy is the B-2 in reality?
Stealthy enough to loiter for hours over most protected USSR areas stuffed with S-300s, MiG-31s and LF radars.

>>35020561
Export models of 60s stuff manned by barely literate sheep farmers turned conscripts.

>>35020614
Sums up USSR perfectly.

>>35020332
Where is this from?

>>35020653
http://mil-embedded.com/guest-blogs/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth/

>>35020480
I grew up on a farm about 10 miles from Whiteman. As a kid I saw the B-2 on almost a daily basis for many years. Had windows blown out by fighter jet flybys, even seen a few things flying around that couldn't be identified. B-2s aren't exactly quiet but you usually don't hear them until they're right on you. At night they're difficult to spot unless you're used to seeing and hearing them.

>>35020614
It is impressive how someone can be such a retard.

>>35020667
Man, that sounds great. I live quite a ways away from Whiteman, so by the time the B-2s reach me they're comfortably sitting at cruise altitude. The only other airplane that flies by regularly that is even close to as loud as the B-2 is the Boeing 777.

File: 1476046427185.gif (21KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 899x547px

>>35020561
Source? That sounds a bit outlandish.

>>35020667
>Had windows blown out by fighter jet flybys
Did the Air Force ever compensate you for that?

>>35020676
Look, an ad hominem!

>>35020718
Yeah, its cool when you're a kid, but when you're getting woke up at 3am by flybys and seeing weird flying discs hovering over your property not making any sound, it gets old. And I'm not a big believer in ayy lmaos, but I've seen some shit. We always figured it was something they were testing out of Whiteman.
>>35020732
Fuck no, it was a waste of time. It didn't happen that often, maybe only a couple of times. To much hassle you get them to admit they did it, much less compensate you for it.

>>35020788
>it gets old
Kek, this is the best attitude to abnormal shit I've ever heard. I just imagine you guys yelling at strange flying discs like someone else would yell at loud neighbours

>>35020725
>what is B-2 mission

>>35020788
That sucks.

>>35020481
One suggested technology is to use the fact that the cosmic microwave background radiation is massive. So you get a microwave camera instead of radar and home in on the dark spot. Should work especially well when shooting up. Trying to match this radiation would require the aircraft to emit a 3K-black body spectrum at considerable intensity below, and the match the grounds reflectivity&emission spectrum from above. There's probably a number of practical problems here though, we'll see if it ever happens.

>>35020811
My mother grew up on our family farm, she said that kind of stuff was normal as long as she had lived there. Whatever they were, they never really bothered us. We always assumed it was experimental military stuff.

>>35020279
not enough to get slip s-400/500 and mig31s

>>35020481
With returns that small, even if you show up on their radar, I would think the operator might just classify it as clutter and ignore it.

>>35020884
Yeah, that's probably a healthy assumption. Any other kind of speculation is probably a slippery slope into madness.

File: 213.jpg (27KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x480px

>>35020918
The truth is out there.

>>35020904
Yes it is, a MiG31 and modern Russian air defense can't find a B2.

File: pechora2A.jpg (379KB, 1712x881px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1712x881px

>>35020279

>>35021239
F-22 lower RCS than both F-117 and B-2? Also what is "AKM", is it literally the RCS of the gun?

>>35021283
STEALTH RIFLE IS NEW TECHNOLOGY
CAPITALIST PIG THINK IS JUST CITIZENS ON RADAR, BUT AS SOON AS POKE PIG DOG FACE OUT THEY ARE KILL FOR BEING STUPID

File: 14235833244010.jpg (29KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 332x499px

>>35021203
>F-117
>0.3 m2 RCS

>>35021283
>Also what is "AKM"
Prolly this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

>>35021586
Ah, good spot, didn't think of that. Cheers!

File: 1499757994409.jpg (26KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x484px

>>35021203
>>35021239
what do the runes say?

>>35022003
If you spend like three seconds actually trying to understand the text it's pretty obvious

>>35020342
RCS is also wavelength dependent, meaning that the B-2 might have a low RCS all over the useful radar spectrum while the F-117 might have just been optimized for x-band. Of course it's speculation, but from the fragments of information we've had from the Serbs, there definitely was something going on with varied wavelength and bomb bays.

>>35022003
Well I can read the sounds but I have no idea what I'm saying when I do. I could ask my wife but she already thinks I'm retarded for going on the 4chins, wouldn't want her to translate evidence of my autism.

>>35020279
Pretty stealthy. But as soon as B-2 turns on its megawatt-ish radar it's pretty much fucked. Also sending bombers without an escort is kinda risky. And those fighters might be not as stealthy.

>>35022003
I don't speak Russian, but first image looks to be a bunch of American planes with radar cross section, possibly a max observed speed in m/s and observed altitude?

Second one looks to be the same but different units. I have no idea what the graphs mean.

It has the RCS return of a baseball. That's why it is a joke. Just look for baseballs when operating the radar. China has better RCD returns.

>>35022191
The radar is LPI. That said, I think they should upgrade it with the same SABR radar the B-1 has. They've been working on an AESA variant of the B-2's radar since like 2002, clearly it's never gonna happen.