WT Forums

Norman Friedman a noted naval analyst made the following comments
in the May 2006 issue of USNI's Proceeding in review of another journals article.:

"Another point they make is that the B-2 is now being flown at low rather than high altitude, which, they think, makes it even stealthier. A cynic would suggest that the new flight profiles demonstrate the bankruptcy of the airplane's stealth design. They may remember that in several wars B-2s flew only when they had jammers as escorts."

Any comments?

Who are "they" and is there any proof it's being flown at low altitude? B-2s structure was beefed up in mid-program to allow low level flight, but it sure wouldent be very comfortable for the crew. Low level would definatly make it <u>LESS</u> stealthy but it would benefit from terrain masking like any other warplane.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Sorry. Heres the article he was reviewing:

Keir A. Lieber, the author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics Over Technology, is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press, the author of Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301f ... imacy.html

I guess my real questions are:

Are stealth features useful or have countermeasures alreay overtaken their efficacy?

Are the stealth features worth the money spent on them?

They are honest questions and I really dont know.

The questions are not meant to be provocative or derogatory.

Thanks
Rick

I think anything that improves your chances is worth spending money on. Stealth aircraft require less support to accomplish thier mission so wheather they are more expensive or not is questionable in itself.

Some questionable quotes of the article: ( and the only two referances to the B-2 in the article )
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And the air force has also enhanced the avionics on its B-2 stealth bombers to permit them to fly at extremely low altitudes in order to avoid even the most sophisticated radar. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And given that B-2s are already very stealthy aircraft, it is difficult to see how the air force could justify the increased risk of crashing them into the ground by having them fly at very low altitudes in order to avoid radar detection -- unless their mission is to penetrate a highly sophisticated air defense network such as Russia's or, perhaps in the future, China's.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
So who's defences do the authors think the B-2 was designed to go against? Costa Rica? As I said before, the B-2 was designed to fly high or low, long before the USSR broke up.

China's nuclear forces have been a near joke from the very begining, our improvements arnt aimed at them.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Is the United States intentionally pursuing nuclear primacy? Or is primacy an unintended byproduct of intra-Pentagon competition for budget share or of programs designed to counter new threats from terrorists and so-called rogue states?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
How about the fact that our only serious nuke rival ( the Soviets ) have imploded and we have/would have primacy no matter what we did.

I say we won, one down and none to go on the strategic nuclear battlefield.
Unlike in decades past I have virtually no fear of an all out Nuke exchange between the U.S. and any other country. Any nuke action would be of the terrorist type and very limited.

And for the authors info, we have had ground burst nuke capability for a very long time. It increases the lethality of a warhead by kicking up a huge cloud of debris from the crater thus massivly increasing the nuclear fallout material and dispersion thereof. Ground burst makes a bigger mess for the enemy and at virtually no cost for the weapon ( such as having to use two or three or more to achieve the same result).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Some may wonder whether U.S. nuclear modernization efforts are actually designed with terrorists or rogue states in mind. Given the United States' ongoing war on terror, and the continuing U.S. interest in destroying deeply buried bunkers (reflected in the Bush administration's efforts to develop new nuclear weapons to destroy underground targets), <u>one might assume that the W-76 upgrades are designed to be used against targets such as rogue states' arsenals of weapons of mass destruction or terrorists holed up in caves. But this explanation does not add up. The United States already has more than a thousand nuclear warheads capable of attacking bunkers or caves</u>. If the United States' nuclear modernization were really aimed at rogue states or terrorists, the country's nuclear force would not need the additional thousand ground-burst warheads it will gain from the W-76 modernization program. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The authors ASSUME the W-76 upgrade is for attacking deep bunkers, which it likley is not. I would like for the authors to have designated what nuke weapons we already have a 1000 of for attacking bunkers and caves. The U.S. is attempting to develope low yeild nukes that can penetrate deep underground then explode to collapse a bunker or cave while keeping the radiation output to a minimum. These are bombs not ICBMs or IRBMs.

As always these authors went into this article with an agenda and expected outcome, NOT with a neutral view to just see what turns up. Journalists dont work that way and editors dont send them on wild goose chases just to see what happens. They have constructed false or questionable situations in order to shoot them down.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Thanks Boomer.

The article has been widely criticised.

I was just interested in the stealth aspect.

As much has been said about stealth lately.

In particular if Friedman was correct that "stealth design" is "bankrupt" and the implication that the B-2 needs jammer escort.

He rarely makes forays outside of naval issues for which he is well respected.

I was wondering if his expertise translated well.

It appears to me that it doesnt.