PhilippThis is done by injecting chemicals into the exhaust. However, this is a system that was supposedly not adopted on the aircraft. If you see a good cutaway drawing, there’s more than a few interesting things in there that nobody seems to want to talk about…
Really? Like what?
BTW, I found these articles whicha re by FAR the best I’ve ever read on stealth.
http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf
http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_022.pdf
PhilippI was joking about the inside sources. 😀
The first 3 aspects of stealth SHOULD preclude the need for this tech, though. Even though the beam is tightly controlled and focused, it’s still detectable and it’s use should be sporatic at best.
The tech about the B-2 that truely facsinates me is what do they do to control contrails?
Contrails are essentially iced water molecules in the a/c’s exhaust. IIRC, they spray a special chemical on the exhaust to control icing.
PhilippI know it’s possible and understand the physics of it, but I’m not aware of it being an operational system on the B-2 (my inside sources have not reported as such 😀 ). Now the AESA upgrades do allow jamming via the radar arrays, but again AFAIK not active cancellation.
To me it would be unwise to use such a system on a L/O platform simply because it is an emitter. With fequency agile systems, you’d be hard pressed to keep up with the jumps and you’d be blasting your position to any type of bystatic radar or even AAMs with an anti radar backup.
Well an emmiter yes, but one that directs all its energy to one radar source, and directs it in such a way that cancells out that radar’s returns. It’s not something like TFR that you could pick up with a basic ESM set I think.
The B-2 is an LO platform and still has radar, only again, it’s not runnign your average radar scans dispersing energy everywhere, but uses precise directed and intermittent emissions to get its picture.
Inside sources? I doubt anyone would ever talk about anything on the B-2. Quite risky business it is.
Philippcoanda, I’m surprised there aren’t any 3D imaging programs around where with basic modifications you can “shine your coloured flashlight” on it, and it will work just like a mirror, refflecting that light to the appropriate angles, based on where you shined your light from. It would be cool to put in an F-117, B-2, and then some B-52 or F-15 models.
Lightndattic, I take it that you believe that active radar cancellation is not in use with the B-2?
PhilippIn other thread where I posted this, I received the following replys:
ASAIK, it is more or less the same: those surface have the capability to reflect radio waves far from the direction they were originated, so that the radar dish does not catch them back.
Since they are curve shades, they needed a more powerful computer to design them.
Anyone?
Giulio
AND
The F117 has facets because that’s all computer models for radar returns could handle back in the 70s. I can’t recall the exact number of facets, but it literally was the max allowable for the software used to design the F117. Both aircraft are designed with the same principles, minimize return signature by reflecting radar energy away from the receiver, and absorb as much radar energy as possible for those few angles and facets that just so happen to line up to reflect energy back at the receiver (usually at the same location as the xmitter).
F117s accomplish this by using a disco-ball solution, reflecting most of the energy off in other directions and only leaving a small area reflecting directly back. B2s are nice and curvy, which also just so happens to reflect energy off in all directions. FYI, radar energy loves to bounce off right angles, and flying wing shape have very few of them. Because more powerful design computers & software exist these days, curved shapes like the wing become possible to model and build to minimize returns. Flying wings also happen to be incredibly efficient aerodynamic bodies, minimizing parasite drag compared to a traditional aircraft (or a lumpy F117). When you’re building a huge bomber that needs to carry large loads immense distances at subsonic speeds while maintaining a low radar profile, that wing shape is a real winner.
Snugglebear
TO WHICH I REPLIED
Thank you for those awesome responses! It truelly makes sense now how all these new UCAVs and UAVs achieve stealthiness without the “discoball” design (great term BTW!).
I assume that the designers make a conscious compromise when attempting to shape the surfaces and shapes of the aircraft which has to do with “If I’m here, what part of the terrain and air around me do I want to send no radar return to?”
I would guess that a -45 vertical angle on all radials around the aircraft would be the most common “sight” that radars get of F-117s and B-2 flying at medium to high altitudes. I would also deduce from this logic that the underside of the aircraft is more important for stealth than the top part. I base this on the assumption that both aircraft were created to be stealthy against a Soviet GCI system with linked EW radars, with less focus being given to A2A/AWACS detection. Do we know BTW if they’re less stealthhy against airborne platforms?
Any thoughts?
PhilippBUMP
PhilippI dont think its smart that they work alone on this one.
If both the Navy and AF are developing AEW platforms they might as well develop them together. It will make the final products better since its incorporates ideas and lessons from 2 sources, and will help bring the cost down.
Well the Navy is developing the E/A-18G Growler, which stems from the F/A-18E SUper Hornet-an aircraft that not even the entire Navy is happy about. So I wouldn’t see the USAF going for that. It’s also a matter of prestige.
More importantly though, the USAF needs a SOJer with endurance so it can stick around with a Gorilla for as long as the strikers need to do their job. The B-52 can do that…Admittedly, though, it is not the aircraft of my choice when it comes to placing a dedicated jammer at the tip of the spear. The Ravens have been chased down by Migs, the Prowlers, in simlar cases aborted….What will the big-ass Buff do? Drop a nuke and get out? 😀
PhilippUSAF Moving Ahead With EB-52
by Kenneth B. Sherman
Aug. 12, 2004
For some time, the US Air Force (USAF) has been mulling modifying some of its B-52 bombers to serve as standoff-jamming (SOJ) aircraft, unofficially dubbed EB-52s. Now, though, the service is actually moving forward with the idea under a new plan that calls for development and fielding of a long-range radar-jamming/radar-spoofing under-wing electronics pod. An initial purchase of 12 pods, to be carried by 16 B-52Hs, has been worked into the 2005 defense budget, with $21.6 million of the FY05 Air Force budget allocated to airborne electronic attack (AEA). The exact amount of funding to be allocated to the EB-52 program, however, has not been finalized at this time.
With the impending retirement of the last of the US military’s only other in-service SOJ aircraft, the EA-6B Prowler, it is falling upon the 43-year-old B-52H — of which 104 were built — to carry on the mission for the USAF, as the AEA pod the service is planning will be too heavy for smaller aircraft, and the associated antenna system will occupy too much space for current USAF tactical aircraft to carry. The B-52’s electrical system will also be beefed up to accommodate the new pod, and the Stratofortress already has an electronic-warfare-officer (EWO) station. Designed in the 1950s to deliver the then-huge nuclear weapons of the era all the way to the Soviet Union, the B-52 retains its humungous payload capability and is currently the USAF’s only combat aircraft capable of employing the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Thus, in addition to the new AEA pods, it will be able to carry a variety of cruise missiles at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet for delivery any place in the world. The aircraft has an unrefueled combat range of 8,800 miles, but operationally has flown twice as far — for as long as 35 hours — with in-flight refueling.
B-52s are currently operationally based at Barksdale AFB, LA, and Minot AFB, ND, although this might change with the new mission being passed to the aircraft.
“The Air Force envisions the EB-52 to provide a jamming support capability similar to that of the present EA-6B,” said Boeing’s Tom LaRock. The new jamming pods will replace the existing wing-tip fuel tanks on the B-52. The new AEA transmitters and receivers will be integrated into the airplane’s existing systems. Boeing will be the prime contractor, with various subcontractors supplying the major system components. Modifications would be done at the Boeing modification center in Wichita, KS.
LaRock noted that while the work will initially will include 16 aircraft sharing 12 standoff jamming systems (one of the benefits of a pod/modular design), the USAF’s long-term plans include modification of 76 aircraft and the acquisition of 36 AEA systems. The first 16 aircraft and 12 pods are scheduled to be operational in FY13. Boeing will conduct a competitive source selection for the AEA equipment on the EB-52 program, though a date for the release of a request for proposals has not yet been determined.
Work under the program will be done as a spiral development program. Spiral 1 will consist of mounting twin wing pods, each offering 180 degrees of coverage, on four B-52s. An initial operational assessment in 2009 will measure the systems’ ability to jam communications links between enemy radar sites and missile crews. Spiral 2 ends approximately three years later and will offer a reactive capability to detect and jam more advanced radar emitters and “pop-up” targets. Six more B-52s will be modified during this spiral and six more over the course of the following year.
PhilippYou must be log in to see it
You can register-it’s free.
PhilippA super cool picture of a squadron of North Korean MiG-23MLs , a Russian MiG-23MLd and a Russian MiG-23ML
Are these silver? MORE-MORE-MORE!!!
THE DPRKAF has got to be one of the most camera-shy AFs out there!
PhilippNK
Hey guys-new guy here…
Any DPRKAF Mig-23S?
Sign In
