The B-2 was a first strike weapon. Waiting to take out the radar network would result in the missiles the B-2 was going to hunt down having been fired in the first place.

I’ve had a craving for Alaskan King Crab legs for the past few days…it will be dealt with accordingly Saturday evening 😀

Presenting an analysis of the Chinese SAM Network:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/01/chinese-sam-network.html

I remember watching Beadle’s About when I lived in England in the early 90’s. RIP Beadle, you will be remembered fondly.

There are a few alternatives to kerosene as an aviation fuel source:

1. Have we forgotten about boron hydride already? Probably won’t help the auto industry but it’ll work for air travel if given the right amount of attention.

2. A diatomic drive system. Think about that one for a minute, and you’ll see where I’m going with it.

3. An electrical “jet” engine may be within reach at some point in the future, whereby ultra high-speed fans draw in air to an advanced compressor. The idea is that the compressor and nozzle assembly are powerful enough to generate thrust without the need for combustion. Alternatively, the atmospheric intake may be able to be combusted electrically if it is compressed enough, to generate more thrust. Dunno about that bit, but the first part would certainly work in theory.

4. Nuclear power. As sensible as that might be, particularly if fusion were used and not fission, the hypocrites wearing green would have multiple cows.

That’s what I can think of off the top of my head.

Engagement radars such as those found on the S-300P systems, which featured prominently in designing the B-2, do have search features and are not restricted to relying on off-board sources for target detection.

Just found what I was looking for…AFIT has a document titled “B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study” which contains the original Low Observables Bomber Study in the appendices. There is a good deal of info in there regarding what types of stealth measures were to counter what types of systems. There are frequent mentions of low RCS being the main defense against SAM systems, and they differentiate between “detection systems” and “kill systems”, and factor in AI radars, operating at shorter wavelengths than the long-range EW radar systems like TALL KING for example, into the “kill system” category, indicating that even this aspect of the threat envelope was considered in designing the aircraft’s overall shape.

Shaping by itself is theoretically less effective against wavelengths above the threat bands, as once you start getting towards a wavelength corresponging to the target’s dimensions your shaping effects are really irrelevant. Given that the B-2 was designed to defeat both threat and detection systems, there must be something special about either the shaping involved somehow, or there is something different going on to defend against these systems. The simplest answer (if we can call it that) is controlled shaping to defeat the threat systems, as well as RAM tailored for EW radar wavelengths, plus some form of electronic system, be it active cancellation, electrostatics, or “other”, to aid in longer wavelengths as using active cancellation for one against shorter wavelengths is hugely complex and complicated.

As to faceting again, HAVE BLUE was evaluated against the E-3, as was the F-117A (for amusing reasons not adopted operationally), and they both demonstrated very short detection ranges. The F-117A also operated operationally within heavily defended areas in combat, and enjoyed considerable success, demonstrating the ability to also defeat shorter wavelength systems.

As I said No one has proven Venik’s pages to be lies, sure he (may) have some incorrect thing in his site here and there, but overall he’s on point, all you people can do is just RANT about how he’s not credible, with no “source” proving the majority of his posts are not true, if he was an American and was writting about Russia you’d take his posts as the truth.

The START treaty accountability office has proven that Venik has misrepresented Allied losses over the FRY, for one, as every B-2 produced still exists to this day. Had the Russians, who were also propagating tales of B-2 losses, found out that they were right, they surely would have reported it as START numbers are not state secrets. There’s your proof that Venik reports false information when he sees fit, which is called deliberately lying when done for nothing more than purely nationalistic reasons. Factual errors are one thing, promoting nationalism as your basis of thought is another entirely.

Venik is like Yefim Gordon. He has some interesting and often worthwhile data to present, but his objectivity is clearly clouded by a large and obvious anti-Western bias. Go read the bit in Gordon’s MiG-23 Aerofax volume about the F-14 vs MiG-23 incident for an example. Or for a Western example, go read some of the things by Carlo Kopp, who has to have some real anti-Chinese sentiment (or fear?) running through his veins to come up with his stories of Chinese Backfires invading Australia’s shipping lanes to justify Raptor purchases! Even Jane’s is not immune to being loaded with errors, but they aren’t making it their business to fabricate stories based on some nationalistic fervor like Venik, Gordon, and Kopp (Hutchinson, I have no idea about, I’m pretty sure I haven’t read anything of his, although I do think he sounds familiar as part of the idiotic American “OMG China is evil” crowd).

Nobody is saying that every word of Venik’s site is trash, but that since he has been proven wrong (without any signs of retraction, EVER, I might add, as that would not support his anti-NATO campaign) on various points, you have to take anything he posts with a grain of salt. There are far more objective sources to use. Venik’s credibility is somewhere near that of Wikipedia, the only major difference being that the general public can’t sign in and type whatever they see fit on Venik’s page!

Plus, come on, the site hasn’t been updated for almost a decade. How can you honestly rely on it as a source for current information?