Yeah, have severl Northrop guys with offices at Lockheed, since they are partnering with us on the JSF. They are all pretty proud of B-2, and have pictures of it all over the place in thier offices.
I hope this isn’t too bad of a hijack… Forgive me if it is.
I was in college at Wright State University in '93 when the first of the B2’s was delivered to Whitman AFB.
Just outside the entrance to Area B of Wright Patterson AFB, there was a big billboard which had The United States of America has is happy to announce the installation of it’s new home security system. printed alongside of a top-down view of a B2.
What gave me security and pride then, gives me security and pride now. Those are incredible airframes.
Sorry for the hijack
I know…its off topic…but
Here is the picture of the B-36’s in the plant I work at that I was talking about earlier.
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/getimage.htm?id=1755
The factory still looks pretty much like that now, only with f16’s instead…For comparison, here is a picture from an earlier time
http://www.lmtas.com/image_gallery/genera_photos/gp_9.html
That factory floor is right at a mile long, and in its day was the largest air-conditioned building…and I think it still is the longest continuous room.
[slightly off topic #1]
Some folks think the B-2, F-117, and other now-in-use aircraft were the reason for many UFO sightings near Groom Lake, Nevada (Area 51), back when these planes were being tested. So what is responsible for current UFO reports?
[/sot#1]
[sot#2]
(This may have been covered elsewhere, but I counldn’t find it) Why did the USAF start over with numbers for its fighters (F-105, F-111, F-117, F-16, F-17, F-22) and bombers (B-52, B-1, B-2). Is there an arbitrary point at which they start over? Are old “B” and “F” numbers retired, for example, as the bomber series continues, will they skip the B-17? How high did the “B” series get, beyond the 52?
[/not so slight off topic#2]
Well, there was the B-58 Hustler, which was probably named before Larry Flint’s magazine. That’s the highest B- designation I know.
I’ve often wondered if “resetting” the B- series for the B-1 was related to resetting tank models for the M1. Before the M1 we had the M60 and the M551 and that sort of thing.
Military naming has always mystified me. We seem to have sort of abandoned the official name that goes with most of our new hardware. The B-52 is almost never called the Statofortress; the B-1 is almost never called the Lancer (I heard it was originally supposed to be the Excalibur, but the condom references nixed it); the F-16’s names are so rarely used I saw a thread the other day on whether it’s the Viper or the Fighting Falcon.
Then there’s that little letter. Neither the F-111 or the F-117 had any appreciable air combat capabilites, but they are both designated as fighters. It seems like, recently, that the number of digits has shed more light on the intended role than the little letter (the F-101 and -104 were true fighers, but if I’m not mistaken the -105, -111, and -117 have all been ground attackers). It’s been the “F-two-digits” that have done air combat for the last thirty years or so. The media take the little letter literally in the case of the F-117, insisting on calling it the “stealth fighter”. I’m sure they will be quite confused when air-to-air specialists with stealth capabilities become common. “Our military correspondent tells us these stealth fighters are fighters. Can you explain that to our viewers, Dave?”
I believe the highest number bomber would be a B-70 Valkyrie, a supersonic bomber developed during the sixties. Only two prototypes were ever built.
Eric
For some reason they abandoned the “A” (for “attack”) designation for new aircraft, but the role didn’t go away. I think the reasoning was that most attack/strike aircraft now are built on fighter airframes. The F-15, F-16, and F-18 all have ground attack versions. But then the F-117 comes along as solely a stike aircraft and the designation doesn’t make sense.
The only active USAF aircraft with an A- designation is the A-10. And that’s been around for a long time.
With regard to the numerical sequencing, it probably just doesn’t really matter anymore, because of the relative infrequency of new designs. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, when new designs were being tested and bought every year, some order made sense. But now, well think about it. The newest fighter aircraft for the USAF is the F-22, which isn’t even in active use yet, and it’s over 10 years old. The F-16 has been in use since 1979, the F-15 since 1976. Among bombers, they B-2 has been in use since 1993, the B-1 since 1985, and the B-52 since 1955! So the AF isn’t exactly coming up with new designs every year, so why worry about the numbering system (it seems). Planman, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about another B-17 for a LOOOONG time, as that would be 15 new bomber designs away (if the numbering system was followed). Easily several hundred years, by which time I certainly hope we’re not still flying around in planes fighting each other.
I spent about two weeks there so…
Whiteman AFB is located in Knob Knoster, Missouri. The town of Knob Knoster has one stop light, but there is a small college town about 10 minutes away. I think one reason the B-2s may have ended up at that base is that it used to be a missile base. With the missiles being taken out due to arms reduction treaties, the base no longer had a primary mission, and thus was an obvious choice for bringing in a new unit. [sub]they may have had a prominent senator or something at the time too…[/sub]
And no, the runway is no longer than any other runway in the AF from what I could tell.
-Yup. However, the B-58 that Boris mentioned was- as far as I can recall- the highest “B” designation airframe that saw actual production and service. The '58 was our front-line SAC bomber for a decade, 'til the advent of the ICBM made bombers obsolete as a strategic asset.
Coincidentally, there was just a TV show about stealth on last night. One of the things it mentioned is that when the B2 was developed, computerized engineering had developed to the point where the radar scattering could be more precisely modelled, which allowed for the use of curves rather than the straight facets used by the F117. It does not use any radically different “pass through” radar system as mentioned in a previous post. It just looks radically different from the F117 because they could make smooth curves.
An interesting note is that the radar scattering effects were developed by a soviet scientist, and the mathematics were thought to be of so little use that the paper was published without restriction. This paper ended up being the key to the development of the F117 and the B2.
They also mentioned that the F117’s shape was created before it was made to be able to fly. The head guy in charge of making it stay airborne nicknamed it the “hopeless diamond” when he first saw it, apparently having little faith that they would be able to make the thing fly.
Another neat fact mentioned was that they determined the optimal size for the B2’s flying wing based on bomb load, runway space needed, efficiency, etc. and afterwards went back and found out that it was the exact same size as the old flying wing developed by Northrop (which at the time was scrapped because it was too unstable).
I was under the impression that the main reason for this aircraft’s existance was to be able to attack the Soviet Union. We did not even need it in Iraq, and I’m quite sure that the job it is doing now could easily be done by a B52 or a B1. I think the main reason the air force isn’t buying any more is that there isn’t much of a need for them to buy more.
Coincidentally, there was just a TV show about stealth on last night. One of the things it mentioned is that when the B2 was developed, computerized engineering had developed to the point where the radar scattering could be more precisely modelled, which allowed for the use of curves rather than the straight facets used by the F117. It does not use any radically different “pass through” radar system as mentioned in a previous post. It just looks radically different from the F117 because they could make smooth curves.
An interesting note is that the radar scattering effects were developed by a soviet scientist, and the mathematics were thought to be of so little use that the paper was published without restriction. This paper ended up being the key to the development of the F117 and the B2.
They also mentioned that the F117’s shape was created before it was made to be able to fly. The head guy in charge of making it stay airborne nicknamed it the “hopeless diamond” when he first saw it, apparently having little faith that they would be able to make the thing fly.
Another neat fact mentioned was that they determined the optimal size for the B2’s flying wing based on bomb load, runway space needed, efficiency, etc. and afterwards went back and found out that it was the exact same size as the old flying wing developed by Northrop (which at the time was scrapped because it was too unstable).
I was under the impression that the main reason for this aircraft’s existance was to be able to attack the Soviet Union. We did not even need it in Iraq, and I’m quite sure that the job it is doing now could easily be done by a B52 or a B1. I think the main reason the air force isn’t buying any more is that there isn’t much of a need for them to buy more.
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago that went into a bit of detail on the different numbering schemes for warplanes, but I don’t think that tanks were mentioned.
Used to see the B-2 all the time when I was stationed at Edwards AFB. Sometimes, you could be driving up the road, watching it fly. You turn your attention back up to the road, and if it banked at an angle to you, by the time your looked back up to find it, it was GONE.
I live about 30 miles from Whiteman Airforce base and I’ve been watching B-2s fly over day after day for the last 2 years or so.
First of all, they are not quiet and secondly, they standout like a sore thumb (especially at night) when I see them. People act as if they are silent and hard to see but that just plain is not true. They are easily louder than an A-10, but not as loud as a F-16,F-15, ect. Loud enough that I can hear when it’s coming and go out and watch.
Sure, they are invisible to everyone at altitude, (and effective too) but if you lived near them, you would see them as ‘just another plane’ that happens to look odd.
At night, when heading in, they have two humongous lights on each wing that makes them look like a massive 18-wheeler coming you way. They are so bright that I can see the cones from the light sources even when they are thousands of feet up.
Finally, they are based in the middle of the country for the same reason we used to locate missile silos here. It’s harder to bomb or send a missile to Missouri than it is any coastal area.
When a carrier task force attacks, perhaps only 1/4 planes off deck carry bombs. The rest are in position for refueling, radar jamming, fighter escort, search and rescue, ect. That puts alot of people at risk.
The B-2 can deliver close to the same bomb payload, while only placing 2 pilots at risk. It’s like having 20+ aircraft carriers to direct anywhere in the world at will. Of course, they don’t send the same foreign policy message as a carrier group…
Whoops! Sorry about that. Of course, Dr. Lao is right. Northrop Grumman (current name) built the B2. I always get those two names confused.
And it’s also better for a primary ground-zero to be in the middle of BF-nowhere. Whiteman was one of the largest and best-stocked missile bases, plus the strategic bombers…I think it also has/had a B1 squadron before the B2s. In short, it was a major target in any nuclear exchange. Better for such a thing to be next to one-stoplight-town than, say, DC.