Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: The need for a B-2 Summary: b2 Message-ID: <7869@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 30 Jun 89 03:19:26 GMT References: <7849@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) In article <7849@cbnews.ATT.COM>, IA80024%MAINE.BITNET%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: > > > From: "Nicholas C. Hester" > Why would this country need such an expensive turkey as the B-2 when we have > 52 F-117 Stealth attck/fighters? These are proven to fly, and (from what i've > read-i'm new to the list) just as hard to detect. > The book "Stealth and the art of Black Magic" lists the RCS (Radar Cross Section) of both the F-117A and the B-2. The RCS of the F-117A is supposedly 0.5 m (I don't remember the figure exactly, but that is the right order of magnitude); the RCS of the B-2 bomber is approximately 0.000005 m (I could be off on this figure by a decimal place in either direction but you get the idea). This seems to indicate that the B-2 would be much harder to detect with conventional radar than the F-117A. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave J. usual disclaimer implied ark2!dlj