Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: MORE TO STEALTH THAN RADAR Message-ID: <8704@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 1 Aug 89 03:00:17 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 41 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mary Shafer arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) wrote: >THERE'S MORE TO STEALTH THAN RADAR >Many of the discussions about the B-2 seem to lose sight of >several important points. >1. They are not invisible, they are just harder to detect > at a given distance than a B-52. >2. They make a lot of noise. They're really very quiet, compared to comparable aircraft. I think that the overwing engine configuration reduces the noise footprint. This is certainly true for the QSRA (Quiet Short-haul Research Aircraft). It uses the engines from the A-9, which were hardly designed or selected for quiet. The QSRA is extremely quiet. >3. They are highly visible by eye ball. It is less visible than a conventional aircraft of equivalent payload. I can say this from first hand experience. >Lets not get lost in Wonderland. The [B-2] is not invisible. >It simply has to be closer to be picked up on radar. It also has a much reduced IR signature. The overwing engine again. Arf is correct, however, to point out that this is a strategic bomber, not an infiltration/exfiltration aircraft. That worked well with the Mosquito in WW II, but short/rough field capability is nil for the B-2. There are much better aircraft for the infiltration/exfiltration mission--I'd use a fibreglass motor glider myself. Quiet, low observables, good loiter time, good rough field capability.