what i Know ( ) about it:

very very expensive
based off a previous protype bomber (think it was the yb-49 or something like that)
believe it is still top secret
had problems during testing with stability
carries the most ordinance out of any stealth aircraft
i think** that it can go close to or break the speed of sound
pilots turning is taken by the computer, and then the computer flies the plane

• it's so unstable in flight that the main reset swithc for the flight control system is within arms reach of the pilot
• it costs more money than some countries WHOLE state budget
• Based on german tailless-aricraft resarch from the second world war.
• rumours go about it having a star-trek like shield system to produce extra ECM capabilities.
• has been repainted from total black to a dark grey scheme, just as the other stealth aircraft of the USAF to make it less 'dark' when operating in daylight.]
• on board facilities include an oven and crew rest beds.
• it's still one of the biggest crowd pullers on airshows throughout the world
  

Jack Northrop was into flying wings since before WW2, and especially after WW2.  If memory serves me right, the YB-49 was intended to fulfill the same role as the B-36.  I have no doubt that captured German documents (Horten) were also a part of the Northrop development, but they were also pretty welll on the way already.

The B-2's dimensions are very similar to the B-49, maybe within inches.

Jack Northrop was shown a model of the B-2, the airplane that finally fulfilled his dreams of a "flying wing" shortly before his death.

Quote:

I have friends that work on B-2's plus I had to take schooling to work on them as well, I can tell you this much most of the info out on it is not true key word is most...

Quote:


you gotta love her!

I think that for the price of one of these things, every school in America could have new computers.  We need to get our priorities straight...

I saw one of these planes at an airshow in my hometown (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) a while back.  It was cool to see!!! I also saw the F-117.  It was only a static display.  I would have liked to see it fly like the B-2A.

Developer     

It's not deadly.  It's useless.  It can't fly in rain, can't fly faster than sound, and isn't even invisible on radar.  They break like a 90 yo with osteoprosis.  It has a low radar shadow, not NO radar shadow.  And they cost around a billion each.  Now add the fact that they have absolutley no mission, and you have the biggest white elephant of all time.

'Diamond' training...

The thing is stealth under certain angles only, the crew has to learn that

Quote:


I agree totally but,

1 : Would it not have to be at a certain height to be "Stealthy"?
2 : They KNEW it was coming
3 : WHEN WAS THIS - WHY WASN'T I TOLD 

Thanx. Carl

About the speed: It's a stealth... why do you want a sonic boom if you are trying to sneak in.
They had a mission (dropping nukes on ICBMs in the Soviet Union) , and are in the progress of being adapted for a more fitting mission (Laser-guided bombing with ground support)

Quote:

WOW - you really DO learn something new everyday 

Thanx. Carl

Quote:

lets first wait for FS2204 before we start searching for add ons for it! 

there isn't really a good Buff available for it...Bonzonie's Buff was made for FS2002 and it's getting old...like the real ones. 

The B2, like the Seawolf class submarine, isn't about producing a required weapons platform.  It's about maintaining the US defense industry.  Call it "corporate welfare".  The project was a cash infusion for Northrope so that they wouldn't go out of business because the US gov wasn't comfortable reducing the military industrial base in that area (same with Electric Boat and Seawolf and the Comanche and its prime (Sikorski IIRC)).

That said, the US really does need a new heavy bomber.  The only thing in the arsenal other then the B2 is the B52.  The B1 never really worked (though it's a beautiful plane), and its failure has produced a HUGE hole in the US arsenal.  Now that we're in the year 2004 and not 1994 I'd argue that the hole is best filled by something without a human on board, but that's a whole other topic.  So yes, the money spent on the B2 had to be spent to fill a vital role in the US armerment.  That is, assuming you believe the US needs the ability to project air power beyond its boarders.

As for its function, I believe the secrecy surrounding the craft is probably a reason for the perception that it doesn't work.  Any aircraft will show up on radar at an air show.  I'd assume its transponder was on the whole time (not a piece of equipment likely to be used when in unfriendly airspace).  No aircraft is 100% stealthy, but it's likely stealthier then a F117, and that has a radar CS equivelant to a BB (at what range will a defense radar detect a BB?  20 feet?  Not a lot of reaction time to respond to an air threat 20 feet away).  And why would the plane have to fly in rain?  It's mission profile is high altitude heavy bombing.  Take off, fly over the weather, drop bombs, land.  I'm sure it can "fly" in rain, but it may not be able to terrain follow in rain (not that it would ever need to terrain follow in any weather).  As for speed, what part does speed play in survivability for this weapon's platform?

If you're going to criticize a weapons platform at least first understand its role.  Saying a B2 isn't a viable aircraft because it's slow and can't fly in rain is like saying a cessna 172 isn't a good airplane because it won't carry as many passengers as a 747.