Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.
They don't bother making supersonic civilian transports... they use technology to kill first and foremost... it is only their propaganda machine that makes them look nice and a force for good.
Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95,
Even if the B-2 had a RCS of less than a paint chip... it can be detected and tracked... and the material it is made of is not really that important.
i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.
Why do you think a turboprop needs to have a large RCS?
Its propeller blades can be made of the same radar transparent material radar domes are made of and otherwise there are no reasons why the frontal RCS of a Bear needs to be the size of a building..
Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.
There is nothing wrong with the speed or range of a Bear and how much avionics does it need to carry and launch cruise missiles?
There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.
The design of the B-2 is skewed in the direction of stealth at the cost of everything else... if that feature is undermined then the whole concept is undermined.
Originally the B-2 was supposed to be the answer to Soviet truck mounted ICBMs... it was supposed to be able to fly at will over the Soviet Union dropping bombs precisely on every ICBM truck it found with impunity.
Obviously the conflict in Iraq was a real eye opener where in a much much smaller much safer much more controlled area such a concept failed miserably.
Then they started low flying tests to survive over Russian territory... which greatly shortened airframe lives and would make them equally vulnerable to ground based air defences of all types...
The idea was a super duper survivable bomber you could send in as a first strike weapon... the result is something that can do what a B-52 and Bear already does... secondary strike.... yeah... billions spent for fuck all.
Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.
It was supposed to hunt Topols... and would have failed against Scuds.
and B-2 is faster then Tu-95 bear, its maximum speed is high subsonic 0,9 mach.
Actual cruise speeds would be the same at high altitude and at low altitude the Bear would be faster... same with the B-52.
Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.
You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.
A Metric radar detecting a B-2 will detect an F-22 or F-35 easily enough...
I'm not really following this thread, but if Pak Da is a new strategic bomber it's useless.
In the theatre role it will be a bomber... in the strategic role it will be a cruise missile carrier... 5,000km range Kh-101/102 missiles and long range hypersonic cruise missiles too.
There isn't lot of airfields where a B-2 can land if I'm correct. And they have just 21 of them (If pak Da is similar to it, Russia will produce 10 or so, not more) which can be targeted by submarine's cruise missiles.
They will likely make 100-150 PAK DA, which along with 60 odd Tu-160s will form their strategic bomber force replacing the Tu-95 in service in that role.
The US has 20 B-2s because they are so expensive and they are first strike bombers... OK to bomb the crap out of Libya or Syria or Serbia, but not much good against properly equipped countries like China or Russia.
They now realise to penetrate Russian airspace they need very high speed so their new bomber will be hypersonic... of course that will mean Russia will just raise their game too... most of their current SAMs can engage very high speed targets already.
Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.
Not true... you could guide a MiG-21 towards it and he could use his 23mm cannon...
The metric radar detecting the B-2 would easily detect any stealth fighters operating with it...
Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.
Who is talking about discarding it?
What we are talking about is misuse or obsolescence of stealth in certain applications... action reaction.
The US developed and built stealth bombers at great expense.
The Soviets and now the Russians have developed systems to counter stealth.
The enormous cost of stealth means the US has 20 modern capable strategic bombers and lots of old bits of crap bombers.
The Russians seem to be building a huge interlinked IADS system incorporating stealth fighters and soon stealth bombers and SAMs and other systems.
Present day stealth technology is not as effective against radars using VHF. This was actually discovered back in the early 1960s by the Soviets and was the main reasons the Soviets never developed a fully-fledged stealth programme. Ironically, the technical details of this Soviet study were published and were in the public domain. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the US translated the papers and realized the problem.
More accurately the Russian guy developed the maths to calculate RCS... the US had been building stealth aircraft but had been guessing and testing and guessing and testing. With the mathematical model and algorithms the Russian developed they were able to design for stealth rather than guess and test...
All the system needs to do is to place a active radar homing missiles close enough that its radar can detect the aircraft. This distance is probably proportional to the power of the radar on the missile.
Not just power but direction... a SAM like an S-400 or an R-37M being fired on a lofted trajectory and diving down on the B-2 from high altitude would see a plan form of the B-2 which would not be that stealthy at all most likely.
New hybrid seeker designs that combine active and passive radar and IIR sensors could completely negate Stealth.
Fit an IIR seeker to a very long range missile like an R-37M and it can be scanning from launch looking for IR signatures. An onboard digital library of 3D IR models could be used by the guidance system to detect and identify an IR signature of a 3D object viewed from any angle... unlike ARH which turns on at the last minute when it has approached the target intercept area an IIR seeker can passively look during the entire flight so any other target detected could become the primary target if it is perceived as a serious threat....
They could make a few extra PAK DAs and load them up with 40-50 R-37Ms with IIR seekers to launch ahead of a flight of bombers to clear the way of F-22s and F-35s...