It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B2 Bomber Cost

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Excuse me if this has been posted before but I couldn't find anything.

Anyway, I was wondering why the B2 cost £2 billion each?

A friend of mine who was a Leuitenant Colonel in the US Air Force and flew Phantoms, F1-11's, Stealth Fighter (early 70's) said to me that he believed and heard that the B2 has got some kind of anti-gravity propulsion on it.

I know it sounds crazy but it would explain the ridiculous high cost and why they need air conditioned / temperature controlled hangars.

Does anybody know anything about this?

Surely it would be easy to get in touch with a B2 service engineer / ground crew as the B2 is nearly 20 years old now and is supposed to be replaced soon.

Please, somebody satisfy my curiosity!




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The unit cost may actually be higher IMHO.

The 2 billion per airframe takes into account the total development cost of the program. It was envisioned that the USAF would get 132 of the bombers and end the end only 21 were built.

The total cost of the program including development was about 44 billion en.wikipedia.org...

Thus the figure of 2 billion per airframe.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
thats an outlandish theory at best. theyre a plane with the most advanced technology we have to offer. the sensitive equipment needs to be kept at an optimum temperature (just like rooms full of computer servers and stuff are kept cool)

the high cost either comes from ensuring absolute secrecy or just the company trying to get every last cent out of the government. or a little of both. plus everything that all goes into it is damn expensive to start with.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
thats an outlandish theory at best. theyre a plane with the most advanced technology we have to offer. the sensitive equipment needs to be kept at an optimum temperature (just like rooms full of computer servers and stuff are kept cool



Yeah, but rooms full of computer servers "and stuff" are constantly running and constantly build up temperature because of this, I highly doubt the B2's are constantly running 24/7.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by born2BWild]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by born2BWild
 


I dont know about an anti-gravity propulsion system. Last night on Coast to coast AM George Knapp had Paul LaViolette on and he talked about. He claims the B2 is able to fly in space. He's also written a couple of books about it. It seems a little crazy to me though, with the number of people involved in maintenance and what not it would be difficult to keep secret.

As far as the climate controlled hangers go, it just makes sense. Rich people pay a lot of money to store their sports cars and planes in climate controlled storage. None of their toys come close to the $2 billion price tag of the B2.

In addition, a number of B2 are located in Kansas or Missouri, which have cold winters. These planes need to be 100% ready to go at anytime, waiting for them to warm up really isn't an option.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adamc3
 


I guess it sort of makes sense It's just seems like they don't care what they're playing as long as they keep the war machines ready to go.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by minkey53
 


A B-2 Bomber can be built for about $200 Million.
The remaining $1.8 Billion is being used build something else.
- Black Project -
Probably a scout class spacecraft that has a
Gravity Wave Caterpillar Drive system.
Think Star Trek!



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
There was an excellent B2 thread back in 04-06 which was what got me into ATS


In short, it is said that numerous ground discharge incidents killing servicemen have lead to speculation that it is not 'anti gravity' but partial antigravity. It uses an extremely high field charge to smooth airflow at the leading edge and trailing edge amongst other effects (limited anti grav is one alledged effect), causing fuel efficiency to reach approx 80-90% more than conventional aircraft. This is why they can stay aloft for so long. The leading edge is razor sharp for charge distribution reasons.

Secondly, a new communications guideline/specification was developed specifically for B2. This is probably due to high charge causing interferance. THey would need a faraday cage inside the bird to keep electronics and crew safe.


Here is the thread, it's probably everything you want to read about them in one place

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
The hanger issue is more related to the coatings / paint that helps the B-2 maintain its stealth.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Hi guys

Thank you all for responding to my question and answering my curiosity somewhat.

I am going to dig deeper into this with my US Air Force friend, he knows more than he is letting on, you can tell when you ask him things by the look on his face. But he is retired now and in his 60's so I can't see why he wouldn't talk! Maybe his huge pension might be at risk if he spills some beans?

If the electronics need to be kept at a certain temp, then surely flying at high altitude would cause problems as it could be minus 50 up there?

When my friend was at Mildenhall and Alconbury in the UK, he said the SR-71 would taxi straight into a hangar after landing to be kept from the public eye and that thing leaks everywhere from the airframe gaps when it's cold and not flying at Mach 3+.

The B2 needs to have an escort usually an F15 when it flies at airshows and not on missions. I think this might be in case one goes down and the F15 needs to make sure no wreckage is left for the public to salvage? The partial anti gravity drive as somebody put it would cause issues if it got into the wrong hands.

Any further thoughts would be much appreciated and I'll let you know what my friend says when I see him later this week. His name is Robert Brady by the way if there is anything online about him, please let me know. He said he flew out of Groom Lake in the early 70's among other places.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but the idea that the B-2 has any form of anti-gravity assistance is laughable in my opinion, especially considering some of the 'evidence' put forward to support those claims.

The fact of the matter is, as FredT has said in this thread already, the B-2 is expensive because the Department of Defence backed out of buying enough of a fleet to amortise the development cost across.



Originally posted by minkey53
Hi guys

Thank you all for responding to my question and answering my curiosity somewhat.

I am going to dig deeper into this with my US Air Force friend, he knows more than he is letting on, you can tell when you ask him things by the look on his face. But he is retired now and in his 60's so I can't see why he wouldn't talk! Maybe his huge pension might be at risk if he spills some beans?


Maybe he just honours the vow he took as a serviceman?



If the electronics need to be kept at a certain temp, then surely flying at high altitude would cause problems as it could be minus 50 up there?


The issue is not the electronics, its the airframe skin coating that is the issue - radar absorbing materials are complex and prone to quick degredation when kept in the wrong conditions. The B-2 spends a significant amount of time on the ground compared to in the air, and any degredation while in the air is simply taken as the cost of that mission.

So that is why the B-2 (and indeed the F-117 when it was in service) gets specialised hangers - it reduces the overall operating cost of the aircraft by reducing the amount of maintenance needed on the skin of the aircraft, which is a considerable portion of the ongoing maintenance costs of the aircraft (think of its size - at least with other components you can remove it and replace it with a spare, you can't do that with the actual skin of the aircraft).



When my friend was at Mildenhall and Alconbury in the UK, he said the SR-71 would taxi straight into a hangar after landing to be kept from the public eye and that thing leaks everywhere from the airframe gaps when it's cold and not flying at Mach 3+.


Yes, this is documented in several books by Col Richard Graham. They simply wanted to remove it from any photographic opportunities.

Nothing special there.



The B2 needs to have an escort usually an F15 when it flies at airshows and not on missions. I think this might be in case one goes down and the F15 needs to make sure no wreckage is left for the public to salvage? The partial anti gravity drive as somebody put it would cause issues if it got into the wrong hands.


The F-15 escort is nothing more than security theatre to increase the publics awe of the aircraft - 'oh look, it even needs to be protected while in the air at an airshow! wow, that must be very secret then!'

Invariably, the F-15s are locally based and do not accompany the aircraft on its entire trip - and they are unarmed. When the B-2 displayed at the Royal International Air Tattoo a few years back, the F-15s were from the UK and did not carry any stores at all.

At the end of the day, the B-2 is an aircraft that was designed for a specific purpose - advanced penetration of the Soviet Union with enhanced survivability. Then the USSR collapsed, and the need for a huge fleet of these aircraft went with it - there was no major non-allied air defence system in the world that could pose a significant threat to the USAFs existing operational capabilities.

The B-2 was designed for a role which was not publically spoken about because it wasn't really publically acceptable - it was a first strike weapon, something you could use to take out the enemies leadership.

Up to the 1990s, the plan of attack against the USSR was essentially two stage -

1. ICBMs to initiate the attack, damaging or destroying the opponents ability to react and defend themselves.

2. Bombers to continue the attack, causing as much damage and destruction to the opponent as possible.

Step 2 was only possible because step 1 took out much of the military infrastructure, including the air defence system. It wouldn't remove it completely, but it would increase the survivability of the bomber force until it reached its targets.

The B-2 was designed to introduce a step 0. Remove the opponents leadership and infrastructure but without the 10 to 45 minute warning that comes with ICBMs. Put the aircraft over the target, right through the existing air defence system without warning, hit the leadership, and then go to step 1 with the potential that no retaliatory strike would take place because there was no one to order it.

When the USSR collapsed and suddenly there was an air of friendship and reconciliation, the justification for such an expensive fleet of aircraft (see below on costs) went out the window - the emphasis became one of peace keeping and skirmish conflicts, a role which the current capabilities of the USAF could accomplish well.

The B-2 had an initial unit cost of around $740m, but the $2.1b figure comes from the amortisation of the total development costs across the entire procured fleet.

If the USAF had purchased its proposed fleet of 132, you would have ended up with a figure a lot less than $2.1b - because the development costs were amortised correctly.

Thats it folks, no secret, no wonderful technologies involved, just basic accounting and fulfilment of an operational requirement which disappeared with the cold war.

Thats also the reason the F-22 was touted as it was - it had no special requirements to be hangered or maintained specially, its stealth system was third generation and as such came with muchly reduced operational costs. You can sit the F-22 out in the rain and it will still be able to do its job effectively, but if you tried that with an F-117 or B-2, you would end up with an aircraft with a very large radar cross section.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
Stealth Fighter (early 70's)...


Have Blue didn't fly until December 1st 1977, and that was the first "stealth" plane specifically designed for the job.

The production F117 first flew in 1981.

So I'm interested in what your friend was flying?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
They cost 2 billion each because the tax payer is footing the bill.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
There was an excellent B2 thread back in 04-06 which was what got me into ATS


In short, it is said that numerous ground discharge incidents killing servicemen have lead to speculation that it is not 'anti gravity' but partial antigravity. It uses an extremely high field charge to smooth airflow at the leading edge and trailing edge amongst other effects (limited anti grav is one alledged effect), causing fuel efficiency to reach approx 80-90% more than conventional aircraft. This is why they can stay aloft for so long. The leading edge is razor sharp for charge distribution reasons.


I think this wiki page describes in detail just what your saying here..

Corona Discharge Effect

As the airframe design is inherently aerodynamically unstable owing to its shape, the Corona Discharge effect would reduce drag over the wing and body surfaces, enhancing lift and improving stability



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
There was an excellent B2 thread back in 04-06 which was what got me into ATS


In short, it is said that numerous ground discharge incidents killing servicemen have lead to speculation that it is not 'anti gravity' but partial antigravity. It uses an extremely high field charge to smooth airflow at the leading edge and trailing edge amongst other effects (limited anti grav is one alledged effect), causing fuel efficiency to reach approx 80-90% more than conventional aircraft. This is why they can stay aloft for so long. The leading edge is razor sharp for charge distribution reasons.

Secondly, a new communications guideline/specification was developed specifically for B2. This is probably due to high charge causing interferance. THey would need a faraday cage inside the bird to keep electronics and crew safe.


Here is the thread, it's probably everything you want to read about them in one place

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I heard the B 3 Stealth Bomber is HERE!
It has really cool bells and wistles.
It has a gravity wave cloak that bends the light around it.
It can be turned on with a switch.
Sounds like magic but it's just dual use technology.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
@minkey53

Most likely, the B2's are kept in air conditioned bays to preserve the effectiveness and lifespan of the radar absorbent material.

As far as anti gravity technology being the reason, I have heard 2 theories on anti gravity, one involves supercooled ferofluids, (Which would require cryogenic cooling) and the other is merely electromagnetic.

So it would stand to reason that air conditioning would be a good idea for quickness of deployment (as the B2's if the have the cryogenic antigrav would not store the fluid onboard) since any extra heat from the chasis would reduce the effectiveness of the cryo system.

@adamc3

Most likely, unless the B2 has some form of thrustless propulsion mechanism (Zero Gravity) it would not be able to fly in space, as conventional reentry velocity would melt the anti-radar coating in seconds, and blow up the craft.

Unless the craft can slow its reentry (with some form of gravatic brakeing mechanism) then it would not be able to survive reentry

-Edrick



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I think it's electrostatic....not electromagnetic.
There is a relationship between electrostatic energy and gravity.
Check out dielectric plates - Townsend Brown



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Edrick
 


I think it's electrostatic....not electromagnetic.


Yes, I agree that the system that may be on the B2 is probly electrostatic... I was however referring to the different types of AntiGrav I have heard of... this one is new to me.


There is a relationship between electrostatic energy and gravity.
Check out dielectric plates - Townsend Brown


Yes, and also check out the Casimir effect, it is interesting in its expression of force as caused by local EM pressure.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I was talking to a physicist friend one day who pointed out some "changes" from the early photographs of the B2 and later photographs.

It truly did indicate that the leading edge of the B2 had been somehow altered. I asked why?

He indicated that if you put a very high electromagnetic charge on the leading edge of an aircraft, with the negative on the trailing edge, the aircraft will literally "pull" itself through the atmosphere.

He went on to try to explain the physics involved, and suggested that the very high voltage EM field on the leading edge of any aircraft would alter the local spacetime, and even enable other aircraft to do amazing things.

But as for the B2, it would greatly enhance its range from this "pulling" effect, with the trailing edge providing the negative, which would do a bit of pushing.

Some very odd things happen at very high voltages that preclude the current laws of physics as they are currently written, taught, and "known."

I don't believe it would pull out of the atmosphere, but there may be some truth to the leading edge being induced with ultra high voltage.

It certainly would explain some of the anomalies that have been reported.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
bad link! now fixed.

[edit on 24/6/2009 by stealthyaroura]
suposed scamatic of the B2's electrogavatics

[edit on 24/6/2009 by stealthyaroura]




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join