Aircraft -> Home

Cette page en français

USAF secret aircraft:

B-2 stealth bomber:

The U.S. Air Force/Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is a strategic, long-range heavy bomber. Its low-observable stealth technology and all-altitude operational envelope gave it the capability to penetrate the most sophisticated air defenses.

After being developed under a blanket of secrecy, the high-tech B-2 Stealth bomber was unveiled at the Northrop company's manufacturing plant in Palmdale, California, on 22 November 1988. An audience of invited guests and journalists was kept well away from the plane that was designed to slip through enemy radar defenses without being detected and then drop up to 16 nuclear bombs on key targets.

Its first flight was July 17, 1989. The B-2 Combined Test Force located at Air Force Flight Test Center, part of Edwards Air Force Base, California, is responsible for the engineering, manufacturing and flight testing of the development aircraft as they are produced.

The prime contractor, responsible for overall system design and integration, is Northrop Grumman's Military Aircraft Systems Division. Boeing Military Airplanes Co., Hughes Radar Systems Group and General Electric Aircraft Engine Group are key members of the aircraft contractor team. Another major contractor, responsible for aircrew training devices (weapon system trainer and mission trainer) is Hughes Training Inc. (HTI) - Link Division, formerly known as CAE - Link Flight Simulation Corp. Northrop Grumman and its major subcontractor HTI, are responsible for developing and integrating all aircrew and maintenance training programs.

To help achieve radar invisibility, the bomber is coated with radar-absorbent paint on its leading edge. A similar technology is used underwater to foil sonar detection. Modern submarines are coated in a thick layer of a top-secret resin which is highly absorbent acoustically, and reflects only a minute amount of the energy transmitted by sonar detectors.

The B-2's low-observability means that it does not need an armada of support aircraft to accomplish a mission, and its large payload allows it to do the work of many smaller attack aircraft. The revolutionary blending of low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the B-2 important advantages over existing bombers. Its low-observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. The Air Force has published a representative mission scenario showing that two B-2's armed with precision weapons can do the job of a package of 75 conventional aircraft. Only four crew members are put at risk in this mission, compared to 132 in the conventional aircraft package.

The B-2's low-observability is derived from a combination of reduced infra-red, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."

The B-2 can fly more than 6,000 nautical miles unrefueled and more than 10,000 nautical miles with just one refueling, giving it the ability to fly to any point on the globe within hours.

Whiteman AFB, Missouri, is the B-2's only operational base. The first aircraft, Spirit of Missouri, was delivered on 17 December 1993. Depot maintenance responsibility for the B-2 is performed by Air Force contractor support and is managed at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.

Tests show that with its low observable characteristics, the B-2 is the most survivable aircraft in the world. Northrop Grumman Corporation, the prime contractor, produces the B-2 at facilities in Pico Rivera and Palmdale, California.

Antogravity and the B-2:

The legend:

(*) In reality this Colonel never said that publicly. It is only a claim by the infamous "Dr. Wolf" who said this Colonel told him that privately.

The facts:

The cost:

Its unit cost is currently estimated to range between 800 and 1300 million dollars, depending on the sources. The unit cost indicated by the US Air Force is "approximately 1157 million dollars (tax 1998 base)."

However, it is highly inappropriate to discuss the unit cost for the B-2 because of the small number built. It is reasonable to debate on the unit costs of the F-104 (2536 built), of the F-16 (3779 built), for example, but for the B-2 there are only 21 built, and it simply does not make any sense to argue that the B-2 has "something more" to it because of this unit cost. Actually, it has "something less:" the number of B-2 actually built; this implies that the equipment, infrastructures, logistics, training material etc generate unusually high costs per unit. Also very expensive: the maintenance of its radar waves absorbing surface, and all the costs of its updates.

See this as you would consider unit costs comparison between a car produced in large series and a car for which you would produce only 20 units...

The high costs of B-2 is due obviously to certain new characteristics which have necessitated new research in new directions, but these innovations do not relate to magnetohydrodynamics: they are its system of electronic flight control, a necessity due to the aerodynamically odd features of the aircraft whose shape is not conceived for piloting rationale but for avoidance of radar waves, which impacts negatively the aerodynamic requirements. The high costs are also due to R & D for the stealth concept such as the special paints, special jet exhausts etc.

Lastly, the 1200 million dollars B-2 unit cost is not even that shockingly high. Remember that the strategic supersonic bomber B-1 "Lancer" of which the B-2 was supposed to be the successor has a unit cost 2831 million dollars. The XB-70 Walkyrie had reached the billion dollar for each one of its two specimens. Let's not mention the SR-71, neither the CIA nor the US Air Force never dared to give the least indication about the spendings...

The cost of B-2 is not more exorbitant than that of other planes such as the B-1. It is expensive, but not so much so that that it necessarily implicates that it must benefit of a propulsion method other than that of other planes equally or more expensive and which are jets altogether.

Antigravity

In no case I do not support that a propulsion system acting directly by canceling the force of gravitation could not exist, or would be "forbidden by the laws of physics." I submit that it is plain silly to imagine that it cannot exist simply because we have not yet carried out yet such aeronautical prowess in the mere 80 years of aeronautic development we have. Also presumptuous and contradicted by the history of human inventions is the idea that our incapacity at one time to reach out a certain goal has anything to do with "laws of physics" which would be established once and for all, immutable and final. The laws of physics are certainly immutable, but we have certainly not a complete knowledge of them, and nobody should be naive enough as to think we have now listed and understood everything there is to understand.

However, just because something is not impossible does not make it an existing achievement; here, the "explanations" provided to a B-2 with antigravity are only copies of same "explanations" given by others in connection with alleged captured UFOs at Area 51. These explanations started essentially with a story by Bob Lazar, who claimed to have worked in a secret place on a recovered flying saucer. These explanations did not stand very well a close scrutiny by UFO researchers, and the least which one can say is that the story of Bob Lazar is far from having convinced the researchers who investigated on it.

It is not sufficient to say that element 115 is the secret of antigravitation; it is also not sufficient to say that this is "known since a certain time" by "technicians of the Black world." Such vague statements hardly have any value. There seems to be no evidence at all, not even eyewitness testimony of the alleged B-2 gravity control.

Finally I want to add that the magazine Jayne's Defense Weekly also published now and then articles by Nick Cook taking up the idea that B-2 would directly control gravity. You may want to read some indications on the nature of the "investigations" by Nick Cook ici.

B-2, Supersonic or subsonic:

The arguments:

The arguments for the theory that the B-2 is using magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) are essentially:

• Its cost is too high for a "normal" aircraft.
• A video footage shows the air being ionized by its MHD system.
• With engines on its upper surface, it becomes detectable by satellites.
• It is abnormal that such a costly aircraft really is unable to fly above the speed of sound.

The reality:

Its cost:

"The B-2 is too expensive to be a normal aircraft, so it must use MHD."

Actually:

Its unit cost is currently estimated to range between 800 and 1300 million dollars, depending on the sources. The unit cost indicated by the US Air Force is "approximately 1157 million dollars (tax 1998 base)."

However, it is highly inappropriate to discuss the unit cost for the B-2 because of the small number of units. It is reasonable to debate on the unit costs of the F-104 (2536 built), of the F-16 (3779 built), for example, but for the B-2 there are only 21 built, and it simply does not make any sense to argue that the B-2 has "something more" to it because of this unit cost. Actually, it has "something less:" the number of B-2 actually built; this implies that the equipment, infrastructures, logistics, training material etc generate unusually high costs per unit. Also very expensive: the maintenance of its radar waves absorbing surface, and all the costs of its updates.

See this as you would consider unit costs comparison between a car produced in large series and a car for which you would produce only 20 units...

The high costs of B-2 is due obviously to certain new characteristics which have necessitated new research in new directions, but these innovations do not relate to magnetohydrodynamics: they are its system of electronic flight control, a necessity due to the aerodynamically odd features of the aircraft whose shape is not conceived for piloting rationale but for avoidance of radar waves, which impacts negatively the aerodynamic requirements. The high costs are also due to R & D for the stealth concept such as the special paints, special jet exhausts etc.

Lastly, the 1200 million dollars B-2 unit cost is not even that shockingly high. Remember that the strategic supersonic bomber B-1 "Lancer" of which the B-2 was supposed to be the successor has a unit cost 2831 million dollars. The XB-70 Walkyrie had reached the billion dollar for each one of its two specimens. Let's not mention the SR-71, neither the CIA nor the US Air Force never dared to give the least indication about the spendings...

The cost of B-2 is not more exorbitant than that of other planes such as the B-1. It is expensive, but not so much so that that it necessarily implicates that it must benefit of a propulsion method other than that of other planes equally or more expensive and which are jets altogether.

The B-2 alleged MHD video.

"A video clip by its manufacturer shows its MHD propulsion at work: a glary fog surrounds it, and this is ionized air, and effect of MHD."

Actually:

The video is almost an advertising clip, freely downloadable on its manufacturer Northrop-Grumman web site, which does not fit very well the notion of a secret MHD propulsion system.

However this is not a main objection. The main objection is that what the video clip shows is not air ionized by MHD, it is the well-known phenomenon of cavitation when the plane flies through wet air (the video shows the B-2 at low altitude above the sea.) Admittedly, the cloud seems yellow, which one may want to interpret as a luminous, yellow plasma of ionized air. But:

...or... the color is just due to the setting sun.

It is important to note that in this video clip the aircraft precisely flies above water, the wet air strongly supporting the appearance of the cavitation phenomenon, and that the phenomenon appears as a sphere extending on the lower part and the top part of the aircraft while an MHS system should also ionize the air on the front of the aircraft where the shock wave of a supersonic flight would have to be fought.

Those who have some interest in aeronautics have seen this phenomenon quite often around all sorts of planes, also around the space shuttle. It is not at all a rare phenomenon; it is a frequent and known phenomenon.

Cavitation effect, F-18.

Cavitation effect, F-14.

A particularly interesting point here is that this phenomenon occurs when the plane is flying high subsonic speed, which is maximum speed for B-2. Some pilots even play with the phenomenon, the game is to accelerate and slow down around this speed limit for the pleasure of seeing the vapor cloud caused by cavitation move along the structure of the plane.

What may seem to be ionization of the air by MHD is a well-known effect which can be observed with other planes: it is called cavitation, it displays as a ball of vapor around the planes, particularly in wet air.

"If it used jet engines, even with the exhausts above the structure, undetectable of the ground, the satellites would locate it by its infra-red signature."

What really matters is to limit the infra-red signature below the aircraft, because it is this heat signature which interests ground to air missiles available en masse in many countries with which the United States could be in conflict. The B-2 being subsonic, the limitation of ground detectable signature is particularly welcome. Between the risks to be detected from the ground or from above, the choice is quickly made; these risks are lessened by placing the exhaust above the structure and by masking them as much as possible.

But essentially, if there were really a requirement to avoid the detection by satellites rather than to avoid detection by the ground to air missiles, that would not really provide a strong reason to conclude that B-2 would "consequently" use MHD propulsion.

It is because it is subsonic that it is particularly vulnerable to ground-to-air missiles; this is why th exhausts are above and not under the aircraft.

"An airplane of such a nature cannot possibly be subsonic."

One of the reasons given to estimate that the B-2 is supersonic is that for such an expensive, unconventional, strange, stunning plane, it is strange that it would be unable to fly faster.

Actually, the concept which governed its realization is that the plane must escape electronic detection; for that, the idea was to make it undetectable, a solution for survival in combat which is different that mere speed. The search for speed is one way of attempting combat survival, the stealthyness is another way. Both ways do not go along very well on the same plane. The requirements for stealth diminishes the suitability of the plane for speed.

The B-2 was at the beginning, at the time of the Cold war, foreseen as a strategic bomber ready to infiltrate on enemy territory without being detected by the radars. This was meant to be achieved by its particular shape, its low aspect ration, by its special radar wave absorbing paint, but obviously also by long low altitude flight, as radar perform poorly on low flying targets slipping between hills and mountains. The emphasis was put on low altitude flight between natural obstacles, not on high flying speed.

The US Air Force already had a supersonic solution for strategic bombing: the B-1. But it seemed obvious that B-1 even slipping by at Mach II was relatively vulnerable radar and anti-aircraft missiles during its long flight above a well defended ennemy territory. B-2 was thus a complementary concept: low altitude, indetectability instead of high speed.

What happens is that at low altitudes, there is almost not even any supersonic jet capable of supersonic speed; the air is too dense. The fast jets are supersonic at high altitude, or supersonic during dogfight with the enemy over short durations, but can certainly not fly for hours at low altitude at supersonic speed. It also uses too much kerosene, and a bomber is not a good tanker, it should carry bombs not fuel.

The Cold War is over, the B-2 is not anymore relevant as a strategic bomber; it is now actually used like tactical bomber: its advantage in this field is to be able to approach the tactical targets and bomb them with great precision, avoiding detection by the enemy radars. There is no necessity to be supersonic, even less to be hypersonic.

The B-2 concept was never based on speed; it rests entirely on the stealth features.

Some words on electro-aerodynamics:

In the above discussion, I give my arguments for the question "does the B-2 use magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) to get supersonic performances." I find this unlikely. But that does not imply at all that the US military have no interest in MHD.

As soon as 1960, Northrop was looking into it, i.e. to check if an ionization of the ambient air by a flying machine could have some interest, and he found out that it has. This field of research was dubbed "electroaerodynamic." This research was not classified, but it seems to not exist anymore now, which suggests that either it has become operational or feasible, or that it has been completely abandoned.

The 1960 experiments were only experiments using models in wind tunnel; there has been absolutely no operational aircraft. The principle was to saturate the nose of the model with negative electric charges, and to blow air at supersonic speed in the wind tunnel towards the fixed model. It was then actually noted that this drastically reduced the shock wave.

These experiments continue at least in the United States: 16 meters long wind tunnels, of a diameter of a few inches, air velocity up to Mach 25 allow testing of the effects of the ionization of models, as for example at the Polytechnic Institute Rensselaer, State of New York. It should however be well understood that the flying machines tested are small models of a few ten grams; that should not at all authorize fairy tales to explain 50 years of observations of UFOS as "secret MHD aircraft."

These results have been since 1960 the pure and simple confirmation of what the French physicist Jean-Pierre Petit proposed: good ionization of the air by a flying machine could almost completely eliminate the formation of a shock wave for aircraft flying at supersonic speeds, and thus, the argument suggesting that the reports of supersonic UFOS without sonic booms are "impossible, contrary to the law of physics" was not a good point any longer.

Jean Pierre Petit had thus cleverly solved this problem, not by calling upon some "technology yet to be invented" but indeed using a current, though certainly innovative concept, certainly a concept that may become ordinary over a few hundreds years to come and thus also possible on some more advanced planet. He goes without saying that if one admits a consideration that UFOS may sometimes be of extraterrestrial origin, one could also suggest that they regulate these non-problems of "impossibility according to the laws of physics" by other techniques of which we would not have the slightest notion. That seems even a requirement, insofar that in space there is no air to ionize whatsoever.

Unfortunately for Jean-Pierre Petit, it seems that this sort of ideas have a little too much "genius" to be acceptable in the military or civil French research.

In addition this suggests that the hyper-swift torpedoes or perhaps other underwater weapons mentioned by Jean Pierre Petit may really exist.

Concerning possible American flying machines inspired by reverse-engineering of recovered UFOs using the MHD as method of propulsion and not simply as shock wave reduction method, please refer to the work of Jean-Pierre Petit given in reference; the subject is vast and I want to limit this article to the B-2 discussion. Let me simply add simply that MHD as propulsion method makes sense only in an ionizable atmosphere, and that it could be a useful by-product of an unknown spaceflight technique using some unknown field of forces.

Of interest:

• www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_2_Spirit.html, USAF fact sheet on B-2 (removed).
• www.northgrum.com/tech_cd/is/is_b2_fact.html, fact sheet by Northrop Grumman
• "Physical Study of a Leading Edge Cavity Detachment", Dr Mohamed Farhat, Prof. François Avellan, Swiss National Fund, Project No 2100-063842.00/1 Period : 2001 - 2003.

In the mail:

Answer, 08.30.2003:

"we have just read, me and a friend, your file on B2 and we find your argumentations on the fact that this bomber supersonic is a little bit far out."

"first, you direct your argumentation as an attack against J.P Petit,"

No. I do not attack a person. I submit that on this video of a B-2 flight by Northrop-Grumman, the phenomenon is not the ionization of the air by MHD but cavitation. I think that you have much admiration for Jean-Pierre Petit, and that that makes you overreact with some emotion to any opinion different from those by Jean-Pierre Petit as if they were attacks of his person.

" which I find rather strange."

Frankly I see no strangeness there.

"then concerning this image from the video, it is clear that it clearly proves that B2 crossed the sound barrier at that moment. you forgot to show the beginning of the cavitation which goes along the entire craft. This phenomenon being to observe in 95 % of the cases at the time of the passage of the Mach."

No, that proves that B-2 is "high subsonic." Just like you wrote, just like I wrote, the phenomenon occurs at the time of reaching the sound barrier, and some pilots play with that.

Your argumentation does not say anything other else than mine: we see cavitation there, and not air ionized by MHD.

The remainder is hair splitting. For example, 1945 propeller driven Hawker Typhoons and Tempests also passed the sound barrier when diving. That does not make them MHD aircraft, nor supersonic planes.

B-2 may fly at Mach 1.05 or Mach 0.99, that is not so much the question. The question is that this phenomenon of cavitation was interpreted by many people (I do not speak here about Jean-Pierre Petit but about an idea) as proof that B-2 is

-using MHD for propulsion
-reaching hypersonic speed thanks to MHD

I repeat, hypersonic. It was not question of quibbles between Mach 0.95 and 1.1, but a claim that B-2 reaches Mach 5-6

The rest goes like this:

Would you claim that I disparage the person of Jean-Pierre Petit, when in my text I claimed that he has genius?

Would you claim that the phenomenon on the video is not cavitation but air ionized by MHD?

Would you claim that B-2 can reach speeds of, for example Mach 1.5, or hypersonic speed?

"you also say that B2 has its cost explained by the fact that research was directed towards its "furtivity", but one knows that the French trans-horizon radar as well as certain Russian radars perfectly follow the B2 flightpaths. One thus can consider that this investment is a failure?"

Yes. This investment is a failure in the sense that the French and the Russians have now developed radar that detect the B-2. The American made the error to rely on absence of progress of other countries in radar technologies. This said, the furtivity of B-2 remains a success in the sense that the countries which are in conflict with the US still do not have such radars. B-2 thus is "again" a success in the sense that countries which are now the enemies of America cannot counter the B-2 stealthiness, and that countries who can are no longer or never were enemies of America. This is why the B-2 became the bomber with the highest rate of survival of the history of aviation, which much relativizes the appreciation of it as "a failure," it seems to me.

"finally I would like to get your opinion on facts (that we find disconcerting). You undoubtedly know that Mr. Petit has retired this year, you will find the precise date on the website of Mr. Petit. And as by chance, less than two weeks after this date we observe in the specialized press (Air et Cosmos for example) that France launches out a great scale MHD project. astonishing, because this subject was always ridiculed when Mr. Petit made this research. we are curious to know your opinion on these facts!"

I gave an opinion to someone else or on a mailing list (I cannot remember); you are right to ask me about it and here it is:

In my opinion, the authors of the article in Air and Cosmos which you mention probably in all conscience "eliminated" Jean-Pierre Petit from the MHD picture they draw, and I suspect that this has to do with its interest in the question of the UFOs, a themes which the authors probably do not welcome. I am deeply shocked that they completely voided the pioneering role of Jean-Pierre Petit in the field of the MHD.

Other "secret aircraft" supposed to explain UFOs:

• Boeing "Bird of Prey".
• Horten flying wings.
• SNECMA Coléoptère.
• René Couzinet's French flying saucer.
• X-47A Pegasus.
• AURORA.
• A-17.
• S-4.
• The LoFlyte.
• U-2.
• F-117.
• X-15.
• Black helicopters.
• A-12.
• Nazi saucers according to Nick Cook.
• Nazi saucers according to Jean-Pierre Troadec.

Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home

This page was last updated on August 30, 2003.