I missed something along the way. The last I heard, the B2 prototype was (were) the only B2(s) built. I thought it was deemed too expensive. This was early 1990’s, I think, and obviously I heard nothing more since. [I guess that stealth idea really works! ;)] So, when did it go from a prototype to joining AF’s “fleet”?
Couple of years ago - there’s a whole wing of 'em at Whiteman AFB…not sure exactly how many, but you know how that is. http://www.whiteman.af.mil
As an aside…
The B-2’s used in Afghanistan fly roundtrip from Whiteman to make their raids. Hell of a long flight to drop their bombs.
Ok, I’ll bite…where’s Whiteman AFB located? And, why is this so? Do they need an extra-long runway?
I believe the base is in MO. Also, I heard a DoD spokesman say that there are 21 B2’s.
They fly from MO, refuel a couple of times, hit the target, then land at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The crews rest up, then they begin the long haul back.
At least that’s what the spokesman said.
Don’t have my sources handy, but as I recall, the B-2 can operate from just about any runway that can handle a 737, which is a relatively small jetliner.
Probably they fly out of Whiteman because that’s where all their support equipment is - some of the stuff is highly classified, and the security types don’t want it leaving the States. Also, I suspect it’s cheaper to fly the loooong route rather than move that equipment elsewhere, not to mention quicker. After all, if there’s only 21 (plus a few, I’d bet), there’s not much point in having large amounts of spare parts and such - leave it all in one place.
B-2’s need more than just a runway. They need fancy maintenance and storage provisions (climate controlled hangars as one of the issues, if I remember right) and in general have very strict care and feeding. Plus we’re not too eager about landing them in somebody else’s country anyway.
This ‘too expensive’ thing always gets me. At $2 billion apiece they are indeed enormously expensive but one has to ask why they cost $2 billion.
This figure was originally bandied about when the first prototypes rolled off the line. The company(s) that built the things had to recover ALL of their R&D expenses as well as tooling of manufacturing lines and what not on only a FEW planes. As a result the price tag on just one of these things goes through the roof.
However, like alomst anything else that is manufactured, you can get economies of scale as you build more. The more you build the lower the unit price on each plane can be as the costs of development and the need for profit can be spread much more widely.
Don’t get me wrong, these are still very expensive planes by any measure but as usual the people who want such projects cancelled manage to overstate the issues.
The rest of the posts are correct though (20 planes or so, non-stop to Afghanistan from MO with a layover in Diego Garcia before the return flight).
Lockeed Martin has offered to re-start the production line with an improved B2, unit cost *only[/] $500 million each for a batch of twenty. So far, the Air Force hasn’t bitten.
Lockeed Martin has offered to re-start the production line with an improved B2 (better electronics, etc.). Unit cost only $500 million each for a batch of twenty. So far, the Air Force hasn’t bitten.
Sorry about the double post.
still within the general confines of the OP’s question, I hope: the range, I read in the paper, is about 6,000 miles, obviously requiring some mid-air refueling, but making the trip non-stop. One showed up at the Chicago Air and Water show last summer, while my wife and I sat at a beach about 12 north of the main location. As we sat there, a large dark shadow suddenly loomed over the water. My wife ducked, thinking that it was a large bird that she had glanced out of the corner of her eye. I looked up to see the underside of a B-2 as it turned to make a pass over the grandstand 12 miles south. The point? The damn thing is not only stealthy because of its radar avoiding configuration, but it’s eerily quiet. We didn’t hear a thing. It’s spooky, man.
Here is an extensive and detailed article on the B-2 Bomber from the Air Force Association Magazine from October 1999. Although it focuses on the campagin in the Balkans, it includes answers to a lot of the questions about operational details that have been raised in this thread. There is another article with more details and images of the B-2 Bomber from AirForce-Technology.com. In answer to the OP:
B-2s need less runway than most aircraft in it’s weight class (I’m talking a full load of weapons and whatever fuel they’d normally launch with) because it’s just a wing, a big damned wing.
Another tidbit I found the other day (I forget the source) is the “trade name” for the B-2. You know; like the A-7 “Corsair” was more often referred to as the SLUF (Short Little Ugly F****), the A-10 “Thunderbolt II” is known as the “Warthog”. B-2 “Spirit” is fittingly referred to as the “Boomerang”.
[Off Topic]
I saw it too and I agree. In some profiles as it approached it was very quiet to the point of being silent (although in other profiles as it moved away I could hear it quite easily but it was still quieter than you’d expect from a plane that size).
At the Chicago Air & Water Show another time I saw a B-1 bomber and that thing rattled the fillings out of my teeth it was so freakin loud. However, it also was cool as hell considering your first thought was that it was a fighter jet till you realized just how mammoth that plane really is (the B-1 and B-2 both seem larger IRL than they do in their pictures but the B-1 is truly surprising in its size).
[/Off Topic]
I was told by a college professor (who is also a materials engineer) that the Air Force only has 21 B-2’s because they’re really not as stealthy as they’ve been hyped-up to be, and the Air Force decided that they just aren’t worth the money. This professor actually worked in R&D on the B-2’s radar-reflecting skin, so I’m inclined to take his word on the subject.
Diceman - I’m sure your professor knows his stuff, but some people have axes to grind and he sounds like one of them, because the facts don’t support his assertions.
Even if they are not as stealthy as predicted, they’re apparently stealthy enough. Overall, the B-2 has performed remarkably well. It’s only major maintenance requirement are the low-observable materials on the wing surfaces which don’t do well in wet weather. Even this problem was far less than expected and turn around time at forward bases is minimal.
That has turned out be a major maintenance headache. The stealth materials are extremely prone to blistering, due to the material’s tendency to absorb water which then vaporizes due to the heat generated by wind resistance. When the material blisters, its stealth properties are greatly curbed, making the plane much more vulnerable. This is very expensive to repair, which necessitated the construction of a special climate-controlled hanger for the B-2’s. The fact that they need special hangers means that the Air Force cannot forward-deploy B-2’s to trouble spots, and must fly the things half-way around the world and back for each and every mission. Between the huge maintanace costs, and the deployment problems they present, the Air Force decided that they don’t want any more B-2’s, even at a reduced price.
Remember that the B-2 was going to make B-1’s and B-52’s obsolete, and form the backbone of our bomber force in the 21st century. After testing them out, however, the Air Force seems content to give the B-2 the role of sidekick to the old workhorses. I think that says alot.
Sure it was Lockheed? We didnt build the original, and we dont generally build bombers(mainly fighters and cargo plains). Man, the retooling costs would be outrageous. The Fort Worth plant has the room, as it was originally designed for bomber production(they built B-24s, B-36s, and a couple of others there. The B-36s had to have the noses jacked up for the tail to clear the door(we have pictures up at work of these things lined up inside…truely impressive) I work there and I have not heard this. We are the Fighter Enterprise(as I am reminded by a bazillion signs all over the place).
Its funny, there is a big sign as I drive in the main gate that says “Our brand means quality”…Like we were building toaster ovens or something…
Northrop (now Northrop Grumman) designed and built the B-2 Spirit, using Lockeed’s stealth technology.
Why does the B-2 need so much special care when the F-117A does not? Don’t they use essentially the same technology and components?
Your question might be valid regarding the skin, Dr. Lao, but they really do not use “the same” technology. There are several features they share that are probably coomon to any stealth effort (no vertical tail, “protected” air intakes for the engines, etc.), but the F-117 attempts to defeat radar with a series of angular faces that scatter the radar waves away from the plane. The B-2 has that sort of feature on its engine air intakes, but otherwise uses a design to simply “pass through” the radar waves attempting to cause as little reflection as possible.