• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

B-2 Electrogravitics & Other stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
Website
www.military-power.net
Disclaimer:
As anyone familiar with my Laternentrager thread is probably aware, I have some fairly strange theories. Also, from the Laternentrager post, I am aware that several of you feel one of my sources, Nick Cook, is not a reliable source, even though he has been associated with Jane's Defense Weekly for a number of years as Aviation Editor and currently as Aerospace Consultant, has won four writing awards from the Royal Aeronautical Society, is widely regarded as an expert on military "black projects", and adopts a non-judgmental stance when interviewing subjects who clearly believe in UFOs, alien contact, conspiracy theories, and other unusual phenomena and as a result, cannot be classified as either a skeptic or a believer. Clearly some people find him a reputable source, and I am one of them, weather that is good or bad. Individually it tends to be easily dismissed as coincidence, but taken together it actually (in my opinion) holds water, little as it may be. I am in no way stating this is irrefutable proof, nor that it is a complete and exhaustive amount of research, I have barely scratched the surface, and freely admit that, so take my research however you will.
End Disclaimer


B-2, Electrostatically Charged:
Antigravity? Electrogravitics?
Maybe... Maybe not; but one thing that I do believe concerning the B-2 is that the leading edges are indeed charged with high voltage, and quite possibly the trailing edges or the exhaust as well. I've read it in authoritative aviation publications.

Sure, the military & defense industry provided the news media/general public with some information about the craft's outward design, and low radar and infrared profile, but there is much they continue to be silent about.

Some key secrets about the B-2 were leaked to the press in the March 9, 1992 "Aviation Week and Space Technology" magazine, in this issue it was reported that the B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its wing-like body. Jane's Defense Weekly and other reputable publications also picked up on this and many field related academicians, intrigued laymen, industry professionals and conspiracy theorists alike began to hypothesize why this was done.

Some Research:
Misinformation from development engineer to Jane's DW editor:
Nick Cook, aviation editor for Jane's Defense Weekly caught a Northrop B-2 development engineer in a deception (lie) the engineer apparently told Mr. Cook in an interview that the B-2 could not have electrostatically charged skin, because it would turn the airplane into a giant lightning conductor eluding that this would fry all the assets onboard. This was misinformation as the Jane's Defense Weekly aviation editor pointed out, the internals of the B-2 are actually housed in a "Faraday Cage", in other words, it doesn't matter how much electricity you pump across the skin, leading edges, etc, the inside of the plane remains insulated from the outside current.

The other argument that the engineer gave is also very badly flawed. He stated that all aircraft have small wire aerials on their wingtips to discharge the static electricity the build up as they move through the air (this much is true) and that adding to the static buildup with man-made charges would be very risky since there would not be a way to discharge it quickly enough. That would be correct if the B-2 was designed like most aircraft, but with it's sawtooth trailing edge it, in effect, has 7 wingtips from which to discharge the buildup. The B-2 can effectively discharge static buildup 3.5 times faster than a conventional aircraft.

Also, I ran across a report called ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS: An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control. http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE24.html

This, http://www.seaspower.com/Movingbeyond-LaViolette.htm is interesting as well.

Northrop's Wind Tunnel Tests. In 1968, engineers at the Northrop Corp. performed wind tunnel tests in which they charged the leading edge of a wing to a high voltage. They were investigating how this technique could be used beneficially to soften the sonic boom of aircraft. Hence they were performing large scale tests on Brown's electrogravitic concept. Brown's R&D company had previously made known that sonic boom softening would be a beneficial side effect of this electrogravitic propulsion technique. Interestingly, Northrop later became the prime contractor for the B-2 bomber.


Taking that information I decided that it might be easier to determine if those tests existed and what the results were that to determine if the B-2 was using the "electrogravitic drive". I found this site, http://www.setv.org/online_mss/lafl-osr.html which states:

Northrop officials concede that communications problems would arise in a charged aircraft, but pointed out that a solution might be found in the method used to maintain communication through the plasma sheath of a spacecraft during re-entry.

That reminded me of a previous site that I encountered, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-upgrades.htm, which talks about upgrades to the B-2, including the following:

DoD requires survivable communications media for command and control of nuclear forces. To satisfy the requirement, the Air Force plans to deploy an advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite communications constellation. This constellation will provide a survivable, high capability communication system. Based on favorable results from a funded risk reduction study, the B-2 will integrate an EHF communication capability satisfying connectivity requirements.

This leeds to the thought that currently the B-2 does not satisfy this requirement. Why would it not? Unless it is surrounded in an electromagnetic bubble which would break up communications just as it would radar.

Another thing that interested me in my research is the engines that are supposedly used on the B-2. The engines used on the B-2 are supposedly GE-F118 turbofan engines, and according to GE's Webpage, http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f118/index.html, on the engine, , it is also used on the U-2. The fact that those two aircraft are the only ones to use that engine strikes me as odd. I don't find it odd that there are only two aircraft that use the engine, as there are some engines specifically designed for only one aircraft. What strikes me as odd is that, the two aircraft have entirely different roles. If you look through the other engines you will see that, for the most part, the aircraft that use the same engines are very similar to each other. That isn't anything conclusive, but I did find it to be quite interesting.


A little history:
In 1968 Northrop submitted a paper to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics entitled "Electro-Aerodynamics in Supersonic Flow". The thrust (pun intended) of the paper had to do with drag reduction and cutting heat friction and fuel burn. It was also noted in this paper that plasma surrounding an aircraft actually reduces it's radar cross section.
This is a dual-purpose technology that Northrop, the designer and manufacturer of the B-2 has known of for well over a quarter of a century.
The Russians too caught onto this and now the internet is filled with web sites touting Russia's "Plasma Stealth Technology" as the latest and greatest thing... and yet it is technology that Northrop had back in 1968.

Moving forward in history we come to the time that the Advanced Technology Bomber (B-2) was being developed, with Northrop winning the contract over Lockheed's Skunkworks...That in itself is pretty amazing actually.
So perhaps, (and this is just as "perhaps"), Northrop won out over Lockheed based on their knowledge and continuing progress in electrically reduced radar cross section & electro-aerodynamics simultaneously.

A Few Considerations:
So, IF the various reports are indeed true about the B-2 charging it's leading edges, could it be that this grossly underpowered (theoretically based on information on aircraft aerodynamics, engine thrust, and max weight, which tend to be diffrent from source to source), 325-375,000 lb flying wing utilizes this charge for a duality of functions.

1. What is also clear by the nature and implications of Northrop's 1968 research paper, is that the electrostatic field could actually provide a significant parallel reduction in drag and a concomitant improvement in lift - even to a sub-sonic vehicle.

2. A benefit that piggybacks on the electroaerodynamics and yet is an integral part of the B-2 equation; a form of electrically charged stealth, whether it be Plasma or some alternative electrostatic form of reduction of radar cross-section.

Electro-Aerodynamics instead of Electrogravitics, some form of Electro-static stealth perhaps plasma stealth... and it all stems from Northrop's research paper "Electro-Aerodynamics in Supersonic Flow" written back in 1968. The B-2, I believe, is the embodiment of that research.

Just some images to consider as well.
b2.jpg

b2-0.jpg

The effect that I hear almost every time regarding these two pictures is the same effect that you see around jets as they are breaking the sound barrier, which I do not believe these pictures depict.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,126
Reaction score
1,660
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
KnightTemplar said:
Just some images to consider as well.
b2.jpg

b2-0.jpg

The effect that I hear almost every time regarding these two pictures is the same effect that you see around jets as they are breaking the sound barrier, which I do not believe these pictures depict.

The jets aren't breaking the sound barrier. But they're going fast enough that air going over the tops of the wings undergoes an extremely rapid drop in pressure, thus causing the humidity in that air to momentarily condense out. Nothing strange, unusual or electrostatic about it. I see it all the time when flying on commercial airlines... often enough just on takeoff. Weather's right, and the air flowing over the wings will go hazy like this.
 

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
Website
www.military-power.net
Orionblamblam said:
The jets aren't breaking the sound barrier. But they're going fast enough that air going over the tops of the wings undergoes an extremely rapid drop in pressure, thus causing the humidity in that air to momentarily condense out. Nothing strange, unusual or electrostatic about it. I see it all the time when flying on commercial airlines... often enough just on takeoff. Weather's right, and the air flowing over the wings will go hazy like this.

I could possibly see that in the first one, being over the ocean and all, but not so sure how much humidity there is in the desert. Do you have a name for this phenomenon? I have heard it before, I just don't remember it.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,126
Reaction score
1,660
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
KnightTemplar said:
I could possibly see that in the first one, being over the ocean and all, but not so sure how much humidity there is in the desert.

Look in the background: clouds.

There is some level of humidity *everywhere,* even the desert. But note the magnitude of the difference between the two photos... clearly, a much bigger phenomenon occuring over the ocean.

Do you have a name for this phenomenon?

I call it "Deathstorm the Doombringer." But other people call it a "Prandtl-Glauert singularity," especially when the aircraft is truly transonic or close to it. At lower speeds, when the effect is much less impressive, it's generally just called a "condensation cloud."

Note that the Canberra was unlikey to ever go supersonic, nor did it ever have neato electromagneticamahoogical devices built into it.

riat1.jpg


Sometimes the explanations *really* *are* mundane.
 

Attachments

  • critter201.jpg
    critter201.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 108

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
109
Website
theavgeeks.com
I've been seeing those on American Airlines' MD-80s as they make their final into DFW on the many humid rainy days we have here. I'd always suspected they were up to no good with their graviton repulsor beams and inverse tachyon fields. Hmmmph! And all the luddites around here complain about jet noise! There's bigger things to worry about with those sneaky McDonnell Douglas jets!
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,126
Reaction score
1,660
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Sentinel Chicken said:
I've been seeing those on American Airlines' MD-80s as they make their final into DFW on the many humid rainy days we have here.

In those cases, what you're dealing with are ghosts of DC-3s (Douglas products, you know) transbilocatomorgrifying above the MD-80's wings, a skill they learned from the Ascended Masters of Atlantis after having been blasted into the Phantom Zone by Nazi Zoooby Beams operated by Rasputin, and returned to our spiritual plane to serve as the private transports of the Holy Half-Dead Elvis. It's all pretty obvious when you think about it.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
885
Reaction score
441
KnightTemplar said:
Do you have a name for this phenomenon? I have heard it before, I just don't remember it.

Condensation.

For anyone who remembers their thermodynamics, the pressure diminution caused by the mobile pushes the air-vapour mixture over the 'dew point'. The result is condensation.

For a refresher in thermodynamics, one can start at places like the excellent Georgia SU site:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/ktcon.html#c1
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
234
KnightTemplar, having been intimately involved in the design of the B-2 from late-1982 to early-1989 (I'm intimately familiar with AV1, especially), I can unequivocally state that there are no electrically-charged systems, such as you mention, on the aircraft.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
Evan, you should realise that denials from a member of the military-industrial complex only reveals the truth of the allegation.

If you've seen Monty Python's Life of Brian...

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
885
Reaction score
441
Evan, you've done it!!!

Now we have proof positive that there is a conspiracy and something to hide.
The engineers who worked on it categorically denying it, that is the ultimate proof if there ever was one.


(Don't I have the style and the way of thinking almost worked out?) :D
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
234
I see that Occam's Razor clearly is not being used here. Oye!!!!
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,153
Reaction score
1,297
As I remember, this stuff was discussed in Bill Gunston's article in Air International ca.2000
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/ai014.htm
As Gunston writes, though, "...In any case, it all seemed a bit farfetched"
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
Arrrggghhhh!

I've been in-advertently credited as starting a topic about B2-electrogravitics! In the words of the great Shaggy..."It wasn't me"!

Serves me right really

For the record, I don't believe the B-2 uses electrogravitics, this topic was part of a previous thread about B-2 IR stealth being sold to China, and things got a little weird


Playing devils advocate here

It's also possible that the technology (Aviation week march 1992, charged leading edges, northrop drag reduction patents... NOT electrogravitics!) proved sucessful a long time ago and as such has been classified ever since. You wouldn't want to risk losing your most advanced technologies over enemy soil, to keep your secrets you'd have to bomb the crash site and surrounding area "back to the stone age". ;)

The precedent here is the choice of the F111 over the F117 for a little trip to Libya in 1986
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,153
Reaction score
1,297
havent heard from Schratt recently?
fun, fun!
 

Attachments

  • SchrattB2Electrostatic1.jpg
    SchrattB2Electrostatic1.jpg
    122.3 KB · Views: 236
  • SchrattB2ElectroProfile2.jpg
    SchrattB2ElectroProfile2.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 196

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
They cost 2.2Bn each... What more do you need to know? :-\

And of course the maintenance and hangaring requirements are... stringent.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
170
Catalytic said:
Playing devils advocate here

It's also possible that the technology proved sucessful a long time ago and as such has been classified ever since. You wouldn't want to risk losing your most advanced technologies over enemy soil, to keep your secrets you'd have to bomb the crash site and surrounding area "back to the stone age". ;)

The precedent here is the choice of the F111 over the F117 for a little trip to Libya in 1986

There were a number of reasons the F-111 was used over the F-117.

First, USAF wanted to be a player, the Navy had been getting all the publicity. The only plane they had available with the payload, range and survivability was the F-111. Second, and not to be overlooked, the F-117 was not fully operational having only had its first flight less than five years before. Third, the attack was not intended to be stealthy but to be massive, so why bother sending a plane that could only carry two bombs?
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
Whoa!

My devils advocacy has belatedly caught some interest ;D

Firstly, with regards to electro-foolery on the B-2, I think the most telling post regarding this matter came from Quellish, if there is any truth to the charged leading edges legend these certainly aren't being maintained at Whiteman...... ergo, they don't exist.

Before this thread turns into a sticky stealth blimp style affair I'd like to state that my initial posts in this thread were driven by some of Gowadia's comments at his trial. I have heard it claimed that Gowadia suffers from a god complex, however this didn't seem to be taken into consideration when he was found guilty so maybe this was a defense lawyers trick that failed? Irrespective, his claims that he was asked to design the B-2s propulsion, from the leading edge of the aircraft to the trailing edge are extraordinary. "This entire geometry came from me" stated Gowadia, this does not fit with any book I have read on the B-2's development. Sweetman's section of Black Jet's is replete with B-2 name dropping.... Gowadia's is not there. If I were his defense lawyer I would have used this as evidence that my client "rejects our reality and substitutes his own" unless,..... he's telling the truth and Northrop's B-2 development history shows that he really was that important and that his IR reduction methodologies actually drove the geometry of the B-2. (I have heard other, more plausible reasons for the late changes in the B2 planform)

Whilst entertaining the idea that there was something to that Av Week story 18 years ago, at least 3 possibilities cling tenuously to mainstream science...... Anti-gravity is not one of them and I'm surprised it was you Flateric who raised this phantom :eek: No doubt we have all heard plasma stealth OR drag reduction / boundary layer control as potential explanations for the alledged application of a charged leading edge. But what does this have to do with IR stealth (I suppose reduced drag might allow you to run the engines throttled back and hence colder)? The third possibility I present here for target practise.... Jet exhaust gasses having undergone partial combustion could be considered as partially ionised, Would neutralisation of this positive charge by electrons result in an endothermic process? (I'll look into this more unless someone beats me to it). Basically I'm suggesting the neutralisation of the exhaust gases charge may lower the temperature of the jet exhaust. This would fit with IR reduction, however to generate the amounts of electrons required to significantly lower the exhaust temps might place restrictions on airframe design, materials and construction, the rest we have heard before but spiced up with antigravity... blah de blah.... saw tooth trailing edges dump electrical charge..... doo de doo.... weird leading edge profile and "bird beak" channel positively charged air under the wing and not over so it won't enter the engine intakes.... dee de dee..... positive charge is actually an unwanted side effect of massive amounts of electrons being generated, the positive charge is just a consequence of stripping electrons from the air via the leading edges.

Once again I'll point out, the best evidence would indicate that there is no electro-nonsense of any kind on the B-2 (although the Kempster A device on the blackbird is an interesting if unsuccessful precedent).

However, I just can't resist devils advocacy so here's a belter..... ::)
Just finished reading "Skunk Works" by Ben R Rich and Leo Janos AGAIN! Something in chapter 16 "Drawing the right conclusions" has never sat comfortably with me and I've only just put my finger on it.

Ben Rich writes
New advanced-technology airplanes are budget breakers. The B-2 bomber, at more than $2 billion a copy proves that point. but we need stealthy long-range bombers like B-2's, which can fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours and drop a payload of forty conventional bombs.

"forty conventional bombs" well that easily fits the B-2's performance characteristics. "Fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours".... To go anywhere in the world means to be able to fly halfway around the world.To fly half way around the world is greater than 12,000 miles.....
Drawing the wrong conclusions here???? ;D

With regards to 117 not being used in Libya, range arguments are a fair point although in flight refuelling could have been done, as for putting on a show, well F117's still had a key role in more recent shock and awe campaigns. I believe the argument about risking leading edge technology still has some validity, see the recent speculation as to why some of the features on the RQ-170 sentinel appear antiquated (inlet grills etc).

As I've said elsewhere it's a fun topic and we'll find out if there is any truth to this.... in say, 50 years?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
170
Catalytic said:
Whoa!

My devils advocacy has belatedly caught some interest ;D

<snip>

With regards to 117 not being used in Libya, range arguments are a fair point although in flight refuelling could have been done, as for putting on a show, well F117's still had a key role in more recent shock and awe campaigns. I believe the argument about risking leading edge technology still has some validity, see the recent speculation as to why some of the features on the RQ-170 sentinel appear antiquated (inlet grills etc).

As I've said elsewhere it's a fun topic and we'll find out if ther is any truth to this.... in say, 50 years?

Staying just with your last paragraph...Even if the F-117 had been operational there was nothing it could do, in the context of El Dorado Canyon, that the F-111 couldn't do better, so why bother?
 

doggedman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
54
Reaction score
9
Nosh, in fact, had little to do with the overall planform of the B-2. Mark Markarian was the one who layed out the initial configuration. Irv Waalund also had a great deal to do with the overall design. It was Hans Grellman who designed the inlet. I can name others, but it seems irrelevant. Nosh, may have provided some refinements to the B-2 design, but in my view, his claims indicate to me that he should have been convicted of purjury.
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
F-14D said:
Staying just with your last paragraph...Even if the F-117 had been operational there was nothing it could do, in the context of El Dorado Canyon, that the F-111 couldn't do better, so why bother?

I see, so in the context of that particular mission your saying that the F111 was the superior aircraft due to payload and range?

Damn, I'm such a sucker for marketing! I fell for the "silver bullet" combo of McStealth and Laser guided fries.....

F111 also available with large laser guided fries!
 

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
Catalytic said:
"Fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours".... To go anywhere in the world means to be able to fly halfway around the world.To fly half way around the world is greater than 12,000 miles.....

You're assuming CONUS takeoffs only - there's B2 hangars at at least 3 other locations around the world.

Having a Mach 3+ FL1000 strategic bomber that everyone thinks is a subsonic platform optimised for low level penetration has always struck me as a bit of a bargain way to have black aircraft right out in the open though. :D

Always leave 'em wanting more..
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
Gridlock said:
Catalytic said:
"Fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours".... To go anywhere in the world means to be able to fly halfway around the world.To fly half way around the world is greater than 12,000 miles.....

You're assuming CONUS takeoffs only - there's B2 hangars at at least 3 other locations around the world.

Having a Mach 3+ FL1000 strategic bomber that everyone thinks is a subsonic platform optimised for low level penetration has always struck me as a bit of a bargain way to have black aircraft right out in the open though. :D

Always leave 'em wanting more..

Devils advocate! (I don't really believe the B2 can fly at 1000 mph) and a its fair point about the assumption of CONUS only staging but I'll repeat the quote.

"New advanced-technology airplanes are budget breakers. The B-2 bomber, at more than $2 billion a copy proves that point. but we need stealthy long-range bombers like B-2's, which can fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours and drop a payload of forty conventional bombs".

At face value the implication is 12,000 miles in 12 hours, there is no explicit caviat of forward staging. This is just a word game though, I'm not trying to defend incredible claims here, just having fun.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,195
Reaction score
252
F-14D said:
Staying just with your last paragraph...Even if the F-117 had been operational there was nothing it could do, in the context of El Dorado Canyon, that the F-111 couldn't do better, so why bother?

The original thinking at the time was that they could use a smaller package, hitting fewer aimpoints, with greater precision. At the time there were 2 squadrons of F-117s operational. Unfortunately, the rest of the Air Force had never worked with the F-117s before, and that was one of the reasons it was not pulled off that way - and became the major justification for making the F-117 public years later.
An operational weapon is no good to anyone if it does not play well with others. At the time the F-117 was too secret to be useful.
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
quellish said:
Unfortunately, the rest of the Air Force had never worked with the F-117s before, and that was one of the reasons it was not pulled off that way - and became the major justification for making the F-117 public years later.
An operational weapon is no good to anyone if it does not play well with others. At the time the F-117 was too secret to be useful.

That's an interesting thought..... at a time when the most pertinent threats to global security are not nation states why would highy advanced technologies be made public (prompt global strike aside). It would be foolish to show your hand just to re-arrange piles of rubble in central asia.

I guess if, in years to come, new capabilites emerge out of the black we might be on the count down to the seemingly inevitable resource stand off with China.... put like that I don't want to know what, if anything, lurks behind the green door.... maybe it would be better to spend the money elsewhere
 

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
Catalytic said:
I guess if, in years to come, new capabilites emerge out of the black we might be on the count down to the seemingly inevitable resource stand off with China....

Heh, guess where the world's largest reserves of all sorts of interesting stuff, including lithium (batteries) reside? Give you a clue, Cheney's "Energy Task Force" wasn't just looking at pipelines... It begins with A... You invaded it in 2002... ;)
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
Yup

Coincidentally "It begins with A" also shares borders with Iran and China. Nasa's wb-57 have been active in that area, quite how mapping resources helps fight an insurgency I'm unsure, ..... don't expect Nato involvment to end soon (unless things don't go to plan).
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
940
Reaction score
404
Probably at least "semi-OT" but...

There have been several recent articles and discussions of the ongoing resource hunt(s) in Afghanistan, the majority of which point to using said resource maps to help fund/recover/build a national economy which Afghanistan currently (and historically actually) has been lacking. While the US is at the forefront of pushing the resource survey and leading education efforts to grow a "homegrown" Afghanistan corps of mineralogist/geologists in better position to exploit the surveyed resources the major "beneficiary" so far seems to be China which has already brokered several deals with the Afghan-government including several large infrastructure-building programs.

Cheney-etc were never TRUELY interested in Afghanistan either commercially or militarily as evidenced by the lack of development of both prior to and during operations against Iraq. Iraq, not Afghanistan was always the target/goal for Middle-East operations both prior to and after 9/11. Afghanistan (specifically the Taliban government) made itself a "target" by openly harboring and supporting Al-Quiada's(sp? I keep seeing different versions) attack on the US, but Afghanistan has never had any "intrinsic" value as a conquered territory. Iraq had been and was always considered the "key" to the Middle-East by the majority of what became the Administration under President W.G. Bush as evidenced by the names attached to a "white-paper" which outlined how the Middle-East could be stabilized and pacified by replacement of the Saddam-government with a "stable-friendly democracy" which was proposed to allow the spread of democracy and freedom throughout the region. Afghanistan was not even considered at all as a possible target of regime change despite the Taliban's human rights violations, active support of terrorism, and general contributions to regional instability.

The general (so it seems at any rate) belief that Afghanistan was or is somehow an integral part of US Middle-East policy, with some secret agenda by "highly-placed" government sources out to extract its mineral wealth and/or location (pipeline) is fairly obviously lacking in any factual support. The very fact that total US policy was and has been centered around Iraq with little or no effort to actively stabilize or support a "freed" Afghanistan until very recently is totally at odds with the "logic" given to support such a belief.

Randy
 

Gridlock

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
5
RanulfC said:
Afghanistan (specifically the Taliban government) made itself a "target" by openly harboring and supporting Al-Quiada's(sp? I keep seeing different versions) attack on the US

The Taliban condemned the attacks and promised to hand over UBL given evidence of his guilt, or at least complicity. So your fantasy version of reality falls apart fairly early on I'm afraid. Read more. Think more.
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
940
Reaction score
404
Gridlock said:
RanulfC said:
Afghanistan (specifically the Taliban government) made itself a "target" by openly harboring and supporting Al-Quiada's(sp? I keep seeing different versions) attack on the US

The Taliban condemned the attacks and promised to hand over UBL given evidence of his guilt, or at least complicity. So your fantasy version of reality falls apart fairly early on I'm afraid. Read more. Think more.
I DID read, pretty much everything that came out of the Taliban after 9/11 up until the first airstrike was daring the US to do anything about UBL being under their protection. The only 'offer' I ever heard of to turn UBL over to anyone was an 'unofficial' offer to have the UN mediate a cease-fire to "allow" the US to present evidence before the UN. Since the Taliban had never pursued membership in the UN, nor was a "recognized" government by the UN this was never a possiblity nor a serious offer.
If you'd like to provide link showing different....

Regardless, though the lack of any planning about post-victory Afghanistan is quite evident as is the lack of action on development and commercial development. (How far has that "pipline" gotten now anyway?) The "reality" of the idea that the entire US invasion of Afghanistan was for commercial profit has never held together under any serious examination. If you truly think "I" should "read-more/think-more" you perhaps might wish to do the same.

Randy
 
C

Catalytic

Guest
Does anyone know how I can get a copy of the infamous March 1992 AWST article that has been referenced in this topic? I seem to have misplaced mine

Thanks!
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
940
Reaction score
404
Catalytic said:
Does anyone know how I can get a copy of the infamous March 1992 AWST article that has been referenced in this topic? I seem to have misplaced mine

Thanks!
No copy but a quick search of some of these sites might get actual quotes from the article:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=B2+aviation+week+and+space+technology%2C+march+1992&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

(Then again, maybe not :)

Randy
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
940
Reaction score
404
Sorry, sent that one before I was actually finished...

In regards to the actual "technology" being still classified it's QUITE possible but given the obvious ability to gather the pertinent information from non-classified sources (patents, articles, papers, etc) it is ALSO quite possible that while the "technology" is possible it is the actual application that is still classified. No you don't want the technology to get out simply because if someone fools around with it long enough they eventually WILL stumble across the method to get the technology to work, yet you can't back-track and cover up all the work that lead you to an operational system.

Cover-up, obsfucation, dead-ends, and dozens of other methods have a long history in helping keep military secrets secret for as long as possible. But in the end you have to be realistic enough to know that the longer a system is operational the sooner someone is going to figure out HOW you did it and how to counter it.

If the B-2 uses some sort of "drag-reduction" technology then for sure there are other nations, companies and individuals looking at data that will point them eventually in the direction of the technology. It's inevitable and certain, you can't stop it you can only delay it and you can only delay it for so long unless it is really esoteric science or whole in-obvious that was just stumbled upon.

Given the amount of "electro-gravitics" research going on around the world if there truely IS a method of generating anti-gravity through electrical fields it will be found quite soon. However if the ACTUAL result is simply drag reduction on convertional powered aircraft, then the amount of "electro-gravitic" research going on is actually going to HINDER the general discover of that application because that isn't a 'result' that the people doing the research are LOOKING for!
Thereby helping keep the 'secret' an actual 'secret' a while longer :)

Randy
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
20
DC voltage ionoic lifter...notice the triangular planform hmmmmm.

Leftover tin foil for hat.
 

Attachments

  • Lifter1.JPG
    Lifter1.JPG
    152.1 KB · Views: 64

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,878
Reaction score
2,155
What's with the increase in nutjobs here lately? ???
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
577
Dismissal is so easy. Far less time involved than actual research. Electrogravitics does work. No, it's not antigravity. Does the B-2 use it? No. It may use some type of drag reduction technology but that's it.






Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top