On takeoff from Andersen Air Force Base, the $1.4 billion plane abruptly "pitched up, rolled and yawed to the left before plunging to the ground," the AP describes. The reason why: "Water distorted preflight readings in three of the plane's 24 sensors, making the aircraft's control computer force the B-2 to pitch up on takeoff, resulting in a stall and subsequent crash." Luckily, "both pilots ejected safely just after the left wing made contact with the ground in the first crash since the maiden B-2 flights nearly 20 years ago." Check out the video, and you'll see just how fortunate the pilots were to make it out.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-07-2008 11:39 PM
The hilarious part of this crash is that the cause is...moisture!
The more of a high-tech reliant society we become the more vulnerable we are. I found this to be ironic. And maybe that's why supposedly "advanced" alien civilizations never contacted us!
Chris.
Aztecdoug Member
Posts: 1405 From: Huntington Beach Registered: Feb 2000
posted 06-08-2008 12:53 AM
"The higher the tech, the bigger the wreck." A line I picked up from a couple of JPL engineers at the last Superior-Regency auction.
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-08-2008 04:13 AM
or KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). After all B-52s are still flying!
Chris.
gliderpilotuk Member
Posts: 3398 From: London, UK Registered: Feb 2002
posted 06-08-2008 04:16 AM
I guess someone never read the original GAO report which states: the aircraft must be "sheltered or exposed only to the most benign environments -- low humidity, no precipitation, moderate temperatures." It also requires climate controlled hangarage and between 50 and 100hrs of maintenance per 1hr of flight time.
Amazing piece of kit but a little before its time.
Paul
capoetc Member
Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 06-08-2008 06:25 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: After all B-52s are still flying!
And, do you think B-52's can penetrate enemy radar virtually undetected?
------------------ John Capobianco Camden DE
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-08-2008 09:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by gliderpilotuk: Amazing piece of kit but a little before its time.
Sounds like a description of the shuttle!
Chris.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-08-2008 09:57 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: And, do you think B-52's can penetrate enemy radar virtually undetected?
of course not but cruise missiles can. The B-2 is a Cold War relic whose military value is questionable, much like France's main battle tank AMX-56 Leclerc, whose mission was to stop Warsaw Pact tanks...Now France doesn't know what to do with them (last I heard was that they're trying to get rid of them).
Chris.
mjanovec Member
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 06-09-2008 12:11 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: or KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). After all B-52s are still flying!
In the 1950s, the B-52 was a very high tech aircraft...just like the B-2 was a high tech aircraft when it first flew nearly 20 years ago (and is still relatively high tech today). If the high tech nature of the systems of the B-2 are to be thought of as a design shortcoming (as your post seems to indicate), then surely we would have seen more than one crash in 20 years of flight. The way I see it, any military aircraft program with one crash (and no crew fatalities) in 20 years is a tremendous success. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another military aircraft program with a better track record.
The YB-49 program demonstrated how a flying wing bomber can be extremely difficult to handle without the luxury of the high tech systems that are in the B-2. Sometimes, "keeping it simple" is simply not an option.
Max Q Member
Posts: 399 From: Whyalla South Australia Registered: Mar 2007
posted 06-09-2008 03:36 AM
one crash in 20 years that the public knows about.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-09-2008 04:04 AM
quote:Originally posted by mjanovec: The way I see it, any military aircraft program with one crash (and no crew fatalities) in 20 years is a tremendous success. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another military aircraft program with a better track record.
But that statistics is misleading: 20 bombers flying for 20 years as opposed to hundreds (?) of B-52 flying for 50 years. Can't really compare the two when it comes to reliability. It's like the Saturn V compared to any other rockets. Sure 100% success but with only 13 flights.
Chris.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 06-09-2008 06:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: of course not but cruise missiles can. The B-2 is a Cold War relic whose military value is questionable ... Chris.
A large part of America's National Defense Strategy is based upon the US not only having superior weaponry compared to other nations, but having such superiority in weaponry that other nations will not even try to challenge that superiority.
That is why we have B-2's and F-22's, and that is why many nations in Europe are able to spend huge sums of money on social programs ... because they know the US is paying for a large portion of their security needs.
------------------ John Capobianco Camden DE
Max Q Member
Posts: 399 From: Whyalla South Australia Registered: Mar 2007
posted 06-09-2008 08:12 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: That is why we have B-2's and F-22's, and that is why many nations in Europe are able to spend huge sums of money on social programs... because they know the US is paying for a large portion of their security needs.
I worry some times about the power of America. The Term World Police always springs to mind.
jimsz Member
Posts: 616 From: Registered: Aug 2006
posted 06-09-2008 08:47 AM
quote:Originally posted by Max Q: I worry some times about the power of America. The Term World Police always springs to mind.
That can work two ways. Those that enforce and protect are not always doing so as volunteers but as those that are drafted.
Anytime Australia wants to volunteer to take over, feel free to jump to the head of the line
spaced out Member
Posts: 3110 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
posted 06-09-2008 09:36 AM
As this is veering off towards a political discussion maybe I'll try to direct it back to the aircraft themselves.
The unit cost of the B2s is huge but of course this includes the development budget. The original production run was supposed to over 100, at which point the unit cost would have been significantly lower.
As for it being a Cold War relic that's somewhat true but all military hardware is a relic of an earlier time as the lead-in times for such projects are enormous. Between the time a new system is specified and the time the result is deployed operationally you're talking decades, during which time the world order inevitably changes.
Now we have the F-22 - is a superb plane that would have been extremely useful in air combat against the Warsaw Pact but it's difficult to see what role it would play in the type of conflicts we've seen in the last couple of decades.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 06-09-2008 09:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by spaced out: Now we have the F-22 - is a superb plane that would have been extremely useful in air combat against the Warsaw Pact but it's difficult to see what role it would play in the type of conflicts we've seen in the last couple of decades.
Simple... it can defeat 5 4th generations fighters before those fighters even know it is there.
------------------ John Capobianco Camden DE
mjanovec Member
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 06-09-2008 10:54 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: But that statistics is misleading: 20 bombers flying for 20 years as opposed to hundreds (?) of B-52 flying for 50 years. Can't really compare the two when it comes to reliability. It's like the Saturn V compared to any other rockets. Sure 100% success but with only 13 flights.
I never compared the B-2 and the B-52 in terms of reliability. I only said both were considered high tech in their own time...since your initial argument suggested that being high tech was the downfall of the aircraft.
However, even though the B-2 was produced in limited numbers, one crash in 20 years is still a remarkable record...especially for a military aircraft with a radical design. Would you suggest otherwise?
kr4mula Member
Posts: 642 From: Cinci, OH Registered: Mar 2006
posted 06-09-2008 12:52 PM
If you ever have the chance, ask Tom Stafford about his role in the B-2. He talks about it in his book and has mentioned it each time I've seen him talk. He describes making the specs on a cocktail napkin when he was in the Air Force acquisition world. It all sounds good, but never exactly says why it he thought it was a good idea or what the political ramifications were/are of having such an aircraft.
A further aside related to the B-52: I've got a comic posted in my office that I cut out of "Airman" magazine back in 1976. It shows a bunch of Air Force officers sitting around a conference table at "Boondock AFB Research and Development." The head guy is telling all the others (who have shocked expressions on their faces), "The cost of continually developing new aircraft is getting out of hand. Your job, gentlemen, is to design a weapons system that won't be obsolete for at least 50 years!" Outrageous at the time, but take a look at the B-52 and C-130 flying for over 50 years, almost 40 for the C-5, and the F-15 and F-16 around 35. They've all been upgraded, sure, but upgrades only get you so far. Can you imagine something equivalent, like flying an improved Wright Flyer in the Korean War? Or wood-and-fabric biplanes in Vietnam?
Cheers,
Kevin
stsmithva Member
Posts: 1933 From: Fairfax, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2007
posted 06-09-2008 01:15 PM
Kevin, I've thought in the past that it's interesting how long those aircraft have been in service, but your good analogy of the Wright Flyer in Korea made me realize how extraordinary it is.
Steve
spaced out Member
Posts: 3110 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
posted 06-09-2008 02:16 PM
...or a Space Transportation System flying for 27 years. Or Soyuz flying for 41 years.
Max Q Member
Posts: 399 From: Whyalla South Australia Registered: Mar 2007
posted 06-09-2008 09:43 PM
quote:Originally posted by spaced out: ...or a Space Transportation System flying for 27 years.
Well 22 it has been grounded for 2.5 years that twice.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-09-2008 11:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: That is why we have B-2's and F-22's, and that is why many nations in Europe are able to spend huge sums of money on social programs... because they know the US is paying for a large portion of their security needs.
John, you are aware of the fact that you're NOT paying for those high-tech gadgets, right? The international community is (someone has to finance the budget deficit) and the next generations will have to pay back the national debt...
As for "our security needs" (?), B-2s and F-22s have proven so effective in preventing bombings in London and Madrid...
Instead of spending billions on high-tech weaponry, you might want to provide ground troops with proper equipment so that they don't look like sitting ducks... Just my two cents.
Chris.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-09-2008 11:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: Simple... it can defeat 5 4th generations fighters before those fighters even know it is there.
Who's developing 4th generation fighters - or who can afford them?
Chris.
LCDR Scott Schneeweis New Member
Posts: From: Registered:
posted 06-10-2008 12:05 AM
quote:Originally posted by spaced out: Now we have the F-22 - is a superb plane that would have been extremely useful in air combat against the Warsaw Pact but it's difficult to see what role it would play in the type of conflicts we've seen in the last couple of decades.
Pending development of a more robust UCAV capability, the F-22 remains germane to potential future engagements against Chinese/Russian aircraft.
quote:Originally posted by cspg: Who's developing 4th generation fighters- or who can afford them?
The F-22 is an example of a 5th Generation fighter (4th generation fighters are still produced by many countries).
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 06-10-2008 12:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: As for "our security needs" (?), B-2s and F-22s have proven so effective in preventing bombings in London and Madrid...
That's like saying seat belts aren't effective safety devices because they can't prevent a car from hitting pedestrians.
B-2s and F-22s are highly effective at the missions they were designed to do. There is no point in criticizing them for not preventing something that they weren't designed to combat.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 06-10-2008 07:49 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: John, you are aware of the fact that you're NOT paying for those high-tech gadgets, right? The international community is (someone has to finance the budget deficit) and the next generations will have to pay back the national debt...
As for "our security needs" (?), B-2s and F-22s have proven so effective in preventing bombings in London and Madrid...
Instead of spending billions on high-tech weaponry, you might want to provide ground troops with proper equipment so that they don't look like sitting ducks... Just my two cents.
Just ... wow.
1. You would certainly have to help me understand how the international community is paying for B-2's and F-22's. Must be new math.
2. I can't help you with London and Madrid. But if you need airpower again to set conditions for solving a problem like Kosovo, the B-2 and F-22 would prove most helpful.
3. You're going to have to cite evidence of our ground forces lacking proper equipment. I've been in Iraq, and our ground forces have all of the best available equipment.
This thread is veering dangerously in a political direction, and that would not be a good thing.
------------------ John Capobianco Camden DE
jimsz Member
Posts: 616 From: Registered: Aug 2006
posted 06-10-2008 08:34 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: As for "our security needs" (?), B-2s and F-22s have proven so effective in preventing bombings in London and Madrid...
You'll notice there have been fewer attacks of this kind right? Maybe because the military that the US taxpayer funds, that use the B-2's and F-22's are busy fighting those that wish to kill us.
quote:Instead of spending billions on high-tech weaponry, you might want to provide ground troops with proper equipment so that they don't look like sitting ducks... Just my two cents.
What's your source? As someone who this year has known over a dozen soldiers stationed at one time in both wars that's not the story they tell. Could we always give them more, sure. The fluidity of the situation is such that there is always catch-up going on.
Want to keep this on topic instead of taking cheap shots?
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-10-2008 08:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: You would certainly have to help me understand how the international community is paying for B-2's and F-22's. Must be new math.
Nobody's sending dollars or cheques! But then who's buying Treasury securities and bonds? The Government spends money (much like everywhere else if that's some comfort...) it doesn't have... so where is the money coming from? The printing press? Ok, but who's buying?
quote:You're going to have to cite evidence of our ground forces lacking proper equipment. I've been in Iraq, and our ground forces have all of the best available equipment.
This has been a scandal early in the war when U.S. soldiers were complaining about the lack of armored vehicles they had to drive... Don't remember? I do.
And "my reference" was a reportage from the French TV about French (and US) troops in Afghanistan fighting the talibans, basically waiting in their camps to fall onto them (hence the sitting ducks remark). I felt so sorry for those soldiers. Then came the interview of the commander/general in charge of the region, pleading for more troops, weapons and above all air power (helicopters)... It was saddening to see that.
quote:This thread is veering dangerously in a political direction, and that would not be a good thing.
Agree - so we agree to disagree?
Chris.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-10-2008 09:00 AM
This thread was off-topic from the start (though I allowed it, given the interest in aviation by some of our readers). Seems like a good place to call it a day and close the topic.
Topic Closed
posted 06-07-2008 02:45 PM
advertisement