B-2 Bomber Crash

[Steve Carlton]

How much could we get for the un-crashed ones on eBay?

[hytem]

The last responsible President on the bomber issue was Jimmy Carter. He killed the B-1, favoring missiles.
As an Annapolis grad, Carter knew better. The next Pres, Reagan, restored it. Reagan had a degree in acting. He didn't know better.

With the kinds of wars we fight these days, there is a lot of tech overkill in our air arsenal--a kind of welfare system for the military industrial complex.

The proof: the B52 bomber is still around after 50 years. It does the job. Especially with missiles aboard.

[island911]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Did I mention that if the B-2s fly in the rain some of the the radar absorbing material gets damaged and has to be replaced, requiring even more extensive maintenance between flights?

hmmmm..... are you saying that the structural composite has to be replaced if it flies in the rain? ...or are you referring to some consumable radar absorbing material for say, an expansion seam (or like)?

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Did I mention that if the B-2s fly in the rain some of the the radar absorbing material gets damaged and has to be replaced, requiring even more extensive maintenance between flights?

This happens to many aircraft. Started at the beginning. Antique airplanes with wooden props avoid rain showers like the plague as it takes the varnish off of the wooden props.

The F-117, F-22 and B-2 are the same.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Just imagine how many Wii consoles could have been bought for inner-city children with just one B-2.

$1.2 bil, that's a lot of hookers & crack!

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Um, I kinda disagree. The B-2 is like the battleship was in WWII, not really relevant anymore.
We can put cruise missles and bombs anywhere we want. We can drop nukes anywhere we want. we can completely dominate the air space over ANY theatre, so the ancient B-52s can do a better job that the B-2s can for less $$$.

When the B-2s were sent to kosovo they took off the from a base in Missouri, flew there and dropped the bombs, and flew all the way back. They did that because these planes are so complex and require so much maintenance that it is almost impossible to stage them strategically (119 manhours of maintenance required for every hour of flight time). To the best of my knowledge, the only two places in the world that are equipped to handle them are Whiteman air force base in Missouri and that base in Guam.
After every flight these planes require extensive maintenance, including the repair of much of the radar absorbing material.
IMO The B-2 is a remnant of the cold war and is not relevant except as a tool to maintain artificially inflated military budgets. Even during ther cold war it was only good for sabre-rattling and threatening, it's never been a practical war machine.

You erred in a few points, but otherwise, right on the money. Cruise missiles don't need to practice flying, either.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by hytem

The last responsible President on the bomber issue was Jimmy Carter. He killed the B-1, favoring missiles.
As an Annapolis grad, Carter knew better. The next Pres, Reagan, restored it. Reagan had a degree in acting. He didn't know better.

With the kinds of wars we fight these days, there is a lot of tech overkill in our air arsenal--a kind of welfare system for the military industrial complex.

The proof: the B52 bomber is still around after 50 years. It does the job. Especially with missiles aboard.

Just one more example of Yimmy Carter's greatness.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

You erred in a few points, but otherwise, right on the money. Cruise missiles don't need to practice flying, either.

I hear it is REALLY hard to put one of them cruise missiles back together after just one flight!

[sammyg2]

The B-2 bomber has radar absorbing seam material, kinda like a tape. It has to be replaced and re-newed/repaired often, even more so in heavy rain. same goes with some of the more exposed surfaces.
But ..... i just finished reading about a new product fopr that plane that is supposed to address that short-coming. I'll have to do some more checking into that. it may be a non-issue by now.

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by island911

"1.2 billion gone. "

Just think of how many early-S's they could have bought.

4 or 5 the way prices are headed

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Boy, I wouldn't want to be the captain of that mission for THAT de-brief!!! I'm sure they had damn good reason to eject, but still - there are gonna' be a LOT of military bean-counters and brass going over every little nuance of that crew's decision to abandon.

Glad they got out okay, but I'd be worried about ever being allowed back in the cockpit again after a decision like that! I hate to even suggest this, but I'm a bit surprised the bean counters even allowed ejection seats to be installed in those things. $1.2B is WAY more expensive than the training of the flight crews and the payout to the pilots' next-of-kin. Besides it's all volunteer to try out for those crews - to my knowledge. Even if they told the potential pilots "you're going down with this ship if something goes awry - no ejection seats", they'd probably still get tons of guys wanting to fly it for the prestige of it. . . Like I said, I hate to even suggest it, but you gotta' wonder. . .

Too bad Howard isn't still here. He'd have found a fuel line hose for it and put it on Ebay by now.

[jyl]

I, too, am not sure how a manned bomber is better than a cruise missile. Seems the cruise missile can deliver the same weapon to the same location with the same accuracy, at much lower cost. And presumably a cruise missile can be made stealthy if needed.

I can see wanting to have a force of manned bombers anyway, just in case it turns out that there is some crucial advantage for some key mission. But how big? We have 21 B-2 bombers - err, 20 now. Maybe that's enough.

[BRPORSCHE]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Too bad Howard isn't still here. He'd have found a fuel line hose for it and put it on Ebay by now.

Ha, Pop, we were thinking the exact same thing. I was like 'Gee, Howard would of been on the first plane to Guam to find a fuel line!'

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Boy, I wouldn't want to be the captain of that mission for THAT de-brief!!! I'm sure they had damn good reason to eject, but still - there are gonna' be a LOT of military bean-counters and brass going over every little nuance of that crew's decision to abandon.

Glad they got out okay, but I'd be worried about ever being allowed back in the cockpit again after a decision like that! I hate to even suggest this, but I'm a bit surprised the bean counters even allowed ejection seats to be installed in those things. $1.2B is WAY more expensive than the training of the flight crews and the payout to the pilots' next-of-kin. Besides it's all volunteer to try out for those crews - to my knowledge. Even if they told the potential pilots "you're going down with this ship if something goes awry - no ejection seats", they'd probably still get tons of guys wanting to fly it for the prestige of it. . . Like I said, I hate to even suggest it, but you gotta' wonder. . .

Too bad Howard isn't still here. He'd have found a fuel line hose for it and put it on Ebay by now.

He (assume its a he) is actually the AC, aircraft commander in the Air Force.

Lets wait until the investigation is complete before guessing if he will fly again. I was on a flight almost a week ago where we lost an engine just after takeoff and the idiot PF (pilot flying) (not me BTW) sat there and did nothing for a while, then almost stalled the plane while fixating on the bad engine while not watching his airspeed. I was in the right seat instructing the guy, and ended up pushing the stick forwards to get more airspeed when it got critical. This was a clear case of a pilot needing a lot more training before being allowed to fly again.

The situation on the B-2 will come out in the end. Lets wait and see before making judgement.

[daepp]

Don't they also fly out of Diego Garcia?

[sammyg2]

At one time during the peak of the cold war, long distance heavy bombers were relevant and were needed in addition to ICBMs (or cruise missles which didn't realyl exist then).
The reason: Playing chicken. Bombers can be called back at the last minute. The B-52s (and earlier bombers also) were scrambled many, many times as a threat to the USSR. We'd send em up and they'd know about it. They'd scramble theirs, we'd both act like we were serious, and then one side or the other would back down.
It was a tool and a deterent. If we fired a missle, they'd know about it and immediately lauch theirs. No backing down, commit or not.
Then ..... some genius decides we need a stealth bomber. What good is that? Well there are two reasons to have a b-2 that I can think of:
1) a threat that we can drop a conventional bomb on any house or building in the entire world within 24 hours, undetected. Big freaking deal. We can pretty much do the same with a cruise missle launched from a B-52 or sub or ship. it might take a little longer to get a sub or plane or ship close enough due to the limited range of a cruise missile (last I heard the range was 750 miles, might be longer now).
2) if a target is more than 750 miles inside enemy controlled air space, a B-2 can get there or get close enuogh to launch a cruiseer without getting detected or shot down.
It would be much cheaper to develop an extremely long range cruise missle, (assuming we haven't already).
but remember, we still have B-1B bombers, they can be activated and do almost the same thing. Lots of folks forgot about the B-1B bombers. We spent a *****load of money on them too but not nearly as much as the B-2.
IIRC the cost per B-1 was around $200 million, which was a load of money back then.

[p911dad]

Cost is a relative thing. The B2 was one of those things that convinced the Soviets that truly they could not compete in the warfare arena(when their crews were drinking the alcohol out of some of their weapons when vodka became hard to get). The US just continued to produce more and more exotic weapons with seemingly unlimited ability to project power wherever we wanted. So the cost was huge per unit, but if you are looking at the big picture(ie, crush the Soviets without firing a shot), they ended up delivering their "payload" in spades. True, they are expensive beasts to fly, but just knowing that they exist make any enemy think twice before starting something. A truly strategic weapon. What is the cost benefit of crushing the other superpower without losing even one city to a nuclear attack??
Also, just think of how many wii's Hillary could have paid for with the $100M she just blew!

[island911]

..and to add to gmeteer's excellent post, we gained considerable knowledge-base in building the B-2. (among others)

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

You erred in a few points, but otherwise, right on the money. Cruise missiles don't need to practice flying, either.

Cruise Missiles cost more than $1 million each. You need some of these. Carried by manned bombers of course.

AFA magazine article

"The final unit cost was $18,000—less than half the $40,000 ceiling set by McPeak. "

" and the weapons often land a single bomb-length away from their target"

JDAM You Tube Video Only the first two frames are significant.



Edit: this is the one I was looking for:
B2 JDAM Video

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

They did that because these planes are so complex and require so much maintenance that it is almost impossible to stage them strategically (119 manhours of maintenance required for every hour of flight time).

That's why I don't own a B-2 bomber. It's not so much the buy in as the maintenance that'll kill ya.