B-2 Bomber Crash

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by SLO-BOB

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.

I really, really, really want a F-4 Phantom. Badly...







Small problem is that I have found a couple of them around the world that I might be able to swing, but the cost of maintenance is simply unbelieveable. Last time I really looked into it we were looking for 20 hours of maintenance on the ground for every flight hour, then we have to input the cost of Jet-A and it goes out of the window.... until I win the lotto!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

I really, really, really want a F-4 Phantom. Badly...







Small problem is that I have found a couple of them around the world that I might be able to swing, but the cost of maintenance is simply unbelieveable. Last time I really looked into it we were looking for 20 hours of maintenance on the ground for every flight hour, then we have to input the cost of Jet-A and it goes out of the window.... until I win the lotto!

Geez, don't go out to MHV anytime soon then. It's a tragedy - all these F4s just sitting there on the tarmac to be used as target drones.

Last time I was out there (it was a while ago now, I've been out of flying for a while unfortunately) I got to park on the ramp right next to them. It was a cool experience being next to those aircraft, but it's still heartbreaking to think the end they're going to meet.

[Joeaksa]

Jeff,

Agree and there are more F-4's at Pt. Mugu, DM and Puerto Rico that you can count, but unfortunately 90% of them are turned into drones and shot down. I just want the bits left over. Out of 500 of them or so bet I could turn it into a flying example! Then how to get free jet fuel???

[sammyg2]

Here's a picture of a B-2 with the vapor cloud around it:



At first I thought BS, a B-2 isn't supposed to go supersonic especially at that altitude and in level flight.
I did some checking and found this:
http://wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm
"Here are some fascinating (for some people anyway) photos and videos of interesting condensation clouds that form around jets as they fly at or near the speed of sound, (often called "going through the sound barrier" or "accelerating past the speed of sound"). Under the right conditions, and even at lower speeds, they sometimes cause a vapor cone effect.
Understand that these Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds can also occur at lower speeds, and are not really a visible manifestation of some kind of a sound barrier being broken."

[Tobra]

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.

you are showing your delusion by holding former President Carter up as a positive example of anything.

Your proof only proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by island911

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)?

as I understand it, it is more like radar absorbing stuff applied to the aircraft

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by rick-l

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

The Tomahawk Cruise Missile Program Manager is a good friend of mine. They cost is about 3/4 of a million, can be launched from aircraft, ships and submarines...not to mention trucks, trains or trailers.

Tomahawks also sit silently, like the fog, without the unbelievable amount of time and money a manned aircraft requires.

Cruise missiles are part of the equation, so are manned bombers. The fact is that yesterday was more manned than unmanned, the future will be a reverse.

Can't manage the battle space without a combination.

Edit: BTW, in the future the bomber will be unmanned as well

[FOG]

Sammy,

The B-52 is not necessarily cheaper when you add in the additional support aircraft (electronic warfare, more tankers, SEAD, etc.) to conduct missions. In other words what is the real total cost to an aircraft with a full bomb load over a target so that it can deliver it’s payload. This is where the military needs better accounting practices, to get a handle on the real costs.

I have seen vapor trails from Herks at rotation so…

The fact is the cost to conduct battle field interdiction (let alone CAS) via cruise missiles is not practical from either a financial nor technical standpoint. The heavy bombers can conduct BI further from an airfield or from aerial refueling point. That both the B-1 and B-2 can conduct these missions in higher threat areas is not in dispute.

The B-1 I also used in show of force fly bys. Basically a high speed pass by the bad guys w/o using ordnance. Lots of savings.

Gotta disagree with Seahawk on UAV/UCAV thoughts. The theory is comms cannot be jammed and even if they can the UAVs will be (semi) autonomous. By problems are that I have seen the command guidance for a Patriot jammed (demonstration) and the history of pre-programming before take-off of missions/targets (look to F-16CJ and EF-111 compared to EA6-B) is not good. Call me a doubter.

The question is what is the total cost to get the mission accomplished?

S/F, FOG

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Edit: BTW, in the future the bomber will be unmanned as well

Not the one they solicited proposals for last month. Operational in 2012.

[RWebb]

Bombers have dwell time over a target area; cruise missiles don't (they will in th future). Whether that is worth anything near the program cost is another matter.

The next step will be for large planes to control a number of air launched missiles and 'robot' planes. Sort of an AWACs with teeth. You'd like for such a control plane to have low observables, so you can think of the B-2 as like the 959 -- it led to a lot of useful technology in the 964 & 993 even if lost oney itself.

Tht doesn't mean I defend the B-2; but it does have its points.

[Jeff Higgins]

So how many high-end bombers have you guys crashed this year?

Or maybe Dietrich was flying it?

[Super_Dave_D]

[QUOTE=RWebb;3790388]Bombers have dwell time over a target area; cruise missiles don't (they will in th future). QUOTE]

There is something to be said about having 16 JDAMS loitering over the battlefield and calling them down when needed. But I guess the ageless B-52 can do the same thing.