Slashdot Mirror
Military Grounds Stealth Bomber Fleet
Ponca City, We Love You writes "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989, has been grounded after one of the jets crashed near a military base in Guam. The crash — the first involving the B-2 — was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.) Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error, but have grounded all B-2s to ensure there is not some fundamental fault developing in the 21-strong fleet. The crash occurred Saturday morning local time as the B-2 was taking off from Andersen Air Force base on Guam, a US territory south of Japan. An Air Force spokesman said, 'The cause of crash is unknown, pending an investigation. The pilots had ejected safely — no serious injuries. One is mobile, one is still in the hospital under observation.'"
"which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989"
This statement is incorrect by about ten years. The B-2 didn't make it's combat debut until 1999 during the Kosovo war.
The stealth technology of the B2 was designed to be invisible to "conventional" radar which looks from below. I always thought it was very interesting that "over the horizon" radar could not only spot stealth aircarft, but it could do so from a much further distance. Australia's Jindalee OTHR apparently has been able to pick up stealth aircarft like the B2 for years.
Of course this probably isn't really a huge problem for two reasons: firstly, Australia is an ally of the US, and secondly, Jindalee is an enormous installation taking decades to perfect; it's not likely to be moved from it's current position any time soon.
It cost $1.7bn to replace the space shuttle Challenger. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1
The only reason there are B52 still in service is because they built over 1000 of them orginally. It's not a particularyly good aircraft (maintenance wise), but by the shear number of airframes and spare parts it continues to serve.
A B-52 replacement would only need to satisfy a "dump truck" roll. There are plenty of modern airframes that could be modified to fill that role at a considerably cheaper cost than keeping the B52's flying.
When it comes to US military aircraft in general, they typically last for a long time. "State of the art" might be somewhat of an understatement if such a thing is possible due to crazy amounts of military spending and overall lack of many contesting forces in the skies even over the long term.
The F-15 Strike Eagle rolled out in 1989, same year as the B-2; it remains an advanced "Air Superiority" fighter and it's planned to be in service until 2025.
The F-14 Tomcat was just retired, after 30+ years in service.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II (or "Warthog"), 1977, still in service (brief retirement).
The F-4 Phantom went into production in 1960, ended in 1981, but the "Wild Weasel" variant was used even in the Gulf War. That's over 35 years, the longest of US jet aircraft.
And dipping slightly out of theme, the UH-1 Huey was introduced in 1959. Though the Blackhawk replaced it, they are still occasionally dusted off for missions.
Registered Linux User #449434
It is 2.1 billion, not 1.2 billion according to what I read http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm/
Someone else pointed out that the marginal cost is lower, but the cost of starting up the production line again might even make it higher.
But if they only crash one ever 10 years, then we can probably hold out until the fully robitized versions designed and built in Bangladesh (or somewhere) get cheap...
The B-52 has been in constant service since 1955, and is slated to continue active duty until 2040. They aren't being replaced either. The airframe is so solid that they are able to just keep upgrading rather than rebuilding from scratch.
Which is pretty comparable to commercial 4 engine passenger and cargo jets.
Oh -- that means it carries 20 tons at less than 5 gallons per ton-mile.
A 22 mpg pickup with 3/4 ton load is 29 gal/ton-mile.
A Prius at 45 mpg and an 500 lb load (4 pax) is 11 gal/ton-mile.
I don't think they make a Stealth Prius yet.
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
The other reason why the B-52 is still in service: cruise missiles. The other two heavy bombers can't fire them. There's a study for sticking a rotary launcher in the B-1's bomb bay, but that's expensive and keeps getting delayed.
Re maintenance: O RLY? The B-52 fleet has over 95% readiness rate, because they are a well-understood problem. The B-1 and B-2 have a far lower rate, on the order of 50 to 60%, because they are more complex and less mature (can't get more mature than a 50-year-old aircraft). Plus the '52 is easier to stick new ECM tech into, because the original ECM was so huge that there are nice big ECM bays in the aircraft, and more room equals more room for the ground crew to work; compare working on a stuffed microATX case versus a sparsely-populated full-tower ATX.
Don't get me wrong, the Buffasaurus has its problems, but it's not as bad as you think.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It may be related to the reason that the F-15 fleet grounding was also publicized: The air force is using these events as a bargaining chip to get funding. The F-15's probably could have been flying after a week or two of thorough inspections, but it was drawn out from early November to late January. This had the effect of showing congress:
"See? See what happens when you force us to fly 30-year-old fighter aircraft? The defense of the nation is compromised because we can't afford new aircraft, and maintenance of the old aircraft uses up our entire budget. We need money NOW to buy NEW aircraft that will be more capable and cheaper in the long run to maintain."
And they have a point. Many of you may double-take when you see the price tag of new fighters or bombers, but let me tell you: The cost of the airplane is matched at least bi-annually by fuel, munitions, and maintenance costs. The biggest one is maintenance. One example is the F-16. It is small cheap, relatively simple, and it only has one engine.
A base flying around 18 F-16's will require manning of around 800 well-paid, full-time personnel (~$122,000 per day).
JP-8 fuel is around $3/gallon, and if you fly 3 sorties of 6 aircraft each, with wing tanks, that's about 3*6*2000*$3=$54,000 worth of fuel PER DAY, 5 or 6 days per week.
The regularly-scheduled phase tear-downs probably cost well into the millions in terms of parts alone.
Add to this the infrastructure (the base itself, heat, vehicles, electricity, support facilities like RADAR, comm, etc).
What I'm saying is that aircraft maintenance is a spendy affair. The cost of the actual aircraft makes up only a small portion of the air forces expenditures.
This relates to your question in a roundabout way. The reason that it's not secret is that the air force is looking for new aircraft. The B-2 fleet is older than many slashdotters. They are INCREDIBLY labor-intensive to maintain. The new F-22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2, yet congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft.
The B-2 is a gorgeous machine, but we need to move to a more nimble, adaptable flight platform. Times change. We don't need to penetrate deep into soviet airspace to deliver massive quantities of nuclear ordnance anymore. We need aircraft that can be based out of forward operating locations, load up and scramble quickly, and change their mission in-flight and without compromising the aircraft or the crew. It also helps if the aircraft can fit into hardened hangars at the FOB. The F-22 fits the bill perfectly. The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.
That is why this is public. That, and everyone would know anyways. It's hard to keep a crash like this secret- You know, a huge airplane crashing in front of a bunch of people.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
"The Spanish Empire collapsed after building a huge armada of ships, only to see the fleet destroyed by an upstart Britain."
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? If you're referring to the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588, you should read Garett Mattingly's Pulitzer-prize winning "The Armada". You'd discover that (1)England was not an "upstart," and its fleet was roughly as powerful (probably more powerful) than the Spanish fleet; (2)It was an English fleet, not a British fleet (and yes, there was a real difference then), (3)The English fleet did not "destroy" the Spanish fleet, and, most important, (4)The defeat of the Armada marked the beginning, not the end, of Spain's strongest navy, and the Spanish empire *grew* in strength following that defeat; it did not "collapse."
Most of your other comments were similarly simplistic or just outright wrong. If you want to make sweeping historical statements it might help if you actually studied some history first.
The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.
Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)
The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.
In parting:
1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)
2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)
The USA did not give any aid to the other allies, they mostly made loans to to them so the could buy stuff from American companies. After Japan attacked perl harbour then they sent the army.
Without the USA the allies would probably have lost, that is obvious. England would not have turned back the German attack without all the food, supplies and money the USA sold and loaned. Loan with interest from private banks, who also financed the nazi before , and some even after, the USA entered the war. I think the last payment from England has been made just a few years ago. But the USA surely did not win the war by itself.