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.'"

15 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. Crash by Bazman · · Score: 5, Funny

    A stealth bomber crashes? Nobody saw that coming.

  2. Re:No biggie by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 168 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority).

    The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.[13] In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget.
    (source)
  3. Stealth? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I'm being naive again, but what is the point of designing an untrackable aircraft and then telling the whole world its fleet status? Why is the B2 in the news at all? Or should I be reaching for a tinfoil hat?

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Stealth? by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then comes the B-4. Takes out targets B4 they become a threat.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Stealth? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny
      I've read they even have kamikaze units now.

      Apparently they're doing their training out near Guam...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Stealth? by Taleron · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Stealth? by bIOHZRd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...and the fact that their wing sweep angle in relation to the tip of the nose is way too low to even approach supersonic speeds. You have to be below the mach angle in order to stay away from Mach drag divergence and the resulting huge increase in drag. Check out this for more info.

    5. Re:Stealth? by Epistax · · Score: 5, Funny

      $9 000 of fuel per second * 60 seconds per minute * 1440 minutes per day = $777 600 000 of fuel per day. Per plane.

      One of these numbers has to be wrong.

      Must be the number of minutes per day.
    6. Re:Stealth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mr. Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed Skunk Works, the 'father of Stealth' and who has now sadly passed away made some interesting comments just before he died. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rich ]

      One of which is:

      "We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity..... anything you can imagine we already know how to do."

      I find it really hard to believe this.. but this is coming from someone with a huge reputation and know-how. I guess I should try to pick up an 'I want to believe poster' somewhere. ;)

      But you can be sure something is available which is not visible for the general public. Why can you be sure?

      They've retired the SR71 Blackbird, supposedly because 'we now have satellites'. The thing is a) satellites are not always over the location you're interested in at the correct time. and b) everyone can determine the orbit of the satellite and hide under a camel or two if the thing flies over.

      I would estimate the chance that they solely depend on satellites now to be small. But I'm not an expert in any of these fields, so do not take my word for it. :)

  4. Re:O really? by ThomasLB · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can also rule out "Act of God," because we all know He's on our side.

  5. Atlantic insight by gstone · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A very interesting article was published in the Atlantic about the B2. The reporter spent some time living with the people who comprise the flight crew:

    A B-2 Spirit costs roughly as much as a fast-attack nuclear submarine or a guided-missile destroyer. But whereas a Los Angeles-class submarine requires a crew of 130 and an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer a crew of 320, the B-2 has a crew of just two: a pilot and a mission commander. There are only 21 B-2s in the Air Force. Nobody else in the U.S. military is entrusted with as much responsibility, in terms of sheer dollars, as these bomber pilots are. If a single B-2 were to go down, even in training, it would be a banner-headline story.

    So who are these guys?
  6. not the most expensive aircraft accident in histor by thesazi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It cost $1.7bn to replace the space shuttle Challenger. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1

  7. Math by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 5, Informative
    $9000/sec? Try again. From the Telegraph article:

    Range (unrefueled): 6800 Mi (approx numbers, people)
    Approx Cruising Speed: 400 mph (they don't fly full out all the time)
    Duration: 17 hours
    Fuel Load: 167,000 lbs
    Fuel Rate: 9,800 lbs/hour
    At 6 lb/gal: 1633 gal/hr
    At $3/gal: $4900/hour
    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.
  8. Re:Huge Military Budget = Declining Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  9. Re:Marginal Cost by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually that not true all three aircraft can fire cruise missiles, the only thing that keeps the B1 from doing so is a treaty with the former Soviet Union (Russia).

    It is as bad as I think because I've worked on all three bombers. The B-52 is robust much in the way an old pick-up truck is, things work because they're old school electronics. The only problem is that they're just like working on an old truck. If you need a replacement part alot of the time it meens a trip to the junk yard. I also got real sick real quick trying to trace down wiring problems on 50 year old wire bundles that are not necessarily wired the same on every aircraft. Of course while the newer digital aircraft are easier to fix, they can be nightmares when things don't show up on the diagnostics or don't hard break but fail erratically. That'll even have the engineers scraching their heads. Space wise I've only run into a few times where things were too cramped to work on. Typically of things that I'm sure some dumb ass design engineer said "They'll never need to get to that the plane is only going to be used for 20 years then replaced" Even the "brand new" B2 is over twenty years old

    To say the B-52 has extra space is an understatement since most electronics these days are hundreth the size they were in the sixties, but again most of the Buff's problems are not lack of space or the inability to be upgraded, it's just the simple fact they are freakin ancient.

    With the new weapon systems & munitions you don't need a specialized military aircraft to deliver them anymore. You just need something reliable that has a long endurance and can fly high.

    My ideal B-52 replacement would be a B-747-8, (New Boeing 747 model coming out out). It's a well vetted design, with commonly available off the shelf commercial parts. It could carry 105,000lbs of cargo (bombs) and a full load of fuel with an 8000 mile range. For those keeping count that's 210 Mk 82 bombs compared to the B-52's 51. Park two or three of those in a race track pattern at high altitude along with two extra flight crews each and you could keep them up there 24/7. Throw in a little air refueling and they'd stay on station until either they ran out of bombs or out of hot pockets and little debbies, which ever comes first.