B-2 crashes in Guam

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

YelliChink 2/23/2008 9:07:50 AM

We don't know what caused the crash yet. However, it's time to review procurement policy, and consider re-opening B-2 production line.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 2/23/2008 10:39:21 AM

We don't know what caused the crash yet. However, it's time to review procurement policy, and consider re-opening B-2 production line.

With what? How long have those jigs been destroyed? Ten years?

Herald

Quote Reply

benellim4 2/23/2008 10:48:47 AM

Three or four years ago Northrop Grumman proposed building B-2C (C for conventional) for $600 million a copy.

Quote Reply

EddieV 2/23/2008 12:32:16 PM

The B2 is a great plane and all? But they should seriously reconsider its usefulness in the current wars. They are counting on it to be the most dangerous bomber for the next bazillion years, so IMO they shouldn?t be risking the very limited units available on bombing missions against terrorists on unchallenged skies. The Strike Eagles is very well suited and are available on theater for those missions, IMO.

Quote Reply

Phaid 2/23/2008 1:01:04 PM

Aircrews can't be proficient without training. B-2 crews need to fly their airplanes, it's an inescapable reality. And the fact is that the B-2 has a fantastic safety record. One accident in 20+ years of operation is pretty good.

We already have 24 B-1Bs in reserve, if we really need more conventional bombers we can always reactivate some of those. Nobody is going to build more B-2s.

Quote Reply

HYPOCENTER 2/23/2008 1:07:09 PM

While it's true using B-2's in the current conflict may be considered overkill (unchallenged skies, no ground-to-air threats to speak of) it's still smart to get as much use out of them as possible. The more real-time use the B-2 airframe receive the more engineer's learn.

This crash just may be a Godsend. It is better for this crash to happen now, and learn from it, then a future conflict where B-2's are the only option we've got. As an additional bonus the aircrew's are keeping razor sharp through experience gained.

Quote Reply

Galderio 2/23/2008 2:22:02 PM

B-2 crashes

The lost is equivalent to 30 or more F-16s crashing at the same time, or the sinking of a nuclear submarine.

That is weird.

Quote Reply

HYPOCENTER 2/23/2008 3:41:47 PM

The lost is equivalent to 30 or more F-16s crashing at the same time, or the sinking of a nuclear submarine. That is weird.

This is a good point; another poster noted the B-2 loss is the equivalent to sinking an Aegis Cruiser--hardly something to shrug off. A B-2 loss hurts not only monetarily but because their numbers are so few and in all likelihood will not be replaced. But isn't this all relative? Does it even matter? Assume for a moment we lost a single Aegis Cruiser, or 30 F-16's in a non-combat related accident--as was the case with this B-2 which occurred right after take off flying unarmed on a simple point A to B non-combat situation.... this easily could have happened during a training exercise. So assuming we lose the B-2 equivalent of something else in a non combat situation, I don't see us rebuilding an Aegis or 30 F-16's. Thus, the B-2 loss is relative.

The flaw is thinking that just because something is expensive or rare....it shouldn't be used. If this were a combat related loss then I would think differently, but this isn't the case.

Quote Reply

DropBear 2/23/2008 11:49:14 PM

The lost is equivalent to 30 or more F-16s crashing at the same time, or the sinking of a nuclear submarine.

That is weird.

Offtopic, however, it reminds me of the incident last year when a RAAF R/F-111C crash landed. At the time, one could have commented that we had lost 1/4 of the fleet of Recon versions. Being that we only had four to start with. Fortunately it was repaired, but you get the point.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 2/24/2008 3:36:07 AM

The lost is equivalent to 30 or more F-16s crashing at the same time, or the sinking of a nuclear submarine.

That is weird.

Also, just because a B-2, SSN and 30 F-16s cost the same dollar amount doesn't make the loss equivalent in terms of effects on operations. This loss is unfortunate and costly but at the end of the day the USAF is not going to suffer much if at all. If they lost 30 F-16s to the same cause it would most certainly be a cause for alarm. Similarly, if a Virginia or Seawolf was lost for any reason the USN would feel that much more relatively speaking.

For those who think it's necessary or a good idea to make a replacement B-2A. You may want to consider the year 2018 and what a difference the cost of a B-2A could make if invested properly. If you don't know what I'm hinting at just consider that across the board the state of the art has come a long way since the 1980's. Would you rather your tax dollars invested in the past or the future?

There are good reasons why the B-2A production ended early and remained that way when it would have been easier to start it up again. LONG LIVE THE 20 REMAINING B-2A's!

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 2/24/2008 3:50:35 AM

On last thing about B-2 cost. The USAF did not "lose" a x billion dollar B-2A. That billion dollar price tag comes up because the news is dividing the total program cost by 21 and spitting out a number. In the real world, we did not lose ~5% of the B-2A program cost. We lost a ~200-500 million dollar airplane with associated equipment. Thats because the USAF would not have to reinvent the B-2A to build another one. They would simply have to take the already bought and paid for knowledge and assemble a new one. Assuming of course the production line was still open.

-DA

Quote Reply

Galderio 2/25/2008 1:21:49 PM

"The USAF did not "lose" a x billion dollar B-2A."

No, a new B2 may cost 500 million and that one was used.

USAF just lost one of it´s silver bullets that probably saw much more real combat than any nuclear submarine and cannot be replaced by now. They surely can live without a Bomber and I don´t think USAF will be weaker only because of that, but I would feel very bad if I had lost one copy of the most expensive aircraft in the world.

I do agree that B2 are the most impressive aircraft of ever and I really like it, but without a decent adversary to fight against it may be already a waste of money crashing or not.

It seems better for deterrence than for the real wars you are fighting right now.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Loss rates. 2/25/2008 2:35:21 PM

"The USAF did not "lose" a x billion dollar B-2A."

No, a new B2 may cost 500 million and that one was used.

I do agree that B2 are the most impressive aircraft of ever and I really like it, but without a decent adversary to fight against it may be already a waste of money crashing or not.

It seems better for deterrence than for the real wars you are fighting right now.

1. Considering the hard fought bump and scrap sub wars in progress globally, I seriously doubt there ia single USN, RN, RAN or CDF sub afloat that hasn't seen "combat" or hasn't needed "battle" damage repair.

2. The B-2 is phenomenal. How severe is the loss rate? 4.7 % over twenty years? What is the loss rate for the Harrier or our helicopter fleets over twenty years? 20+%? What about the F-16? 12+%. What about the Eagle? 9+%? You get the point?

This is a GREAT and SAFE plane.

Compare this to all the Blackjacks or Bears that have crashed on the last five years or the plane a month Chengdu garbage that crashes and kills pilots.

Herald

Quote Reply

Carl D. 2/25/2008 10:53:47 PM

Well I look at it like this, if you're going to loose a plane, this is the best timed crash you could get. The wreckage is in one place, in a controlled perimeter that's not underwater or a residential area and the crew survived. So the investigation team will have an easy time of it and the engineers can look at all of the parts and pieces and see how they've held up so far regarding the flight hours on them.

As for replacements, and this doesn't just go for the B-2, but the CAS, transport, and fighter missions. The development holiday/slowed programs needed to be over at least since 2002. The budget should have been enlarged in general for the DoD a lot more than it has.

Quote Reply

Phaid 2/27/2008 10:41:22 AM

The investigation of the crash is under way. So far what has been revealed is that there was a fire on board as the aircraft lifted off, followed by a loss of control. They seem to think it was not caused by a bird strike.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - July 24, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us