The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
So, a B-2 crashed in Guam. Also, lets talk about other airplanes, apparently.
A two billion dollar military plane crashed, and we have no idea why. Well, they claim it is a 1.2 billion dollar plane, that excludes R&D costs. Point is, health care for how many people just went down the drain, for no apparent reason?
So, I guess the questions we have to discuss are: is there really a need for these planes anymore? Do we replace the one that crashed, seeing as only a very limited number were ever built? What was the plane doing there? It apparently had no payload. Is it a flaw in the plane design, or has our training slipped under Bush's regime?
1.2 billion dollars sounds like a lot, but in terms of the US defense budget it's not a massive amount. The question of if there's a problem with the plane is open, but if you think we're spending too much on defense that's a systemic problem.
That's some pretty dangerous tech to risk getting stolen, too. It's not especially effective against our current enemies, but it would be pretty nasty against US.
As for their use... with the scare tactics being made by Russia, and the increasing militarization of the world, regardless of actual benefit, military R&D budgets are only going to get bigger and more wasteful.
Especially since we're basically arms dealers for the world.
I was going to post this but didn't think I could make a topic of it...
There are four B-2 on permanent station in Guam, presumably because its a better run for the eastern hemisphere. It was a take-off on accident. I doubt it was pilot based but something going wrong. The B-2 probably aren't racking up the hours like say the F-15E fleet but its a higher tempo than the cold war it was designed for.
As to whether the B-2 should be replaced. The line is closed and I think the tooling destroyed. So no replacement.
In the long term, the USAF are working on a new bomber requirement and they want something faster cheaper and more stealthy. I'd say pick two of those and it sure won't be the 'cheap' option...
What the B-2? It's a giant wing? Where should it be if not in the air
But seriously, Flying wings have a directional stability issue (hence why the 1940's versions never went anywhere - oh a pun!) but nothing to cause a take off issue.
In theory... The F-117 was designed to be able to carry and fire any weapon in the USAF.
In practice. It can't. Lack of a radar for one (there's a second reason...). You could fire Sidewinders and Tom Clancy pretty much called a likely role (shooting AWACS) in Red Storm Rising.
Probably just me, but you've for to admit that at first glance the B-2 looks like it has no business staying up in the air.
It doesn't IIRC - maybe the more flight-minded can confirm, but doesn't it pretty much stay in the air thanks to an extremely complicated computer/gyro system?
I can't even imagine how nervous I'd feel even USING something worth that much money, let alone crashing it. I have the feeling that someone's getting a severe chastising when it's discovered who screwed up (if anyone did).
Probably just me, but you've for to admit that at first glance the B-2 looks like it has no business staying up in the air.
It doesn't IIRC - maybe the more flight-minded can confirm, but doesn't it pretty much stay in the air thanks to an extremely complicated computer/gyro system?
The F-117A at least has a relaxed stability so works by fly-by-wire, where a computer actually controls all the control-surfaces on the plane. I'd guess the B-2 works similarly.
The F-117 like a lot of modern fighters needs a FCS.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
The F-117 like a lot of modern fighters needs a FCS.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
Especially given that there must be at least 3 separate systems in there. Wasn't there an issue with a Raptor when it crossed the International Dateline and it's computers crashed?
The F-117 like a lot of modern fighters needs a FCS.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
Especially given that there must be at least 3 separate systems in there. Wasn't there an issue with a Raptor when it crossed the International Dateline and it's computers crashed?
Probably just me, but you've for to admit that at first glance the B-2 looks like it has no business staying up in the air.
It doesn't IIRC - maybe the more flight-minded can confirm, but doesn't it pretty much stay in the air thanks to an extremely complicated computer/gyro system?
Yup.
Modern combat aircraft are usually unstable in at least one axis.
An aircraft that is stable will return to straight and level flight with no control input (kind of like the way the wheel will return to it's neutral position in a moving car). Aircraft that are unstable in a given axis (usually pitch) won't do that unless the avionics do it themselves. Basically the avionics interprets what the pilot wants and works out how to make the aircraft do it. A person wouldn't be able to do that because the aircraft would respond wildly differently to the same control input depending on it's speed and attitude, and nobody has reflexes that fast.
The F-117 like a lot of modern fighters needs a FCS.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
Especially given that there must be at least 3 separate systems in there. Wasn't there an issue with a Raptor when it crossed the International Dateline and it's computers crashed?
We're looking at buying some apparently.
Raptors (F22s)? I thought we were looking at the F-35 JSF?
Edit: Confusingly the F-35s are called Lightning IIs, which was the old name for the Raptor, IIRC.
I think its a quad vote-system like the F-117 (and just about every other 4th generation aircraft)
the dateline thing was weird. I can't believe that didn't get caught earlier.
F-22 is in the UK this year for those who have an interest. RIAT and Farnborough.
F-111: It got an F designation because it was a joint USAF and USN project and the USN needed a fighter. It didn't make a good fighter and so the Tomcat was developed, usinga lot of F-111B systems like the Phoenix missile.
Stability: Flying wings have poor lateral stability. I can't recall what they are like in the other two axis but I do know that it is lateral stability that is always the issue. My books are at work so I'm going off memory here.
wet dreams: Northrop. I can't reacll of the top of my head who the German's proponents were. They were brothers and begins with a G I think.
sorry, beer is clouding me head (but, hey we beat france in the rugby!)
The F-117 like a lot of modern fighters needs a FCS.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
Especially given that there must be at least 3 separate systems in there. Wasn't there an issue with a Raptor when it crossed the International Dateline and it's computers crashed?
We're looking at buying some apparently.
Raptors (F22s)? I thought we were looking at the F-35 JSF?
Edit: Confusingly the F-35s are called Lightning IIs, which was the old name for the Raptor, IIRC.
Hmm. I don't think he's talkinga bout the UK. Australia wanted the F-22. That got knocked back and so they went with F-35 with F/A-18E/F to fill the hole.
I like Typhoon, it'll beat everything but a Raptor (and JSF might be a challenge when it comes). Having Raptor would be nice but it's overkill unless you want to start taking on China (more of a US thing ).
Ah crap. Now I've got schnaps to drink...
JSF is to replace harrier as a carrier aircraft. There's talk of replacing Tornado with a hybrid version of JSF (A land absed version with C version big wing for more fuel).
Typhoon replaces F3 Torando and Jag (well, its starting to replace jag. just getting a full AG capability).
Different roles (and budgets). They were helicopter carriers that ended up being aircraft carriers. A highly unusual role change! The Invincible did do well in the South Atlantic but that more to do with the STOVL capabilities of teh Harrier than the carriers themselves.
given the Falklands were the only time a fixed wing carrier was useful for us its arguable if the CVF are needed. dedicated helicopter Carriers like Ocean (albeit without its woeful machinery) might be more useful.
The new CVF have a deck size that isn't far off the Nimitz. But displacement is quite a gap.
Hmm. I don't think he's talkinga bout the UK. Australia wanted the F-22. That got knocked back and so they went with F-35 with F/A-18E/F to fill the hole.
Yep, and now the new government is trying to get the US to rethink their decision and let us buy raptors from them.
Different roles (and budgets). They were helicopter carriers that ended up being aircraft carriers. A highly unusual role change! The Invincible did do well in the South Atlantic but that more to do with the STOVL capabilities of teh Harrier than the carriers themselves.
given the Falklands were the only time a fixed wing carrier was useful for us its arguable if the CVF are needed. dedicated helicopter Carriers like Ocean (albeit without its woeful machinery) might be more useful.
The new CVF have a deck size that isn't far off the Nimitz. But displacement is quite a gap.
isn't it like a terrible idea to name your carrier "the invincible"?
Different roles (and budgets). They were helicopter carriers that ended up being aircraft carriers. A highly unusual role change! The Invincible did do well in the South Atlantic but that more to do with the STOVL capabilities of teh Harrier than the carriers themselves.
given the Falklands were the only time a fixed wing carrier was useful for us its arguable if the CVF are needed. dedicated helicopter Carriers like Ocean (albeit without its woeful machinery) might be more useful.
The new CVF have a deck size that isn't far off the Nimitz. But displacement is quite a gap.
isn't it like a terrible idea to name your carrier "the invincible"?
I think that's a bad idea for any vehicle.
And isn't any F-22 that's sold overseas likely to be of poorer quality then the ones we use?
Posts
That's some pretty dangerous tech to risk getting stolen, too. It's not especially effective against our current enemies, but it would be pretty nasty against US.
As for their use... with the scare tactics being made by Russia, and the increasing militarization of the world, regardless of actual benefit, military R&D budgets are only going to get bigger and more wasteful.
Especially since we're basically arms dealers for the world.
There are four B-2 on permanent station in Guam, presumably because its a better run for the eastern hemisphere. It was a take-off on accident. I doubt it was pilot based but something going wrong. The B-2 probably aren't racking up the hours like say the F-15E fleet but its a higher tempo than the cold war it was designed for.
As to whether the B-2 should be replaced. The line is closed and I think the tooling destroyed. So no replacement.
In the long term, the USAF are working on a new bomber requirement and they want something faster cheaper and more stealthy. I'd say pick two of those and it sure won't be the 'cheap' option...
My other sig sucks as well...
But seriously, Flying wings have a directional stability issue (hence why the 1940's versions never went anywhere - oh a pun!) but nothing to cause a take off issue.
My other sig sucks as well...
I still like the B-1B. Complex as hell but so cool...
My other sig sucks as well...
Didn't they launch an AMRAAM or something out of the F-117A's bay to get the "F" designation? Something about funding if I recall.
In practice. It can't. Lack of a radar for one (there's a second reason...). You could fire Sidewinders and Tom Clancy pretty much called a likely role (shooting AWACS) in Red Storm Rising.
My other sig sucks as well...
It doesn't IIRC - maybe the more flight-minded can confirm, but doesn't it pretty much stay in the air thanks to an extremely complicated computer/gyro system?
I can't even imagine how nervous I'd feel even USING something worth that much money, let alone crashing it. I have the feeling that someone's getting a severe chastising when it's discovered who screwed up (if anyone did).
The F-117A at least has a relaxed stability so works by fly-by-wire, where a computer actually controls all the control-surfaces on the plane. I'd guess the B-2 works similarly.
The B-2 might, and probably does. But like I said the Flying Wing (or blended body design for the B-2 technically) generates a lot of lift. They managed to fly flying wings in the forties (Germany and USAF) but couldn't get around lateral stability issues without adding rudders (getting away from the pure wing theory).
It's quite a sound design given modern technology. And the plane crashed on take-off which suggests engine issues more than stability (although that would be a serious issue if the FCS packed in).
My other sig sucks as well...
Especially given that there must be at least 3 separate systems in there. Wasn't there an issue with a Raptor when it crossed the International Dateline and it's computers crashed?
Yup.
Modern combat aircraft are usually unstable in at least one axis.
An aircraft that is stable will return to straight and level flight with no control input (kind of like the way the wheel will return to it's neutral position in a moving car). Aircraft that are unstable in a given axis (usually pitch) won't do that unless the avionics do it themselves. Basically the avionics interprets what the pilot wants and works out how to make the aircraft do it. A person wouldn't be able to do that because the aircraft would respond wildly differently to the same control input depending on it's speed and attitude, and nobody has reflexes that fast.
IIRC, the B-2 is unstable in all three axes.
Raptors (F22s)? I thought we were looking at the F-35 JSF?
Edit: Confusingly the F-35s are called Lightning IIs, which was the old name for the Raptor, IIRC.
the dateline thing was weird. I can't believe that didn't get caught earlier.
F-22 is in the UK this year for those who have an interest. RIAT and Farnborough.
F-111: It got an F designation because it was a joint USAF and USN project and the USN needed a fighter. It didn't make a good fighter and so the Tomcat was developed, usinga lot of F-111B systems like the Phoenix missile.
Stability: Flying wings have poor lateral stability. I can't recall what they are like in the other two axis but I do know that it is lateral stability that is always the issue. My books are at work so I'm going off memory here.
wet dreams: Northrop. I can't reacll of the top of my head who the German's proponents were. They were brothers and begins with a G I think.
sorry, beer is clouding me head (but, hey we beat france in the rugby!)
My other sig sucks as well...
Gotta have 'em all!
Having the Eurofighter, the Raptor and the F-35 would be a bit much I think though.
Aren't the F-35's for those new carriers you're building?
I thought that was why the UK was interested in them.
Not necessarily. Presumably it would be to replace Harriers, Tornadoes and Jaguars. Though I'm not certain what would replace what in that scenario.
They're to go with the shiny new carriers we may be building. Plus (I guess) to replace the ageing Harriers.
Edit: What a bizarre mis-reading of your post. Sorry bout that.
I like Typhoon, it'll beat everything but a Raptor (and JSF might be a challenge when it comes). Having Raptor would be nice but it's overkill unless you want to start taking on China (more of a US thing ).
Ah crap. Now I've got schnaps to drink...
JSF is to replace harrier as a carrier aircraft. There's talk of replacing Tornado with a hybrid version of JSF (A land absed version with C version big wing for more fuel).
Typhoon replaces F3 Torando and Jag (well, its starting to replace jag. just getting a full AG capability).
My other sig sucks as well...
Aren't the new carriers on the same scale as our Nimitz's?
And yeah, the Harrier is starting to age.
I like the look of the F-35C though, apparently it's going to be pretty stealthy.
They're the biggest aircraft carriers that the UK (or anyone in Europe for that matter, although France want two of a similar design) will operate.
I have some issues with the F-35 but as a replacement for the Harrier its more than adequate.
My other sig sucks as well...
Not quite as big, I had to wiki how big a Nimitz is, but the CVF carriers are going to displace about 65000 ton as opposed to the Nimitz' 100000.
Still three times bigger than our current carriers.
Yeah, your current carriers seem kind of crappy to me. No offense.
Tell that shit to Argentina.
Well, even a bad carrier is preferable to no carrier at all.
given the Falklands were the only time a fixed wing carrier was useful for us its arguable if the CVF are needed. dedicated helicopter Carriers like Ocean (albeit without its woeful machinery) might be more useful.
The new CVF have a deck size that isn't far off the Nimitz. But displacement is quite a gap.
My other sig sucks as well...
isn't it like a terrible idea to name your carrier "the invincible"?
I think that's a bad idea for any vehicle.
And isn't any F-22 that's sold overseas likely to be of poorer quality then the ones we use?