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.

deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
edited February 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2236300820080223

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?

deadonthestreet on
«1

Posts

  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    D:

    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.

    Incenjucar on
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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...

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Is it a flaw in the plane design.
    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.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    i still think the F117A is the cooler bomber

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    it sure as hell isn't a fighter...

    I still like the B-1B. Complex as hell but so cool...

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    it sure as hell isn't a fighter...

    I still like the B-1B. Complex as hell but so cool...

    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.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Is it a flaw in the plane design.
    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?

    Zsetrek on
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Ouch, pricey. =(

    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).

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • evilbobevilbob RADELAIDERegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    it sure as hell isn't a fighter...

    I still like the B-1B. Complex as hell but so cool...

    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.
    They wanted the best pilots. The best pilots would not fly something with an "A" designation.

    evilbob on
    l5sruu1fyatf.jpg

  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Is it a flaw in the plane design.
    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.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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).

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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?

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • evilbobevilbob RADELAIDERegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    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?
    D: We're looking at buying some apparently.

    evilbob on
    l5sruu1fyatf.jpg

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Is it a flaw in the plane design.
    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.

    IIRC, the B-2 is unstable in all three axes.

    japan on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    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?
    D: 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.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    it sure as hell isn't a fighter...

    I still like the B-1B. Complex as hell but so cool...

    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.
    Same thing with the F-111 I think. I liked the B-1B as well. The flying wing thing was that one dude's wet dream right?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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!)

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    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?
    D: 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.

    Gotta have 'em all!

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    D: 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.

    Gotta have 'em all!

    Having the Eurofighter, the Raptor and the F-35 would be a bit much I think though.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    D: 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.

    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.

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Having the Eurofighter, the Raptor and the F-35 would be a bit much I think though.

    Not necessarily. Presumably it would be to replace Harriers, Tornadoes and Jaguars. Though I'm not certain what would replace what in that scenario.

    japan on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    D: 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.

    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.

    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.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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).

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    what we need is a stealth aircraft carrier that launches f22s with ninjas flying them.

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    D: 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.

    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.

    They're to go with the shiny new carriers we may be building. Plus (I guess) to replace the ageing Harriers.

    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.

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    they aren't quite as big as Nimitz. as wide. not as long.

    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.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Aren't the new carriers on the same scale as our Nimitz's?

    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.

    japan on
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    japan wrote: »
    Aren't the new carriers on the same scale as our Nimitz's?

    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.

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Heh, the facts and figures for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers is quite interesting. If you want to know how many cars the things will weigh.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    japan wrote: »
    Aren't the new carriers on the same scale as our Nimitz's?

    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.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Aren't the new carriers on the same scale as our Nimitz's?

    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.

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • evilbobevilbob RADELAIDERegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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.

    evilbob on
    l5sruu1fyatf.jpg

  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    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"?

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    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?

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Are there any modern replacements for the warthog? You know, slow-moving, capable of destroying anything on the ground, and tough as hell.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    No F-22 is going to be sold overseas as of right now. If they eventually decide to sell them, yes, they will be a stripped down version.

    deadonthestreet on
Sign In or Register to comment.