B-2 Stealth bomber crashes in Guam
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
B-2 Stealth bomber crashes in Guam
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US stealth bomber crashes on Guam
First one ever to crash....£610 million worth!
First one ever to crash....£610 million worth!
#2
Glad they got away with it. Guam has got a cliff at one end of the runway and it is not a good place not to be able to stop.
I once landed in a VC10 there where the operating pilot decided not to use reverse thrust even though it was a boiling hot day and very little headwind! What an idiot, we only just managed to stop before going over the cliff and the brakes were so hot that you could feel the heat as you walked down the exit steps! Some years ago, they had a dreadful fatal crash where ATC allowed a Herc to enter the runway at its centre while another aircraft was well into its T/O run! That was just before I got there in a Vulcan on the way to Singapore.
Les
I once landed in a VC10 there where the operating pilot decided not to use reverse thrust even though it was a boiling hot day and very little headwind! What an idiot, we only just managed to stop before going over the cliff and the brakes were so hot that you could feel the heat as you walked down the exit steps! Some years ago, they had a dreadful fatal crash where ATC allowed a Herc to enter the runway at its centre while another aircraft was well into its T/O run! That was just before I got there in a Vulcan on the way to Singapore.
Les
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the Yanks actually do with those stealth bombers now that they have them. To me they seem rather useless, and if anything a liability.
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
I don't see what they offer compared to using a long range missile. The missile costs less, probably more likely to get to target and is not a political disaster if it is shot down. £600m per plane and the possibility of pilots in enemy hands!
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
I don't see what they offer compared to using a long range missile. The missile costs less, probably more likely to get to target and is not a political disaster if it is shot down. £600m per plane and the possibility of pilots in enemy hands!
#5
Les is probably better qualified to speak on the subject but there are certain mission profiles that endear themselves to being carried out by an aircraft rather than a missile, such as seeking targets of opportunity. Missiles don't relay intel about what they have passed over back to their control, of course there are recon satelites for this but you get the idea. There are also certain munitions that can't be deployed by missile - weight and the volatility of the weapon being improtant factors.
#6
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'They' keep saying that these stealth planes give of the same radar signature as a flock of birds...ok then, you spot a 'flock of birds' on your radar and they're doing 500mph. I'm no rocket scientist but even I can work out that's no ordinary bird!
#9
Having seen one of this things fly - they're one of the most freakish things I've ever seen. Something just doesn't "look" right about them when they're in the air..
Bob - they're probably talking about Radar cross section - how much of a radar "signal" gets bounced off a particular object. Because of how different types of radars are calibrated for different uses, this would usually blend into the background noise. I'm currently upto my ears in books about radar theory for work.
They make my brain hurt.
Bob - they're probably talking about Radar cross section - how much of a radar "signal" gets bounced off a particular object. Because of how different types of radars are calibrated for different uses, this would usually blend into the background noise. I'm currently upto my ears in books about radar theory for work.
They make my brain hurt.
Last edited by Prasius; 23 February 2008 at 01:08 PM.
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention when they drop their "bombs". You can just imagine the radar operator thinking "Oh look, isn't this radar great, it even shows up bird droppings"
#11
I wonder what the Yanks actually do with those stealth bombers now that they have them. To me they seem rather useless, and if anything a liability.
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
Quite simply, if a conventional aircraft would produce a return signal at a given distance, a stealth aircraft would have to be signficantly closer to produce anything near such a return.
The advantage of this is that if an enemy force has installed overlapping radar stations, the reduced effective range means that a stealth aircraft can fly through the "gaps" its technology generates.
astraboy.
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked that article that was linked above. It does seem to suggest that there is not that much benefit from the technology, certainly on the earlier bombers.
30 hr return flights with 4 days work to repair the plane for its next flight. Just totally nuts when you are trying to fight a war. Things have probably improved, but even still I think there are simpler and easier ways to achieve the job you want done.
30 hr return flights with 4 days work to repair the plane for its next flight. Just totally nuts when you are trying to fight a war. Things have probably improved, but even still I think there are simpler and easier ways to achieve the job you want done.
#13
I liked that article that was linked above. It does seem to suggest that there is not that much benefit from the technology, certainly on the earlier bombers.
30 hr return flights with 4 days work to repair the plane for its next flight. Just totally nuts when you are trying to fight a war. Things have probably improved, but even still I think there are simpler and easier ways to achieve the job you want done.
30 hr return flights with 4 days work to repair the plane for its next flight. Just totally nuts when you are trying to fight a war. Things have probably improved, but even still I think there are simpler and easier ways to achieve the job you want done.
We (both internationally and the UK specifically) are still bringing in systems now that were conceived in the early 1980's, and are of dubious use now, but because so much money has been ploughed into them no-one has the bottle to bin them.
#16
The main advantage of stealth technology is that it reduces the effective range that radar can produce an effective return.
Quite simply, if a conventional aircraft would produce a return signal at a given distance, a stealth aircraft would have to be signficantly closer to produce anything near such a return.
The advantage of this is that if an enemy force has installed overlapping radar stations, the reduced effective range means that a stealth aircraft can fly through the "gaps" its technology generates.
astraboy.
Quite simply, if a conventional aircraft would produce a return signal at a given distance, a stealth aircraft would have to be signficantly closer to produce anything near such a return.
The advantage of this is that if an enemy force has installed overlapping radar stations, the reduced effective range means that a stealth aircraft can fly through the "gaps" its technology generates.
astraboy.
Les
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the Yanks actually do with those stealth bombers now that they have them. To me they seem rather useless, and if anything a liability.
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
I don't see what they offer compared to using a long range missile. The missile costs less, probably more likely to get to target and is not a political disaster if it is shot down. £600m per plane and the possibility of pilots in enemy hands!
Yes, they are hard to see on radar, but not impossible. If there is an enemy in the world where they choose to employ them I bet they can install a radar that can detect them for little cost.
I don't see what they offer compared to using a long range missile. The missile costs less, probably more likely to get to target and is not a political disaster if it is shot down. £600m per plane and the possibility of pilots in enemy hands!
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#22
Slightly off and on topic,
The bonus of having a platform over head rather than relying on cruise missiles is that a range of weaponary can be brought to bare on a target at very short notice. Plus real time viewing of the battle field can allow diversion of aircraft into the area at very short notice. (Prasius would be able to give more info due to the platform he is involved in, should he wish and is able)
It's worth noting that the F117a now has an end date set already, of about another 12 years approx 2018. Which would give the Aircraft a service life of about 30 years, which when you consider that the Tonka gr4 is having yet another mid life refit and many frames have already completed 30 years service, shows the massive difference in expenditure and ability to purchase new technology.
One of the reasons for the removal of the F117a from service is the fact that the new F22 and JSF offer the same radar invisibility coupled with a great range of flexibility. Couple with the fact that they are a lot easier to work on. Each F117 panel has to be stripped before removing then the specialist coating reapplied post fitment. (if tonkas did that we would bankrupt the MOD in a week the amount of panels we remove and fit)
As Astraboy mentioned the stealth technology is designed not to fly directly over radar sites and pretend to be invisible, but to skirt around the edges of radar coverage to maximise the "stealth" effect. To try and combat this radar operators try to find commonality of effects when a certain aircraft is in the area. Hence now that the F22 is operating in Alaska, Russia is launching lots of Bears Tu 95, partially for a bit of muscle flexing, but mainly to get the F22's in the air so that their radar operators can get a good look at the radar cross section of it and see how they can identify the aircraft in the future.
Hope i haven't bored any one to death, all this is available online and opsec hasn't been compromised. If it has then the blacked out vauxhall senator is on route.
Just after reading a previous post about the F117a being shot down in the Balkans, it's worth noting that the same route was flown repeatedly, hence why on that day it flew, there was a reception commitee waiting
The bonus of having a platform over head rather than relying on cruise missiles is that a range of weaponary can be brought to bare on a target at very short notice. Plus real time viewing of the battle field can allow diversion of aircraft into the area at very short notice. (Prasius would be able to give more info due to the platform he is involved in, should he wish and is able)
It's worth noting that the F117a now has an end date set already, of about another 12 years approx 2018. Which would give the Aircraft a service life of about 30 years, which when you consider that the Tonka gr4 is having yet another mid life refit and many frames have already completed 30 years service, shows the massive difference in expenditure and ability to purchase new technology.
One of the reasons for the removal of the F117a from service is the fact that the new F22 and JSF offer the same radar invisibility coupled with a great range of flexibility. Couple with the fact that they are a lot easier to work on. Each F117 panel has to be stripped before removing then the specialist coating reapplied post fitment. (if tonkas did that we would bankrupt the MOD in a week the amount of panels we remove and fit)
As Astraboy mentioned the stealth technology is designed not to fly directly over radar sites and pretend to be invisible, but to skirt around the edges of radar coverage to maximise the "stealth" effect. To try and combat this radar operators try to find commonality of effects when a certain aircraft is in the area. Hence now that the F22 is operating in Alaska, Russia is launching lots of Bears Tu 95, partially for a bit of muscle flexing, but mainly to get the F22's in the air so that their radar operators can get a good look at the radar cross section of it and see how they can identify the aircraft in the future.
Hope i haven't bored any one to death, all this is available online and opsec hasn't been compromised. If it has then the blacked out vauxhall senator is on route.
Just after reading a previous post about the F117a being shot down in the Balkans, it's worth noting that the same route was flown repeatedly, hence why on that day it flew, there was a reception commitee waiting
Last edited by rob878; 24 February 2008 at 03:41 PM. Reason: more boring stuff
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off and on topic,
The bonus of having a platform over head rather than relying on cruise missiles is that a range of weaponary can be brought to bare on a target at very short notice. Plus real time viewing of the battle field can allow diversion of aircraft into the area at very short notice. (Prasius would be able to give more info due to the platform he is involved in, should he wish and is able)
It's worth noting that the F117a now has an end date set already, of about another 12 years approx 2018. Which would give the Aircraft a service life of about 30 years, which when you consider that the Tonka gr4 is having yet another mid life refit and many frames have already completed 30 years service, shows the massive difference in expenditure and ability to purchase new technology.
One of the reasons for the removal of the F117a from service is the fact that the new F22 and JSF offer the same radar invisibility coupled with a great range of flexibility. Couple with the fact that they are a lot easier to work on. Each F117 panel has to be stripped before removing then the specialist coating reapplied post fitment. (if tonkas did that we would bankrupt the MOD in a week the amount of panels we remove and fit)
As Astraboy mentioned the stealth technology is designed not to fly directly over radar sites and pretend to be invisible, but to skirt around the edges of radar coverage to maximise the "stealth" effect. To try and combat this radar operators try to find commonality of effects when a certain aircraft is in the area. Hence now that the F22 is operating in Alaska, Russia is launching lots of Bears Tu 95, partially for a bit of muscle flexing, but mainly to get the F22's in the air so that their radar operators can get a good look at the radar cross section of it and see how they can identify the aircraft in the future.
Hope i haven't bored any one to death, all this is available online and opsec hasn't been compromised. If it has then the blacked out vauxhall senator is on route.
The bonus of having a platform over head rather than relying on cruise missiles is that a range of weaponary can be brought to bare on a target at very short notice. Plus real time viewing of the battle field can allow diversion of aircraft into the area at very short notice. (Prasius would be able to give more info due to the platform he is involved in, should he wish and is able)
It's worth noting that the F117a now has an end date set already, of about another 12 years approx 2018. Which would give the Aircraft a service life of about 30 years, which when you consider that the Tonka gr4 is having yet another mid life refit and many frames have already completed 30 years service, shows the massive difference in expenditure and ability to purchase new technology.
One of the reasons for the removal of the F117a from service is the fact that the new F22 and JSF offer the same radar invisibility coupled with a great range of flexibility. Couple with the fact that they are a lot easier to work on. Each F117 panel has to be stripped before removing then the specialist coating reapplied post fitment. (if tonkas did that we would bankrupt the MOD in a week the amount of panels we remove and fit)
As Astraboy mentioned the stealth technology is designed not to fly directly over radar sites and pretend to be invisible, but to skirt around the edges of radar coverage to maximise the "stealth" effect. To try and combat this radar operators try to find commonality of effects when a certain aircraft is in the area. Hence now that the F22 is operating in Alaska, Russia is launching lots of Bears Tu 95, partially for a bit of muscle flexing, but mainly to get the F22's in the air so that their radar operators can get a good look at the radar cross section of it and see how they can identify the aircraft in the future.
Hope i haven't bored any one to death, all this is available online and opsec hasn't been compromised. If it has then the blacked out vauxhall senator is on route.
#24
The last brief is was forced to attend had the date of 2018, but as you say if it's gone now then all good stuff, F22 is far more capable and apparently less of a pig to work on. .
Still China Lake, F22 v Buphoon, apparently didn't got the way a lot of people thought, nice to see the OEU doing something other than getting shedded every night, (yes i am jealous)
#25
Scooby Regular
I'd back a properly trained pilot in a beat up old nag over an arrogant ****** in the latest technological 'marvel' any day of the week
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last brief is was forced to attend had the date of 2018, but as you say if it's gone now then all good stuff, F22 is far more capable and apparently less of a pig to work on. .
Still China Lake, F22 v Buphoon, apparently didn't got the way a lot of people thought, nice to see the OEU doing something other than getting shedded every night, (yes i am jealous)
Still China Lake, F22 v Buphoon, apparently didn't got the way a lot of people thought, nice to see the OEU doing something other than getting shedded every night, (yes i am jealous)
#28
Scooby Regular
That's exactly how and why they managed it though, Stealth technology works better far against the more modern computer 'aided' radar systems. The computer sees something that it thinks looks like a flock of birds and removes it from the display, not even giving the operator a chance to assess it himself
The Iraqi insurgents are using the same priniciples to bring down the much over-rated heatseeker-proof Apaches. A loaded M60 held by an Arab with decent eyesight has no problem seeing things that a Stinger's seeker unit won't
The Iraqi insurgents are using the same priniciples to bring down the much over-rated heatseeker-proof Apaches. A loaded M60 held by an Arab with decent eyesight has no problem seeing things that a Stinger's seeker unit won't
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's exactly how and why they managed it though, Stealth technology works better far against the more modern computer 'aided' radar systems. The computer sees something that it thinks looks like a flock of birds and removes it from the display, not even giving the operator a chance to assess it himself
The Iraqi insurgents are using the same priniciples to bring down the much over-rated heatseeker-proof Apaches. A loaded M60 held by an Arab with decent eyesight has no problem seeing things that a Stinger's seeker unit won't
The Iraqi insurgents are using the same priniciples to bring down the much over-rated heatseeker-proof Apaches. A loaded M60 held by an Arab with decent eyesight has no problem seeing things that a Stinger's seeker unit won't
True, also it seems to be the older radars lower frequency that allowed them to triangulate the bugger more easily, and the lowtech no-nonsense controls.
#30
Scooby Regular
At the end of the day though Janspeed, so long as it's only the Americans shelling out for them, and our MOD don't decide they want a piece of the action, who cares how easy they are to see