B-2 Crashes in Guam

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The F-111s in service belong to the RAAF, having purchased a total of 35, including a number for spares. IIRC there are approximately 17 still in service in Oz, but that number is to be winding down until retirement in ~2010.

At the time of retirement from the USAF in 1996, there were ~225 in service. It is likely that a number of airframes are still sitting in Davis Motham, but it is very questionable as to how effective (cost/time-wise) it would be to have them refurbished. Given the airframe age, as well as new developments in weapons, avionics and engines, the aircraft would virtually need to be rebuilt.

Such an undertaking would be expensive, as well as time consuming unless some sort of critical need fast track acquisition could be done. Even then, time would be needed to design the upgrade, select the airframes for rentry in service, then implement the upgrades.

Also, even with this being done successfully (if that is possible), the upgraded F-111 still will not have the range, payload or IADS penetration capabilities that a B-2 has.

-Cheers

Tod you hit the nail on the head mate. For any of the EF-111's to be made operational they will litterally have to be rebuilt, and then your still dealing with 40 year old airframes, so they'll be maintinance intenceive. It'll be a frigging nightmare!

If the USAF was dead set on getting an offenceive EW capability they would just order some brand spanking new EA-18G's which would probably offer more capablility at less cost. AFAIK the production line is in full swing.

As for what the US DOD will do, I compleatly agree with weasel and atilla, they will nothing. 1 out of 21 will hurt but the loss of capability can and will be absorbed by the USAF. It wont be replaced by anything.

 

[bm-21]

The F-111s in service belong to the RAAF, having purchased a total of 35, including a number for spares. IIRC there are approximately 17 still in service in Oz, but that number is to be winding down until retirement in ~2010.

At the time of retirement from the USAF in 1996, there were ~225 in service. It is likely that a number of airframes are still sitting in Davis Motham, but it is very questionable as to how effective (cost/time-wise) it would be to have them refurbished. Given the airframe age, as well as new developments in weapons, avionics and engines, the aircraft would virtually need to be rebuilt.

Such an undertaking would be expensive, as well as time consuming unless some sort of critical need fast track acquisition could be done. Even then, time would be needed to design the upgrade, select the airframes for rentry in service, then implement the upgrades.

Also, even with this being done successfully (if that is possible), the upgraded F-111 still will not have the range, payload or IADS penetration capabilities that a B-2 has.

-Cheers

right but the majority f-111s at amarc are owned by the Australian government.

most of those f-111s as i previously stated are stripped, most are just frames out there getting rust.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod you hit the nail on the head mate. For any of the EF-111's to be made operational they will litterally have to be rebuilt, and then your still dealing with 40 year old airframes, so they'll be maintinance intenceive. It'll be a frigging nightmare!

If the USAF was dead set on getting an offenceive EW capability they would just order some brand spanking new EA-18G's which would probably offer more capablility at less cost. AFAIK the production line is in full swing.

As for what the US DOD will do, I compleatly agree with weasel and atilla, they will nothing. 1 out of 21 will hurt but the loss of capability can and will be absorbed by the USAF. It wont be replaced by anything.

Honestly, I am not quite as confidant that the USAF can easily absorb the loss of a B-2. Giving the flogging US equipment has been taking do to operational tempo, the amount of realignment required to maintain whatever the designated B-2 availability could cause a package shortage somewhere.

Conceivably, such realignment might make one less B-2 available for current, ongoing missions. This in turn could lead to a B-1 being reassigned to cover for a B-2. Then the missions the B-1 has been undertaking (large scale CAS IIRC) could need to be taken up by other aircraft, and so on like dominoes... With the end result either a need for replacement aircraft (in some situations, several/many aircraft) or an acceptance that some missions just cannot be undertaken, or at least not in a currently accepted manner.

An interesting question to ask would be how many F-15/F-16/F-18's would be required to manage some of the current B-1/B-2/B-52 taskings. IIRC, some of these aircraft were upgraded to make use of the SDB and similar so that large number of CAS strikes could be conducted by a single aircraft sortie, as opposed to larger numbers of aircraft sorties. AFAIK a single B-1 or B-2 can replace ~4-6 F-15E carrying 2,000 lb JDAMs. By needing that many more smaller aircraft to maintain current operations, then an already taxed aircraft inventory can be further strained.

Add in economic fears and a need to replace existing equipment across Defense as equipment is worn out or damaged/destroyed during operations, then the situation quickly becomes ugly.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

right but the majority f-111s at amarc are owned by the Australian government.

most of those f-111s as i previously stated are stripped, most are just frames out there getting rust.

This does not sound right. In the early to mid-90's, Australia purchased 15 F-111G aircraft from US stocks and out of the boneyard. These -G models were to replace other RAAF F-111s that had been lost, as well as provide a source for spare and replacement parts. Given that 563 F-111s of different variants were built, and that prior to retirement in '96 there were ~225 active in the USAF, it seems unlikely that all of the retired aircraft & frames were purchased by Australia. That would imply that Oz owns roughly twice as many F-111 airframes as there are in the entire RAAF jet combat force. Given that it is acknowledged that 15 -G models were purchased, what is IMV more likely is that the RAAF inspected the available aircraft at Davis Motham, and chose the aircraft in best condition.

Magoo, Agra, GF, any comments or confirmation?

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

This does not sound right. In the early to mid-90's, Australia purchased 15 F-111G aircraft from US stocks and out of the boneyard. These -G models were to replace other RAAF F-111s that had been lost, as well as provide a source for spare and replacement parts. Given that 563 F-111s of different variants were built, and that prior to retirement in '96 there were ~225 active in the USAF, it seems unlikely that all of the retired aircraft & frames were purchased by Australia. That would imply that Oz owns roughly twice as many F-111 airframes as there are in the entire RAAF jet combat force. Given that it is acknowledged that 15 -G models were purchased, what is IMV more likely is that the RAAF inspected the available aircraft at Davis Motham, and chose the aircraft in best condition.

Magoo, Agra, GF, any comments or confirmation?

-Cheers

Were they bought and just striped for parts and the frames remained in place?

 

[KGB]

Does the US use the b2s for strikes in iraq or afghanistan?
It seems wasteful for the USAF to risk wearing out its billion dollar b2's on missions that could be done by cheaper aircraft.

Perhaps Bush could offer to rent some Bears from Russia if the B52s are in short supply?

 

[bm-21]

This does not sound right. In the early to mid-90's, Australia purchased 15 F-111G aircraft from US stocks and out of the boneyard. These -G models were to replace other RAAF F-111s that had been lost, as well as provide a source for spare and replacement parts. Given that 563 F-111s of different variants were built, and that prior to retirement in '96 there were ~225 active in the USAF, it seems unlikely that all of the retired aircraft & frames were purchased by Australia. That would imply that Oz owns roughly twice as many F-111 airframes as there are in the entire RAAF jet combat force. Given that it is acknowledged that 15 -G models were purchased, what is IMV more likely is that the RAAF inspected the available aircraft at Davis Motham, and chose the aircraft in best condition.

Magoo, Agra, GF, any comments or confirmation?

-Cheers

Yes u are correct, but they do pay for them to stay at amarc.
"In late-1998, the RAAF set aside 11 F-111s at AMARC to be used for spare parts, mostly for airframe parts. In the selection process, EF's were chosen for the A-model airframe parts for the RAAF F-111C, Fs were chosen for the "Pave Tack" spare parts and the FB/Gs chosen for the RAAF F-111G. The RAAF is not buying these aircrafts but is paying to have them stored at AMARC for spare parts for their F-111 fleet. Two FB-111A, 67-0161 and 67-7195, and one F-111G, 68-0260 were included in this lot."

the site is.

fb.111.net


hope this clears things up. cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I agree with Atilla. No airforce would purchase an aircraft and not consider possibility of attrition losses esp with a multi- project such as the B-2.

I think they aren't going to replace it with anything. However, the airforce might take the opportunity to push again for more F22s.

F-15s + B2 crashing, F22 acquisition = appealing. The only question is funds. Already military funding is hitting epic proportions and that's just replacing equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt if there are spare cash lying around. It could mean killing some other equally impt projects and that's going to face congressional battles.

Once Obama gets into the hot seat, forget about anything replacing anything. Democrats are generally weaker on defense and focus on budget balancing.

I agree with you 110% on that. As for funding issues I know Congress is a big fan of the F-22 so I think they can figure something out. I can't imagine not replacing a $1.2 billion bomber. That is so expensive you can't afford NOT to replace it. The F-22s will not directly replace the crashed B-2, but more indirectly replace it.

Some might say will losing just one bomber make a difference? I say yes, it could endanger national security.nfloorl:

 

[aura_bomber]

wow i just cant believe that happened. it really stinks.

[Mod Edit]
Welcome to the forum.

BTW, while I sympathise with your reaction, might I suggest that you read & take notice of the rules? http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php - in particular Rules 2 & 18.

pji
[/Mod edit]

 

[consortium]

well whoever started this thread should stop whining about and try to find out how the hell this could have happened, instead of whining like julie

[Mod Edit]
This isn't the best way to introduce yourself. You'll get on better if you try to make meaningful contributions to discussions, instead of slagging off another member - who, by the way, hasn't whined at all.

Welcome to the forum - but try to raise your game if you intend to stay around. Start with the rules - http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php - in particular Rule 7, but 18 also applies.

pji
[/Mod edit]

 

[RubiconNZ]

well whoever started this thread should stop whining about and try to find out how the hell this could have happened, instead of whining like julie

I started this thread, to report the event of the crash, unfortunately I am not privy to Air force investigations so we will just have to wait.
Welcome to the Defencetalk.

 

[Pro'forma]

This thread is most welcome to begin with smuggling and other
espionage processing these needed investigation.

Prodigal information selling to reduce minimum.
Reorganization to most terrible defect.

First Lieutenant to begin.

 

[Firehorse]

The Pentagon's reliance on the plane's ability to evade radar, making it difficult for defensive systems to detect, track and attack, means the no-fly order is unlikely to last more than a few days. ..During the 1980s, when the US was battling for supremacy in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, an estimated £11 billion was spent on developing the stealth bomber. But the break-up of the Soviet state meant that plans to build up to 135 of the planes were abandoned, and only 21 were ever made. ..Guam, which was captured from Spain by US forces in 1898, has been a bomber base since March 2004. B-52, B-2 and B-1 bombers deploy on rotation from bases on the US mainland.
The crash came just four days after two F-15C Eagle jet fighters collided off the coast of Florida. Both pilots from the single-seat jets ejected from their planes and were rescued after a search by US Coast Guard and local fishing vessels, but one died soon after.
The US Air Force grounded its about 450 of its 700-strong F-15 fleet in November, after one failed during a training flight in Missouri, forcing a pilot to eject. He survived with minor injuries. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wbomber223.xml

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDsrpzn-e-8&feature=related"]YouTube - New Nuclear Bunker Buster For Iran[/ame]

But, I don't think the loss of 1 B-2 would make a difference, especially when

The new Raytheon penetrator just demonstrated is sized to fit the stealthy AGM-129 advanced cruise missile -also a Raytheon product-which is carried on B-52s.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/raytheons-sup-1.html

B-52H bombers can carry up to six AGM-129A missiles on each of two external pylons for a total of 12 per aircraft. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/acm.htm

Alhough the ACM was originally intended for the B-1B, it is now deployed only by the B-52H. A cruise-missile configured B-52H can carry up to 20 ACMs, eight on the internal rotary launcher, and 12 on two underwing pylons.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-129.html

The B-1B is certified to carry.. AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). Subsonic, turbofan-powered cruise missile with a maximum range of 1800 nm and dramatically reduced radar signature. Only four can be carried on the cruise missile launcher in the weapons bay. ..AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). This is a precision and stealthy cruise missile, weighing about 2000 pounds.. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/newb1_4.html
B-1B Lancer bombers will be prime customers for the JASSM extended range missile. Subsequently, this missile will be employed on other platforms. http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cruise-Missiles/AGM-158-JASSM-ER_a001073002.aspx

[ame="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/258279/agm_158_joint_air_to_surface_standoff_missile_jassm/"]AGM-158 Joint Air To Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)[/ame]

The B-52s & B-1Bs, together with "stealthy" SSGNs, can launch their CMs from stand-off ranges, without risking the now largerly redundant B-2s and their crews!

the vision for the Trident SSGN focuses on stealth, payload, versatility, and endurance http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssgn-726.htm

 

[ROCK45]

B-2 Accident Report Released

A update I found hope it wasn't posted already.

B-2 ACCIDENT REPORT RELEASED
Release Number: 020608

6/5/2008 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- Distorted data introduced by a B-2 Spirit's air data system skewed information entering the bomber's flight control computers ultimately causing the crash of the aircraft on takeoff at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 23, according to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report released today.

Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."

Moisture in the PTUs, inaccurate airspeed, a negative AOA calculation and low altitude/low airspeed are substantially contributing factors in this mishap. Another substantially contributing factor was the ineffective communication of critical information regarding a suggested technique of turning on pitot heat in order to remove moisture from the PTUs prior to performing an air data calibration.

The pilot received minor injuries, and the co-pilot received a spinal compression fracture during ejection. He was treated at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and released. The aircraft was assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.

The cost of the lost aircraft is about $1.4 billion.

For more information, contact the Air Combat Command Public Affairs office at (757) 764-5007 or email [email protected].

There are more links and articels off this link
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[ROCK45]

Pilots

It was good news the pilots were safe and the aircraft overall has thousands of hours of flying sorties under it's belt with a good record. I wonder if some day in the future B-2 frames will become the first stealth tanker and be filling up Block-II or III F/A-22? Could there be such a thing as stealth tanker?

 

[Salty Dog]

The most expensive crash in Air Force history - the $1.4 billion loss of a B-2 Spirit bomber Feb. 23 - was caused by water clogging aircraft sensors, according to an Air Combat Command report. The two pilots couldn't regain control of the bomber and as the left wing struck the runway, the pilots safely ejected.

See the video

 

[Pro'forma]

Vital military atmosphere.

I am suggesting the most high punishment, monetary;
where safety is investigated as violent, cause and effect of danger,
like criminal action.