Another Bomber Crash

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[F-15 Eagle]

And yet another F-15 crashed in Nevada yesterday.

The AF is retiring all 18 B-52Hs. This is supposed to aid maintenance of the remaining 76 B-52s.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123108767

The F-15 that crashed was a two seater and one pilot was killed and the other injured I think. We probably wont know the cause of the crash until 60 days from now, thats how it usually works they send an investigation that takes several weeks then they release the cause and thats when we will know.

Also how many aircraft has the air force lost this year? I'm getting really concerned on the number of crashes in just this year alone.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[nevidimka]

huh?? B52, B1 and B2 all fulfill different mission profiles. where is the relevance of parallel comparing the cost of a mythical B3 against a B52?

Look at the history of US strategic intercontinental bombers... you just can't extrapolate build events/cost when you don't know what the design tasking will be.

Yeah, I know that if a B3 is built and the B52 is retired, its job will probably not be taken by the b3 but rather be delegated to B1 and B2. But still the operational cost of the B1 and B2 is probably higher than the B52.

I was just simply answering some1 who said that the B52 should be retired and a new bomber should have been built.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But still the operational cost of the B1 and B2 is probably higher than the B52.

They will be higher because their sunk costs are younger... Thats why you have costs that are based on "through life" actuals - and estimates

I was just simply answering some1 who said that the B52 should be retired and a new bomber should have been built.

Disagree with whoever promoted that - the B52 is fulfilling missions that no other aircraft can do in the fleet at the same degree of efficiency per tasking.

Old does not mean irrelevant.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, this site classifies the class A mishaps in the USAF by year.

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/

Its not surprising (at least to me) considering the intensity of ops have gone up in recent years due to Iraqi freedom and Afghanistan.

I think they need to build more aircraft to replace the lost aircraft. More F-22s and F-35s and build more B-1Bs and B-2s. I know it might seam a little unrealistic to restart the production lines of the bombers but I think its worth it since the 2018 bomber is way off and likely to be cut or delayed.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Feanor]

Disagree with whoever promoted that - the B52 is fulfilling missions that no other aircraft can do in the fleet at the same degree of efficiency per tasking.

Old does not mean irrelevant.

So instead of building a medium range bomber that, from what I heard here, sounds like an American equivalent of the Tu-22M3 (mini-bomber )they should build a dedicated replacement for the B-52, to carry out the same mission profile.

 

[Chrom]

Personally if i was in charge i'd retire the B-52's straight away. Putting the operating money towards developing the B-3.

The USAF could easily make do with surface launched cruise missiles and UCAV for loitering CAS.

To tell the truth, i think B-1B would be enough for USA. There are enough of them.

But that will not save even a penny for USAF, because then B-52 duties should be fulfilled by other, also not cheap assets like mentioned B-1B and F-15E with air refueling.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So instead of building a medium range bomber that, from what I heard here, sounds like an American equivalent of the Tu-22M3 (mini-bomber )they should build a dedicated replacement for the B-52, to carry out the same mission profile.

They don't need to build to replace the B-52 for a "specific" mission. The whole trend is towards multi-tasking platforms. The beauty of the Buff is that it's big enough and flexible enough to undertake various contemp missions. There's life in the paltform. That doesn't mean that you replace it "like for like" because tasking may not be/is not necessarily prescriptive anyway.

 

[crobato]

The string of bad luck hasn't ended in Guam yet. The LA class USS Houston sprang a valve leak in Apra harbor but so far there is no reported rise of radiation yet. What seems to be going on?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[crobato]

The Houston is stationed in Guam and its currently there right now. Given that the Navy was taking radiation readings in Apra Harbor, its a pretty good bet it started there.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

How old is this submarine? Age could be an issue. Good thing they are buying the newer Virginia class. But this reminds me of K-19 a Russian submarine back in 1961 that had a reactor leak that even killed 8 of its crew.

 

[AegisFC]

How old is this submarine? Age could be an issue. Good thing they are buying the newer Virginia class. But this reminds me of K-19 a Russian submarine back in 1961 that had a reactor leak that even killed 8 of its crew.

27 years old. Age probably isn't an issue, it is probably going to end up being proven to be a maintenance issue with the crew being at fault.
Generally the USN has an excellent nuclear safety record so this comes as a shock to a lot of people.

 

[crobato]

"Houston, we got a problem."

New Navy report suggests that the leak has been around since 2006. It smells like heads are going to roll on this one.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted