http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23302483/

Before you all start disputing the costs, it costs 1.2 billion dollars per jet.
This might seem like a lot but it's an inflated price due to the fact that they only built 21 of them.
Cost of an aircraft = aircraft/manufacturing+R&D cost.

Barry

Do you realize that many B-52's have crashed? They cost hundreds of millions of dollars also. Planes do crash , if you didn't realize it, and that's a fact we have to live with. Finding out why it crashed would be paramount in understanding the dynamics to avoid further crashes and save lives. Thankfully the crew escaped without injuries.

Do you realize that many B-52's have crashed? They cost hundreds of millions of dollars also. Planes do crash , if you didn't realize it, and that's a fact we have to live with. Finding out why it crashed would be paramount in understanding the dynamics to avoid further crashes and save lives. Thankfully the crew escaped without injuries.

B52 and B2 are fundamentally different. B52 is an ancient plane whereas the B2 has always been an icon of futuristic aviation and for it to crash is quite different than a cruddy old B52.

cruddy old B52.

Now why would you insinuate it was that? It has a very good track record for over 50 years of service.

At any rate, Barry was right. It was the B2 not the B52 (though, I agree, it's hardly a "cruddy" plane).

~String

At any rate, Barry was right. It was the B2 not the B52 (though, I agree, it's hardly a "cruddy" plane).

~String

I understood what it was. Reread my post. I was just trying to say that there have been crashes of a B-52 and it cost over 200 million per plane.

Cosmic was perfectly correct in highlighting the B52's difference and I was not claiming that he thought it was the B52 v. B2, he know's well which one it is.

I'm not trying to say that it should never crash, I'm trying to get across that this might spawn a larger inquest into what the USAF is doing from the general public. The B2 is an icon, a flagship for one to crash sends out a bad image/message and I'm well aware all types of planes will eventually have a crash.

Yes, I'm sure the B52 has a brilliant military service/track record but it is outshined by the B2. I don't like B52's :)

Isn't the B2 almost 20 years old? Hardly a new or "futuristic" technology. And pretty good track record if this is the first crash.

Yes, I'm sure the B52 has a brilliant military service/track record but it is outshined by the B2. I don't like B52's :)
Sucks to be you then! BUFF is going to be around until the 2040s.

The only thing the B-52 has over the B-2 is greater numbers. The USAF is loathe to deploy B-2s all too often because their limited quantity gives them the excuse "we're a strategic asset so you can't deploy us tactically!" which is extremely annoying at times, but thankfully the B-52 is there to pick up the slack, and is just as good at loitering over the battlefield barfing out JDAMs as necessary. Since enemy air defenses haven't been much of a concern in recent years, the B-2's advantage of being able to operate in contested airspace absent a concerted SEAD campaign coming in and destroying AAA/SAM defenses beforehand hasn't been a huge plus. Although being able to circumnavigate the earth for a mission in one fell swoop is pretty goddamned awesome.

That said, I would hardly call the B-52 worthless. By the time they retire they'll be nearly 100 years old.

Sucks to be you then! BUFF is going to be around until the 2040s.

The only thing the B-52 has over the B-2 is greater numbers. The USAF is loathe to deploy B-2s all too often because their limited quantity gives them the excuse "we're a strategic asset so you can't deploy us tactically!" which is extremely annoying at times, but thankfully the B-52 is there to pick up the slack, and is just as good at loitering over the battlefield barfing out JDAMs as necessary. Since enemy air defenses haven't been much of a concern in recent years, the B-2's advantage of being able to operate in contested airspace absent a concerted SEAD campaign coming in and destroying AAA/SAM defenses beforehand hasn't been a huge plus. Although being able to circumnavigate the earth for a mission in one fell swoop is pretty goddamned awesome.

That said, I would hardly call the B-52 worthless. By the time they retire they'll be nearly 100 years old.

By the time a BUFF goes through rebuild, it is dam nere a new aircraft, the parts on the BUFF's are far from being old.

By the time a BUFF goes through rebuild, it is dam nere a new aircraft, the parts on the BUFF's are far from being old.

Though I disagree with just about every personal opinion you offer, I'm generally willing to defer to your expertise on all things military. But I don't think you're quite right on this one.

Although the Air Force built more than 700 B-52s, only about 90 survive. Boeing long ago shut down the productionline, leaving crews to scrounge spare parts in the strangest places, including aviation museums and the Air Force's "Bone Yard," a repository for aging aircraft in the Arizona desert. Mechanics have literally scavenged repair parts by tearing up old B-52s with chain saws to keep the current fleet flying.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/24/b-52.htm

Though I disagree with just about every personal opinion you offer, I'm generally willing to defer to your expertise on all things military. But I don't think you're quite right on this one.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/24/b-52.htm

Not quite the whole story, yes the production line has been shut down since 1958, the last plane being produced, B-52H number 61-0040, which, left the factory on 26 October 1962 but that doesn't mean that the parts suppler stopped producing replacement parts, as the up-grades were done new systems were installed, and as the service life was extended replacement parts were needed, and the Boeing Plant still produces parts for the B-52, along with a myriad of other contractors to keep the BUFF in the air.

If a major component is needed they may go to the bone yard, but even then it will be completely rebuilt to up-grade standards before being installed, most of the systems in the bone yards are not interchangeable with current service aircraft, only the major assembly are of any use, but even then they have to be completely rebuilt to be usable to keep the BUFF viable as a front line bomber.

As for the rest of the subsystems they are brand new production, the engines are completely different now, TF33-P-3 turbofan, instead of the Pratt & Whitney J75, the weapons systems are completely different and being up-graded continually, the Avionics, and Electronics, the ECM systems, there is not much other than plane form that is left of the original system.

A B2 has crashed.

Some think that is significant.

More significant is that there's a B2 to crash.

Gravity--a bitch-- is always significant.

Same for Probability.

1.2b to build - how much to keep? What's the mileage like?

That is too bad. B-2s are very unstable aircraft with their design. BTW, B-52s are possibly the best stratigic bombers of all time and are by all means not cruddy.

B-2s are very unstable aircraft with their design

Completely incorrect. The B2 design is based on a delta wing, the most flyable shape known in aerodynamics. It flies so well that it is difficult to land it due to so much lift.
You are confusing the B2 with the F117.

Barry

Completely incorrect. The B2 design is based on a delta wing, the most flyable shape known in aerodynamics. It flies so well that it is difficult to land it due to so much lift.
You are confusing the B2 with the F117.

Barry


No the B-2 is not a inherently stable design, it flies because of computer aided stability program, with out a tail it has definite yaw control problems, which can lead to dutch roll problems.

I disagree. The plane has 2 split ailerons which work by adding drag and so create an operable yaw control system (it mighten't be as efficient but nonetheless it is stable).

Barry

I disagree. The plane has 2 split ailerons which work by adding drag and so create an operable yaw control system (it mighten't be as efficient but nonetheless it is stable).

Barry

LMAO, you disagree with physics then. Good luck with that.

That plane could not/would not fly two inches without computers controlling the control surfaces. Since the manufacturer readily admits that, as does the military, who in the hell are you to disagree?

There seems to be some confusion here about controllability vs stability.

Static stability (on the pitch, roll, or yaw) axis is the tendency of an aircraft to return to center (return to aerodynamic alignment with the relative wind) when disturbed in flight, without further control deflection.

Take an arrow, and progressively move the feathers forward until it begins to tumble easily, and that is approximately the point of neutral static stability. Absent neutral static stability, there can be no positive dynamic stability, where a shape inherently damps, or reduces oscillations as a result of being disturbed. The B-2 very likely has neutral static stability in yaw, and negative yaw stability under asymmetrical thrust and/or drag conditions. The yaw controllability of Spirit is uniquely dependent on the operability of the draq rudders. The control authority of the drag rudders might under certain situations become overpowered by other yaw-producing forces.

The B-2 has a quadruple-redundancy fly-by-wire electronic flight control/air data system that reduces pilot workload dramatically, making Spirits very, very easy-to-fly within programmed parameters. Like all multi-engine aircraft, the B-2 has vulnerabilities in low-speed, heavily-loaded asymmetrical thrust situations (engine failure on takeoff).

Unlike conventional airframes, flying wings have inherently diminished yaw stability and particularly pronounced yaw-roll coupling, known as Dutch Roll. Pronounced dutch roll means that a yaw excursion produces an amplified rolling motion. The B-2 has the potential for unique assymmetry problems because the main landing-gear doors are enormous. I have no idea what lead to the accident, but these are two of many conceivable factors, and the injurious ejection suggests an extreme flight attitude shortly after takeoff. I just learned that one of the crew received a spinal injury in the accident, so the price of our learning from this first-ever B-2 accident has gone beyond mere money.

While B-52 has fly-by-wire commands, they never give the plane the intelligence to decide what is wrong and take action. They leave that to the pilot to decipher that need to be done. May be it is time to add artificial intellegence like NASA did with Deep Space 1 proble. Elsewhere we are talking about "Livingstone2" AI software from NASA

Deep Space 1 could carry our senses where no man has gone before, because it was not burdened with hauling and preserving live meat. Airborne weapons delivery has not required on-board human crews for some time now. Aerial weaponry is only manned for marketing, and not for technical or tactical reasons. On-board crews are in reality an unnecessary burden, severely limiting both acceleration and loitering. When the first unmanned air-superiority fighter emerges and engages, the chivalry-myth of manned fighters and bombers will be destroyed, and the audience funding these fireworks will understand what engineers have understood for a long time now.

Completely incorrect. The B2 design is based on a delta wing, the most flyable shape known in aerodynamics. It flies so well that it is difficult to land it due to so much lift.
You are confusing the B2 with the F117.

Barry

No need for self-righteousness. I know by heart and mind what the B-2 is; let me begin. In the post-WW2 era, the Northrup aeronautical company was testing German research on a flying wing design to vastly reduce drag and ultimately improve efficiency and manouvreability. It started with the YB-49 design to test the wings performance. The plane was very aerodynamically unstable and the government took no interest in incorporating its design to military use. It only became possible with computers, that Northrup's design was able to make it into USAF starting with the B-2 "Spirit" bomber.

The B-2's stealth comes from a combination of reduced acoustic, infrared, visual and radar signatures, making it difficult for defenses to detect, track and engage. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying wing design contribute to its stealth abilities. The B-2 uses radar absorbent material and coatings, that have required climate-controlled hangars for maintenance
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/NORTHROP_B-2.png
Looks like a flying wing design to me. ^
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/YB49-2_300.jpg/755px-YB49-2_300.jpg
The YB-49 in flight


Anything else to oblige? :bugeye:

Looks like someone cutoff two wings from a plane and joined it together...

northop actually did use salvaged parts for their prototype. They were kind of on a budget.

Hypewaders, thank you for injecting facts into the thread and agree with what you have said.

This brings up another fascinating subject; do you think the US is still running black programs?


Barry

Of course we are- Secret cutting-edge research at a wealthy government's expense is always sexy- even now that the state of the art is leaving the aircrew on the ground.

Deep Space 1 could carry our senses where no man has gone before, because it was not burdened with hauling and preserving live meat. Airborne weapons delivery has not required on-board human crews for some time now...
What are you basing this on?

This brings up another fascinating subject; do you think the US is still running black programs?


Barry

I should hope so, Russia just announced it's going to invest billions back into it's aviation industry, and revamp it's portfolio of aircraft. I bet the USA never stopped research, being cash rich.

Airborne weapons delivery has not required on-board human crews for some time now...

E3R: "What are you basing this on?"

Fly-by-mouse is real. So are routine Predator attacks, the X-45, X-47, BAe Taranis, Dassault Neuron, MiG Skat, and more. Come on, catch up, E3R!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20051206/226boeingx45c.jpghttp://www.defense-update.com/images/BAES-raven.jpghttp://usmilitary.about.com/library/graphics/uav3.bmp

Fly-by-mouse is real. So are routine Predator attacks, the X-45, X-47, BAe Taranis, Dassault Neuron, MiG Skat, and more. Come on, catch up, E3R!
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1701472&postcount=16).

This post is premature by at least a few decades. In point of fact, as of right now there is no UCAV system in the world that can satisfy the demands placed on manned combat aircraft in all roles. A few instances where Hellfire-equipped Predators have been used in a CAS role have foreshadowed what the future may hold. However, the most advanced dedicated UCAV programs are still in the conceptual stage, some with rudimentary technology demonstrators flying, but none anywhere close to being able to deploy a system operationally. The UCAV systems that do exist (EADS Barracuda, Hermes 450, Boeing X-45, Northrtop X-47) are still in their technological infancy.

In truth, the F-22's successor will probably end up being some sort of UCAV, but the F-22 is intended to fully supplant the F-15C by ~2020 and fulfill the air superiority role well into the 2040s. It will be a while before the RISE OF THE MACHINES.

Right you are, E3R- I had forgotten that conversation. I expect you'll agree that UCAV stocks are promising.

Just for fun, you can watch a track from Il2 Sturmovik 1946 to see a hypothetical engagement between B-17s and GO-229s, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBgrw5GJWec

Just for fun, you can watch a track from Il2 Sturmovik 1946 to see a hypothetical engagement between B-17s and GO-229s, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBgrw5GJWec


The Horton against a P-80 loses every time, following the IL-II 1946 scenario the U.S. has the P-80 in the inventory and flying the P-80 against the Horton the Horton is dead meat.

In hard manuvers it dutch rolls and spins out, it can't hold a turn with the P-80.

Ummm, ok. Not a scenario I've ever bothered to fly. I don't really like the jets too much. Which makes it seem silly that I originally bought Forgotten Battles to be able to have a flyable ME-262. A few times I flew on servers where it was 262s Vs. P-80s, and I'd just get frustrated trying to get on someone's tail.

Now that I can't fly online anymore, I very rarely even boot it up. But it's still impressive to watch.

Right you are, E3R- I had forgotten that conversation. I expect you'll agree that UCAV stocks are promising.
Totally. Everything seems to be steamrolling in that direction, and the laundry list of advantages a UCAV has over manned aircraft is obvious to just about anyone. In my view, the largest holdup between where we are now and completely unmanned combat aircraft is communication bandwidth limiting the situational awareness of a UAV operator. Coordinating a close air support mission is a very, very pedantic exercise that usually has the pilot overflying the target several times to get the friendly forces and the target acquired with his or her own eyeball before they even think about dropping ordnance.

But all of that is changing too, with JTIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTIDS) terminals making their way from bigass stationary cabinets weighing 1500 pounds and needing their own water cooling to man-portable versions about the size of a PDA. Now, rather than listening to a UAV operator's verbal (and subjective) description of whatever is around the next corner over the radio, a team leader can see live video with his own eyes before his guys poke their heads around. It isn't too difficult to extrapolate from here, to a day where we can push enough video through a bigger pipe to give a pilot sitting in an office somewhere more than a TV screen to look through.

I think within our lifetimes we will look back on demos like this (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/x-45_bombing_040419.html) as analogs of David Bushnells Turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submarine)) or the Axis's Fritz X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X).

These changes are accelerating beyond human g-limits. Aerial weaponry is increasingly hindered/made vulnerable by onboard crews.