Another Bomber Crash

[Feanor]

Another bomber crash. Posted wrong article by accident. Read second post.

[windscorpion]

I thought it was a B-52 that had crashed off Guam recently, the B-2 was ages ago wasn't it?

[Feanor]

Huh. My bad. I posted the wrong thing. Here's the right article.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/man241087-guam-plane/

MANILA, July 21, 2008 (Reuters) — A U.S. B-52 bomber that was due to fly in a Liberation Day parade in the U.S. territory of Guam on Monday crashed into the Pacific Ocean soon after take-off, news reports and officials said.

At least six crew members were missing, according to the website of Kuam News, a local station.

The U.S. airforce said in a statement it had no information on the status of the crew. It did not say how many people were on board the bomber or give a reason for the crash, which happened at 9:45 a.m. (2345 GMT or 7:45 p.m. EDT), 15 minutes before the parade was about to start.

An air force official was quoted on the Pacific Daily News website saying the plane was meant to take part in the parade.

July 21 is the day Guam commemorates its 1944 liberation from Japanese occupation in World War Two.

The island, under U.S. control since 1898, is the only significantly populated U.S. territory to have ever been occupied by a foreign power.

In February, a B-2 stealth bomber, which costs around $1.2 billion, crashed at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. The two pilots on board ejected safely.

(Reporting by Carmel Crimmins; Editing by Alex Richardson)

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[F-15 Eagle]

When is the Air Force going to get serious about building a new heavy bomber? I'm not talking about the medium bomber by 2018 I'm talking about a new longer range heavy bomber that has the payload of 50,000-70,000lbs to replace the B-2, B-1B and B-52. 6 people are dead(though I hope they might have survived the crash) because of our aging air force fleet. How many more crashes is it going to take for the Pentagon and Congress to properly fund the air force? That also goes for the fighters, tankers and helicopters too.

[guppy]

... 6 people are dead(though I hope they might have survived the crash) because of our aging air force fleet...

It is quite a strong statement to blame their deaths (presumed but I hope not) on the aging fleet. Nobody knows what happened so it is best to just keep praying for the 6 missing crewmen.

guppy

[F-15 Eagle]

It is quite a strong statement to blame their deaths (presumed but I hope not) on the aging fleet. Nobody knows what happened so it is best to just keep praying for the 6 missing crewmen.

guppy

So far at least 2 have been confirmed dead. This is a tragedy! May they rest in peace.

Link:http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/22/content_8742185.htm

[AegisFC]

. 6 people are dead(though I hope they might have survived the crash) because of our aging air force fleet.

We don't know what went wrong yet. The B-52 has proven to be a reliable aircraft and and are well maintained.

[F-15 Eagle]

We don't know what went wrong yet. The B-52 has proven to be a reliable aircraft and and are well maintained.

As I said to guppy so far 2 have been found dead. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/22/content_8742185.htm

[Feanor]

The aircraft is ancient and is quickly outliving it's usefullness. We've already established on this forum that in a modern war against a real, modern, network centric IADS or first world airforce it's next to useless. It needs to be replaced.

[F-15 Eagle]

The aircraft is ancient and is quickly outliving it's usefullness. We've already established on this forum that in a modern war against a real, modern, network centric IADS or first world airforce it's next to useless. It needs to be replaced.

Thats a very powerful statement to be said. The B-52 is old yes but not useless in anyway. The Air Force loves this aircraft and its one of the best bombers in the world. It has the longest range and biggest payload of any other bomber. The B-52 will still be useful well into 2040 and its still very capable in a modern warfare environment.

[windscorpion]

The aircraft is ancient and is quickly outliving it's usefullness. We've already established on this forum that in a modern war against a real, modern, network centric IADS or first world airforce it's next to useless. It needs to be replaced.

How many "real, modern, network centric IADS or first world airforces" has the USAF been fighting lately? Or even are likely to in the short to medium turn?

The B-52 is amazingly looked after, i remember reading some time ago how an extensive database is maintained on every aircraft, recording various telemetries and readings and can usually detect problems long before they because critical. Usually anyway.

[Feanor]

Thats a very powerful statement to be said. The B-52 is old yes but not useless in anyway. The Air Force loves this aircraft and its one of the best bombers in the world. It has the longest range and biggest payload of any other bomber. The B-52 will still be useful well into 2040 and its still very capable in a modern warfare environment.

So that's the thing then. The USAF keeps around an inferior system, because no superior opponent has presented themselves. I think that's a mistake.

The B-52 is amazingly looked after, i remember reading some time ago how an extensive database is maintained on every aircraft, recording various telemetries and readings and can usually detect problems long before they because critical. Usually anyway.

The pricetag of looking after it is rising fast, while it's usefullness is falling fast. Do you know what it's flight ceiling is?

[rjmaz1]

Do you know what it's flight ceiling is?
High enough that no AK-47 can shoot at it.

The B-52 is useful against a 1st world defence because it can launch cruise missiles from standoff range against a modern air defence system.

The B-52 is usefull 3rd world defence because it can fly above light arms/manpad fire, loitor for extended periods and drop bombs on multiple targets.

It does cost a lot to run. Speed, stealth and agility are not required for these missions.

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.

[ROCK45]

The B-52 has a very good overall record and more information is needed before we know what happen.

Quote
Since then, the B-52 had only suffered two Class A incidents, one in 1995 and another in 2005, but no loss of aircraft or crew. In fact, in the past 10 years the aircraft have had a Class A rate of only 0.41 per 100,000 flight hours.

Jul 21, 2008

By Robert Wall and David A. Fulghum

The bodies of two crewmembers of a U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress that crashed early July 21 off the coast of Guam have been recovered, while the fate of the other four remains uncertain, according to the U.S. Air Force.

The bomber was engaged in a training mission and was scheduled to perform a flyover celebrating Guam's Liberation Day when it went down around 9:45 a.m. local time.

The B-52 was deployed from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., to Andersen AFB, as part of the DoD's continuous bomber presence mission in the Pacific. However, USAF officials said there were no weapons or munitions aboard.

A board of officers is investigating the accident. Still, the crash off the northwest coast of Guam has ended an incredibly long run of no losses in the Cold War-era bomber fleet. It is the first B-52 loss since 1994, when four crew members died at Fairchild AFB, Wash., while practicing for an air show. That crash was blamed on pilot error.

Since then, the B-52 had only suffered two Class A incidents, one in 1995 and another in 2005, but no loss of aircraft or crew. In fact, in the past 10 years the aircraft have had a Class A rate of only 0.41 per 100,000 flight hours.

Not counting the latest incident, during the life of the program 79 B-52s have been destroyed, with the loss of life of 315 personnel. The Class A accident number is slightly higher, 98, with an accident rate of 1.27.

Including the latest B-52 crash, so far this fiscal year the Air Force has suffered 22 Class As, with 14 aircraft destroyed. If all six B-52 crew members did not survive the incident, it will double the number of fatalities for the fiscal year that the service has suffered. Guam was also the site of the accident in February that destroyed one of the service's 21 B-2 bombers while taking off (Aerospace DAILY, June 13).

Guam is considered a tough environment for both new and old aircraft with its corrosive, seaside saltwater environment, heat and high humidity. The B-2 crash was traced, in part, to accumulated water in sensors that then reported incorrect speed and angle of attack to the aircraft's flight controls. The result was a low-speed takeoff, a sharp pitchup and a stall that led to the first B-2 crash.

Air Force officials are already closely watching an F-22 deployment at Andersen to ensure they are on top of any issues that might result from an extended employment on Guam, and which might affect the operation of a Hawaii Air National Guard F-22 unit that is to stand up there in 2009-10. An earlier deployment of F-22s to Okinawa wasn't long enough to offer much evidence, USAF officials told Aviation Week.

B-52s bring the added problem of being old aircraft even though airframe time has been carefully managed. Both B-52s and B-1s have suffered from electrical problems and on-board fires over the years when operating from the similar environment of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The B-2 and B-52 accidents come in the midst of great expansion of facilities and missions at Guam that includes a unit of three or four unmanned Global Hawk intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft.

And there's more to come. U.S. Navy planners have an interest in Andersen and other U.S.-manned air bases in the region. They want the Air Force's tankers to be based in places like Guam to service the Navy's long-range, unmanned combat and intelligence gathering air vehicles.

USAF file photo of B-52 at Edwards AFB: Chad Bellay

Link
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/TWO07218.xml&headline=Two%20B-52%20Crew%20Recovered%20After%20Guam%20Crash

[F-15 Eagle]

So that's the thing then. The USAF keeps around an inferior system, because no superior opponent has presented themselves. I think that's a mistake.



The pricetag of looking after it is rising fast, while it's usefullness is falling fast. Do you know what it's flight ceiling is?

No no I never said don't but new systems I think the air force should buy as many new more advanced weapons as much as possible. But I don't think the B-52 is useless ether.

As for flight celling as like rjmaz1 said high enough so the terrorist in Afghanistan can't shoot it down with their AK-47s and RPG-7s. As for fighting in a more modern environment the b-52 can launch CALCMs at a standoff range well beyond any modern SAM.

[Todjaeger]

Unfortunately, the USAF has announced here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080723/ts_nm/guam_plane_dc;_ylt=Ardwhj.820tTf9op.0sBbOwfYhAF) that the B-52 aircrew which went down off Guam this weak are dead.
Search and rescue operations and being switched over to recovery operations.

May they rest in peace.

[crobato]

That's four accidents within the year occurring in the same area. In 2007, there was a helicopter crash.

The first accident was the loss of an EA-6 Prowler from the Nimitz group. Fortunately, the crew was recovered.

Two weeks later, came the infamous B-2 crash.

Then in the next month, in March 7, a B-1B made an emergency landing. After the crew got out of the plane, the B-1B somehow managed to roll into two emergency vehicles.

Then came the B-52 crash, and this one, most unfortunately involved casualties this time. It is said that the bodies of four of the six crew have yet to be recovered.

A few years ago, there was another accident, but this time, it didn't involve planes. Rather it was the USS San Francisco, an LA class attack sub, that was newly stationed there. The sub managed to bump into something, damaging its bow and killed two in the process.

None of these aren't as close as horrific as the crash of a KAL 747 no. Flight 801 that left no survivors but a girl in the rear section of the plane. That occurred in August 6, 1997, and killed 228.

[nevidimka]

It probably cost more to to deploy and operate a B3 than a B52. Thats y they are still there an a B3 is not yet built.

[gf0012-aust]

It probably cost more to to deploy and operate a B3 than a B52. Thats y they are still there an a B3 is not yet built.

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.

[weasel1962]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Deleted