SirFozzalot

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US stealth bomber crashes on Guam


First one ever to crash....£610 million worth!

Leslie

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

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

omg Leslie, sitting down with you and a beer would result in some eye opening stories

I guess you had a few choice words for the VC10 pilot

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

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!

SJ_Skyline

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.

Leslie

There was a problem in that he was the Squadron CO! Remarks were passed however.

Quite right about the weapons etc Skyline.

Les

Daz34

Old but interesting article here

BOB.T

'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!

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

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.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Yes, I too have often thought that.

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"

astraboy

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.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

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.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Lets not forget that things like the F117A and B2 were conceived and designed for a cold war scenario. The strong possibility is that they wouldn't have had a base to return to.

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.

Rob_Impreza99

iTrader: (3)

Glad the pilots are ok, i bet the yanks couldn`t see this coming.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

That is true, the political hot potato of binning an idea that has already had massive investment. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Leslie

We found that if you chucked a load of "window" out that the radar could not see anything very much anymore let alone you.

Les

j4ckos mate

this stealth fighter that crashed, have they found it yet?

andythejock01wrx

Don't you think they'll be flying over Iran at some point in the next couple of years though ?

andythejock01wrx

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

BY SA2 Guidelines, and old Radar controlled AA guns!

No joke, just the other day was mentioning how it was funny that the B2 fleet had not had any hull losses over the last 20 years......

rob878

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

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

F-117=finished NOW, seems like a good call.

rob878

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)

CrisPDuk

Let's face it though, the RAF could have turn up with knackered old Vampires and still run rings round anything the Yanks had put up
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

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Nice fantasy world, what is it called?

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Fatigue cited as one of the problems, and expensive (pig) to work on..............

CrisPDuk

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

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

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.

CrisPDuk

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