Stealth Bomber Crashes at Anderson AFB

reply to post by deenamarie53


Gravity has decided to start doing its job?

originally posted by Grimholt
Antime one of these goes down there will be questions.

My first, what exactly was it loaded with?

Nothing apparently.

There were no injuries on the ground or damage to buildings, and no munitions were on board. news.yahoo

From the sound of the articles they were on their way home. This was their last flight out of Guam and they were taking off in a cell of four. This is the most dangerous time for any unit or aircraft. Gohomeitis is running rampant at this point and people get complacent. They had been out there for four months, and absolutely nothing had happened until this point, and now they were just launching and everyone was getting on the planes, and they were on their way home. If you look at accident statistics for any service, there is always a rise in accidents just before the end of a deployment.

Video shot from Guam just after the crash, showing the impact site.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


It's impossible to avoid advances in technology, I know, but is necessarily such a good thing?..... Especially at the espense of maneuverability of the discussed craft by HUMANS. If the computers go out then you're basically screwed.

Hey, this is a conspiracy site, lol!

My suspicions about all the hi-tech aircraft going down; These could be results of deliberate attempts made by various factions (global/political) in a covert expression of war (spelled with a small w). Certainly we're not aware of all the scheninagans going on between competing global powers.

Another thought I have regarding the downing of truly hi-tech craft; it seems to me the aerodynamically challenged craft are prime candidates for sabatoge--through some form of electronic disruption (from an outside adversarial force).

Since I don't go to many of the threads here dealing with new techno stuff I'm hoping one of the readers with a better understanding will chime in.

Of course the problems we've been seeing of other, less complicated air-craft ( example helicopters and small fixed wing does not/may not fit into the same category).

Just putting out some thoughts for discussion as I have zero techinal know-how.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Here's a big thanks for the youtube link....

"$1.2 BILLION up in smoke". oh....my....god.

Again, I'm very happy the pilots are ok.

Well all the other aircraft we've lost lately are of the "less high tech" variety. The F-15s that are dropping out of the skies like flies were built in the 1970s and 1980s. The initial cause of their grounding was a manufacturing defect that allowed a small but vital part to be built too thin, so as the airframe aged it developed cracks. Then when they were doing Air Combat Maneuvering, it broke, and the airframe broke in two. The latest crashes of that particular type are caused by the fact that the pilots were grounded for so long that they lost their pilot rating, and have to train hard to get it back. They're pushing themselves harder than before, and getting the planes and themselves into situations where mid-air collisions can happen more frequently.

As for the B-2 and other newer craft, I would say the fact that they AREN'T falling out of the skies due to control related issues is a testament to the fact that either no one has developed a system to disrupt the computers, or the computers are shielded from EMI to a degree where it's difficult to disrupt them. The recent high tech crashes that I can think of off the top of my head (non-combat related), were caused by human error related issues. There was an F-117 a few years ago that flew for months with only one or two bolts holding the wing on, until during an airshow it finally cracked and the wing fell off. The YF-22 that crashed when the pilot disconnected power and failed to follow the checklist and restore the computers and crashed on take-off. And now this one.

Thanks for your reply Zaphod!

You've answered a lot of questions that I've had drifting around in my feeble brain. Of course watching television so much doesn't help me to maintain a clear perspective, lol.

News comes in today faster than we can assimilate it, IMO..... conspiracy makes for an easy...but flawed rationale..

Nevertheless, I'm still suspicious of unexplained events.

Just call me suspiciously curious.

Thanks

reply to post by Zaphod58



Wrong explanation. B-2's have fly-by-wire system on board not to increase maneuverability but to make it just flyable because B-2 is inherently unstable.
Doesn't posses any vertical fins to help him stay on course but has to use double edged ailerons to compensate for a lack of vertical stabilizers.
Humans couldn't possibly compensate hundreds of movements per second to fly the aircraft so FBW system is used.
In air-superiority planes they make them statically unstable by moving center of gravity backwards so they don't have a tendency to go back to level flight if joystick is released like it's case with older aircraft MiG-21, F-4...
BTW. France was first Country who used it on a fighter but USSR was the very first to use it on a plane as such.
Their hypersonic bomber which never entered the service T-4 was entirely made of steel and Titanium and possessed worlds first analogue flu-by-wire system.

And what do you think making it inherantly unstable does? Do you really think that a B-2 would be nearly as maneuverable as it is if it was built as a perfectly stable platform? Or the F-117? Or the F-22? I am very well aware of how they fly and how the systems work. Have you seen a B-2 maneuver? It's a LOT more maneuverable than say a B-52, despite being near the same size. Whether it's unstable because of the design, or because it was deliberate, it gets the same end result with FBW.

Originally posted by deenamarie53
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

It's impossible to avoid advances in technology, I know, but is necessarily such a good thing?..... Especially at the espense of maneuverability of the discussed craft by HUMANS. If the computers go out then you're basically screwed.

Well, if you're that worried, better no go on any planes whatsoever, except older ones, since they all have a lot of electronics on them now. Of course an A380 has multiple fail safes and batteries and a ram air turbine, but if it were to lose total power, flying it would be an interesting experience (note; not sure if it would be impossible or just difficult).

Another thought I have regarding the downing of truly hi-tech craft; it seems to me the aerodynamically challenged craft are prime candidates for sabatoge--through some form of electronic disruption (from an outside adversarial force).

Just, difficult to get close enough. I daresay even aging F117's are protected by barbed wire, machine guns and SAMs all the time.

Oh and for number of crashes of large aircraft (since they're the ones with professional pilots on, not just the odd Cessna with an ordinary guy in (not that that means they're inexperienced, just not as good as an airline pilot):

2008:

so far, 87 fatalities this year, 20 polish airforce, and 46 two days ago in a turboprop ATR-42.

23 incidents in database ASN

2007:
(over same period)

29 total incidents

139 fatalities, 102 in one crash, of an airline that is banned within the EU.

B-2 is nowhere near in size as B-52! Also, you are comparing two designs which have been built in deferent era and with different missions in mind.
Completely different tactical usage and technology helps even less in comparing them. B-2 is not maneuverable but stealthy. It is built to fly low and be stealthy not to dogfight with superior Sukhois or MiGs.
Conventional flight controls with tailless design is doomed so FBW had to be used. That simple.
Why it fell down is completely different matter and we will never know because USAF is by default sickly secretive.

B2

Length: 69 ft (21 m)
Wingspan: 172 ft (52.4 m)
Height: 17 ft (5.2 m)


B52

Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)


very similar wingspan tbh.

Yeah, look at the size mate! B-52 is more then 55% longer and 70% taller and that falls far shorter from the most powerful, biggest and more manouverable supersonic bomber ever made. Tu-160 Blackjack! Only B-1 can compare to Tu-160 in maneuverability and speed.
You simply can't compare design which was on a drawing board in late '40's with '90's stealthy approach.
FBW is a necessity here for simple flying not for maneuverability people. If there was conventional stick and rudder it would fall of the sky like a brick the moment you switch of the FBW.
Also, F-117 is not maneuverable really and could be outmaneuvered by second generation jets but F-22 is meant to be air superiority fighter so that was one of the requirements of course.

yeah the F-22 was supposed to Replace the f-16 and f-15 from what i was told in the Force.

I was partialy trained on F-117s while being taught about F-16s, also the F-16 and F-117 are in the same Job listing, they take people who were trained ion F-16s an will select a few to work on F-117s, They have alot of toxic parts on them, not to mention Halon, an LOX,

Yes they use a FBW system and have some of the most rigorious maintence I have ever seen, You need to take off their Outer panels just to get to some of the most basic inspection guages, They have miles of wiring thruout them just like the F-16 an F-15, An not to mention becuz its been before in this thread about everything pretty much being Computer controlled.

Im pretty sure Only Colonels can fly them.So im sure its about the same with the b2 as aposed to Butter bars being able to fly the others. Never Worked on one in person thoe only in Text, flippin had us Working on A-10s in tech school. an old arsed 1960 f-16s that were grounded... Wasnt untill Hot training I saw my 1st Live F-16, an at that time my buddies who were picked headed to NM for F-117 hot training.

Pretty odd it crashed, I mean they are checked an recheked as a part of the TO manuals. And with thank rank restriction you wouldnt wanna think it was the pilots seeing how it takes a good trek of life to become a Colonel. He had enuff time to pull his D ring so Im guessing he either new this was about to happen or had some kinda of " gut feeling " Still one of these crashing always leaves you thinking...... How. Becuz all of this being done for the F-117 Im pretty sure the regs arent too much different for the B-2. As far as Crew Cheif Responsibility.



[edit on 23-2-2008 by Trance Optic]

reply to post by Apolon


you said `its no where near the size` well , whilst its shorter , but that wing makes up for a hek of a lot in carrying capacity , it can carry a similar loadout - around 50,000lb`s ordnanace vs 60,000 for the buff with a stealthier package - which is what they were aiming for.

And I'm not saying that FBW ISN'T necessary to maintain flight. I'm stating that using FBW, and having an unstable design ALSO makes it more maneuverable in the end. And no it wouldn't fall out of the air. Look at the YB-49. Almost the same external design, didn't use FBW, and it was perfectly capable of flying without it. It was stable too. It could have been a lot more stable, and it needed a stability augmentation system, but it flew just fine without it in most cases. In unusual situations, such as a stall, sure, you're in trouble, but in level flight, and turns, and NORMAL flying characteristics it flew nicely.

As for the USAF not telling us, that's funny, I'm usually able to find several sources of accident reviews for USAF accidents. I just usually don't bother to look for them.

[edit on 2/23/2008 by Zaphod58]

as an aside - why not take this convo to the aircraft forum instead of breaking news?

Not a bad idea H. I'm up for it if everyone else is. Then we stop derailing this one.

It was Air Vehicle 12, tail number 89-0127. The Spirit of Kansas. Delivered to Whiteman in February of 1995.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
**Out-There-Theory Alert**

They're testing new electronic warfare technology that can knock aircraft out of the sky.

My imagination will leave it at that.

Some people think HAARP facilities could eventually have that capability. Is that what you are implying?
Electronic warfare in the form of an electromagnetic pulse would probably also do the trick (Especially since the B-2 is a largely computerized aircraft). But it isn't exactly new and it isn't exactly secret either. The B-2 has a flight computer that makes minute maneuvering adjustments in order for the pilot to fly the aircraft smoothly and make turns without having to worry about every single detail.

If this flight computer were damaged or fried with an EMP the pilot could potentially have trouble and/or crash. From what I understand the aerodynamic attributes of the airframe make the aircraft sort of squirrley (for lack of a better term) when it comes to maneuvering in flight. The computer makes minute, extremely fast adjustments so the pilot doesn't have to.

There are alot of potential causes for such a crash but IMO there's no reason to jump to conclusions until we have more solid information about what happened and why..

-ChriS

[edit on 23-2-2008 by BlasteR]