[MilCom] B-2 Bomber Crashes on Guam; Pilots Safe

[Jack L. Metcalfe]

All good points, Duane, see replies below.  I think we're mostly in 
agreement on this.

At 03:32 AM 2/24/2008, you wrote:

>First off, I too am glad that we had no casualties. It
>will be interesting to see what the inquiry will
>reveal about the cause of the loss.
---
Haven't read many details, but from the short video I saw, the
incident occurred at the end of the runway.  I'd hate to think
it was something like a bird strike.

>The flip side is that for high value targets that
>require a stealthy attack, the F15's that you
>mentioned look like Mount Everest on an enemy radar
>screen.  It's not impossible to envision losing 25
>F15's if they were going after a well-defended high
>value target.  So what is more important, getting the
>job done or the price of the airplane?
---
Both.  If a target is so heavily defended that it took an
aircraft that cost 100 billion dollars to go after it, I'd rather
not go after it at all with an aircraft.  I'd rather use UAVs
or a missile/s of some sort.

>Oh, and what would be the cost of 25 F-15's?  Last I
>heard, that wasn't exactly an inexpensive aircraft and
>25 of them might well add up.  Let's add crew losses
>to the figure - total crew loss on a B2A, 2 to 4 (?)
>depending on the mission and 25 single seat F-15's =
>25 crew; if they were 2-seaters as many as 50.
---
Equivalent money cost would be 20 F-15s.  That's probably
average cost, as I know E models obviously cost more than
C models.  Equivalent money loss in F16s would be ~ 25 &
F-22s ~ 6.

>I might add, had production not been so limited, costs
>could have been spread out over a larger number of
>airframes and thus the price of each one would have
>been less.  I frequently wonder how many times
>congress and their pentagon counterparts will have to
>learn that lesson over and over again before they
>finally get it right......and either authorize
>production of aircraft that are actually useful and in
>a sufficient quantity to make them useful, OR, simply
>not start in the first place.
---
Totally agree with that. They never learn that lesson (see Interim
Bomber remarks below).  I'm old enough to remember when the
B-70 Bomber was cancelled, & although I think I just about cried,
it was probably the proper decision, at the time.

>It may indeed be true that there is a fair amount of
>downtime per airframe.  Consider that the B2A
>represents a new approach to the large, strategic
>manned bomber.  That means everything from materials
>to tactics are all new, and history shows us that in
>such a "transitional" aircraft it's nearly impossible
>to take ALL factors into consideration.  Hence, the
>lessons learned in early production models should be
>applied to *later* production models....except in this
>case, where there may not ever be any *later* models,
>there's no path to improve the product to the extent
>that you normally would by incorporation.  So the
>existing airframes can receive a certain level of
>upgrade/update but many aspects of the airframe cannot
>be changed post-production.  Once again, lack of
>foresight has painted the B2 program into a corner.
---
As above, I agree.  The B-2 is an incredible aircraft, but I wish
we had 131 of the planned 132 rather than 20 of 21 remaining.

>And everytime ANYthing happens, the $$$$ signs will
>come out of the woodwork.  Ignore good, well-executed
>missions and crucify everyone for a buck.
---
Not crucified.  But money always enters the equation, after all we pay
for this stuff & this one wasn't lost during combat operations.  Watch
now as the 100 Interim Bombers planned for 2018, slowly drops to 75,
then 50, then 35 all while the unit price skyrockets and we're in the exact
same place as before.  It's a hell of a way to purchase aircraft (as you
noted above), but one Congress & the Pentagon seem perpetually locked
into.  I subscribe to Armed Forces Journal, Proceedings of the US Naval
Institute & Aviation Week & Space Technology and many of the acquisition
arguments I'm reading today, I read 20 years ago.  It's like we're caught in
a time loop!  One USAF pilot said, with the way costs were skyrocketing,
we're likely to end up with just 5 B-X (next generation 2035 time-frame)
bombers!  He was joking, but considering the history.......
-------------------
Jack L. Metcalfe
Stanford, KY
jlmetcalfe at hughes.net
-------------------