Military Grounds Stealth Bomber Fleet

Ponca City, We Love You writes "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989, has been grounded after one of the jets crashed near a military base in Guam. The crash — the first involving the B-2 — was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.) Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error, but have grounded all B-2s to ensure there is not some fundamental fault developing in the 21-strong fleet. The crash occurred Saturday morning local time as the B-2 was taking off from Andersen Air Force base on Guam, a US territory south of Japan. An Air Force spokesman said, 'The cause of crash is unknown, pending an investigation. The pilots had ejected safely — no serious injuries. One is mobile, one is still in the hospital under observation.'"

Please mod me down

[by Anonymous Coward]

It has been my lifes ambition to be modded down on slashdot. Please mod this post to -1. Thankyou.

Crash

[Bazman (4849)]

A stealth bomber crashes? Nobody saw that coming.

Stealth?

[lobiusmoop (305328)]

Maybe I'm being naive again, but what is the point of designing an untrackable aircraft and then telling the whole world its fleet status? Why is the B2 in the news at all? Or should I be reaching for a tinfoil hat?

Re:Stealth?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed Skunk Works, the 'father of Stealth' and who has now sadly passed away made some interesting comments just before he died. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rich [wikipedia.org] ]

One of which is:

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity..... anything you can imagine we already know how to do."

I find it really hard to believe this.. but this is coming from someone with a huge reputation and know-how. I guess I should try to pick up an 'I want to believe poster' somewhere. ;)

But you can be sure something is available which is not visible for the general public. Why can you be sure?

They've retired the SR71 Blackbird, supposedly because 'we now have satellites'. The thing is a) satellites are not always over the location you're interested in at the correct time. and b) everyone can determine the orbit of the satellite and hide under a camel or two if the thing flies over.

I would estimate the chance that they solely depend on satellites now to be small. But I'm not an expert in any of these fields, so do not take my word for it. :)

Re:Stealth?

[Taelron (1046946)]

Actually they brought the SR-71 out of retirement... Back in 1995...
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/sr71.htm [fighter-planes.com]
"The SR-71 entered service in 1968 and was retired in 1990, but in 1994 the US Congress directed that the SR-71 should be re-instated to operational readiness and deployed to meet the need for a broad area coverage reconnaissance platform. The aircraft were brought out of retirement and two aircraft were mission ready by the third quarter of 1995. "

NASA also owns and operates two SR-71's still to this day for scientific testing.

Re:Stealth?

[15Bit (940730)]

Except they have a considerably longer life-span because it takes a lot of time and money to develop both new aircraft and new radar/air defence systems. So yes, 10 years ago it was "teh shit", and today it continues to be. The only difference is that a few high tech nations (mostly friends of the US anyway) can sometimes see it on radar now.

Re:Stealth?

[JustOK (667959)]

Then comes the B-4. Takes out targets B4 they become a threat.

Re:Stealth?

[mikael_j (106439)]

Very hard to destroy as there are no active radar signals to track. This is not a good development.

Actually, I believe you meant "This is not a good development for the US." The rest of us think being able to detect your stealth bombers is actually a good thing since it decreases the risk of your leaders deciding to "liberate" us for one reason or another (I'm in northern europe so this is unlikely but it is still nice to have some way of detecting possible threats).

/Mikael

Re:Stealth?

[Solandri (704621)]

Is this something they teach in schools in the US? I find it bewildering that so many people from that country have this extraordinarily unbalanced view of WWII.

Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US. Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose.

If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war. Had America joined the war sooner, it may have been over quicker. Instead the UK had to bankrupt the world's largest ever empire to win that war, and did so on a point of principle. Don't fucking tell me the US saved Europe.

Incidentally, half of Europe did live under communist dictatorship for fifty years post-WWII. Ironically without US global interference and posturing the communist states may have collapsed more swiftly than they did.

WWII ended the way it did because of the joint effort of all countries involved (US, UK, Russia, China, Canada, Australia, etc). Like a see-saw, the combined mass of all the nations tipped the balance. Recognizing one nation for being the one to push them over the top is giving them undue credit. But likewise, to dismiss any of their contributions, especially one of the "big three," strikes of revisionist history and a seriously unbalanced worldview. Could the Allies have won WWII without the US? Possibly, but the UK's industrial base was being bombed daily (Hitler did not have to conquer the UK, just beat it into submission). The primary contribution of the US was an untouchable industrial base. So it stands to reason that if the Allies had won without US contribution, all of Europe would've become part of the Soviet Union.

The US was key to victory in the Pacific theatre (Europeans tend to forget that half of the war). Without the US entering the war, likely large portions of China, Indochina (including large chunks of the British Empire), the Pacific islands, and possibly even Australia would've become part of the Empire of Japan. The Russians didn't want to get involved in that side of the war, even signing a non-aggression pact with the Japanese. The US had to beg and plead with them to get them to even declare war on Japan following the atomic bombings (giving up portions of Korea and Indochina to Soviet influence as a result).

Back on topic, I'm delighted that there are ways to detect and defeat B2 bombers. US military dominance is not a good thing for the world at large. Healthy tension encourages equilibrium, which I'd greatly prefer to US imperialistic pressures.

You're barking up the wrong tree. The US doesn't use its military to apply imperialistic pressure. The military is used sparingly (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq - hardly an empire). The vast majority of any US imperialistic influence comes from using its economic might. The sooner you recognized this, the sooner you'd become more effective at combating US influence. Instead you're wasting your time complaining about and belittling US military power (probably because it better fits the Evil stereotype you wish to believe), while the its true power and influence remains uncontested. China has realized this and is acting accordingly (some would say brilliantly); many who pushed for a unified EU economy understood this. The Soviets did not fully grasp this, tried to counter the US militarily, and lost the Cold War as a result; you appear to be following in their footsteps.

Re:Stealth?

[click2005 (921437)]

Not just overclocking, the latest drivers support SLI too.

http://www.bugimus.com/stealth/b2_refuel02.jpg [bugimus.com]

Re:Stealth?

[Atlantis-Rising (857278)]

There's a reason B-2 stealth bombers don't go supersonic. The rather large, obvious concussive boom makes your stealthy plane not so stealthy anymore.

Re:Stealth?

[bIOHZRd (196012)]

...and the fact that their wing sweep angle in relation to the tip of the nose is way too low to even approach supersonic speeds. You have to be below the mach angle in order to stay away from Mach drag divergence and the resulting huge increase in drag. Check out this [gatech.edu] for more info.

No Bling for the Stealth-Guy

[by Anonymous Coward]

>Not just overclocking, the latest drivers support SLI too.

Man, that hood ornament must really fuck up the radar cross section.

Re:Stealth?

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

I've read they even have kamikaze units now.

Apparently they're doing their training out near Guam...

Re:Stealth?

[Taleron (875810)]

When it comes to US military aircraft in general, they typically last for a long time. "State of the art" might be somewhat of an understatement if such a thing is possible due to crazy amounts of military spending and overall lack of many contesting forces in the skies even over the long term.

The F-15 Strike Eagle rolled out in 1989, same year as the B-2; it remains an advanced "Air Superiority" fighter and it's planned to be in service until 2025.
The F-14 Tomcat was just retired, after 30+ years in service.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II (or "Warthog"), 1977, still in service (brief retirement).
The F-4 Phantom went into production in 1960, ended in 1981, but the "Wild Weasel" variant was used even in the Gulf War. That's over 35 years, the longest of US jet aircraft.

And dipping slightly out of theme, the UH-1 Huey was introduced in 1959. Though the Blackhawk replaced it, they are still occasionally dusted off for missions.

Re:Stealth?

[Neurotoxic666 (679255)]

"Read where? Citation or retraction, please."

Hold on, I think you dropped something. Looks like your sense of humor. Here. Try not to lose it again, you might need it around here.

Ummm, why wouldn't they?

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

It isn't as though this really changes anything. There aren't any nations that will go "Oh well with those aircraft gone we can certainly take the US! Their 12 carriers, hundreds of ICBMs and such aren't any worry at all!"

You also have to remember that the planes aren't being destroyed or anything, just taken out of operation until they do a review. In the event of an emergency, they could be put right back in service. Also, the B2 isn't untrackable, it is just very hard to see on radar. It isn't invisible or anything. Any nation with reasonable satellite intelligence can easily keep watch on the bases (or maybe just base, they used to only fly out of Whiteman, not sure if that's still true) where they fly from and tell when they leave.

The B2 is a stealth jet, and there certainly are some things about it that are classified, but it isn't as though it is some big secret anymore. You can go and see them at air shows and such. It generally isn't even secret what they are being used for. They are just high altitude bombers for whatever conflict the US happens to be in. They are only special in that they are extremely difficult to track on radar (and thus to get a missile to lock on) and that they have a truly world-wide range with refueling (and like a 6000 knot range even without).

Re:Ummm, why wouldn't they?

[hughk (248126)]

According to this story [telegraph.co.uk], you can use the path disruption caused by stealthy aircraft flying through areas covered by mobile phone masts and fix the aircraft's position to within 10m or so. Apart from the mobile base station, the system sounds vehicle portable. The issue is that until they get to your territory, you won't be able to get advance warning.

Re:Stealth?

[greyhueofdoubt (1159527)]

It may be related to the reason that the F-15 fleet grounding was also publicized: The air force is using these events as a bargaining chip to get funding. The F-15's probably could have been flying after a week or two of thorough inspections, but it was drawn out from early November to late January. This had the effect of showing congress:

"See? See what happens when you force us to fly 30-year-old fighter aircraft? The defense of the nation is compromised because we can't afford new aircraft, and maintenance of the old aircraft uses up our entire budget. We need money NOW to buy NEW aircraft that will be more capable and cheaper in the long run to maintain."

And they have a point. Many of you may double-take when you see the price tag of new fighters or bombers, but let me tell you: The cost of the airplane is matched at least bi-annually by fuel, munitions, and maintenance costs. The biggest one is maintenance. One example is the F-16. It is small cheap, relatively simple, and it only has one engine.
A base flying around 18 F-16's will require manning of around 800 well-paid, full-time personnel (~$122,000 per day).
JP-8 fuel is around $3/gallon, and if you fly 3 sorties of 6 aircraft each, with wing tanks, that's about 3*6*2000*$3=$54,000 worth of fuel PER DAY, 5 or 6 days per week.
The regularly-scheduled phase tear-downs probably cost well into the millions in terms of parts alone.
Add to this the infrastructure (the base itself, heat, vehicles, electricity, support facilities like RADAR, comm, etc).

What I'm saying is that aircraft maintenance is a spendy affair. The cost of the actual aircraft makes up only a small portion of the air forces expenditures.

This relates to your question in a roundabout way. The reason that it's not secret is that the air force is looking for new aircraft. The B-2 fleet is older than many slashdotters. They are INCREDIBLY labor-intensive to maintain. The new F-22 can take over many of the original roles of the B-2, yet congress is only funding a handful of new aircraft.

The B-2 is a gorgeous machine, but we need to move to a more nimble, adaptable flight platform. Times change. We don't need to penetrate deep into soviet airspace to deliver massive quantities of nuclear ordnance anymore. We need aircraft that can be based out of forward operating locations, load up and scramble quickly, and change their mission in-flight and without compromising the aircraft or the crew. It also helps if the aircraft can fit into hardened hangars at the FOB. The F-22 fits the bill perfectly. The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.

That is why this is public. That, and everyone would know anyways. It's hard to keep a crash like this secret- You know, a huge airplane crashing in front of a bunch of people.

-b

Re:Stealth?

[Oswald (235719)]

That's a cute question. They're untrackable when they want to be, but unless they're on a mission over enemy territory they file flight plans and turn their transponders on lest their billion-dollar selves end up in a midair collision. There's not a lot of work put into keeping their movements secret.

Possibly funny story: when the FAA came out with the first generation of the Aircraft Situation Display (since superceded by the amazingly similar Traffic Situation Display), one of the filters available when selecting flights to display was "aircraft type". That lasted for a while, and then somebody giving a tour to some Air Force generals decided to impress them with the Agency's technowizardry and said "Wanna see where all your B52's are?" (This was almost 20 years ago--before the B2--and the B1's never go anywhere.) He made a couple entries on a keyboard and all the little airplane silhouettes dropped off except the B52's over the continental U.S. The generals promptly crapped themselves, and soon thereafter the FAA got a phone call from somebody important, and since then it's a little harder to track the bombers and the fighters. But not very hard.

Re:Stealth?

[Epistax (544591)]

$9 000 of fuel per second * 60 seconds per minute * 1440 minutes per day = $777 600 000 of fuel per day. Per plane.

One of these numbers has to be wrong.

Must be the number of minutes per day.

Math

[AtomicSnarl (549626)]

$9000/sec? Try again. From the Telegraph article:

Range (unrefueled): 6800 Mi (approx numbers, people)
Approx Cruising Speed: 400 mph (they don't fly full out all the time)
Duration: 17 hours
Fuel Load: 167,000 lbs
Fuel Rate: 9,800 lbs/hour
At 6 lb/gal: 1633 gal/hr
At $3/gal: $4900/hour

Which is pretty comparable to commercial 4 engine passenger and cargo jets.

Oh -- that means it carries 20 tons at less than 5 gallons per ton-mile.
A 22 mpg pickup with 3/4 ton load is 29 gal/ton-mile.
A Prius at 45 mpg and an 500 lb load (4 pax) is 11 gal/ton-mile.

I don't think they make a Stealth Prius yet.

Re:Math

[jefu (53450)]

OK. I'm confused. For the prius 11gal/ton-mile seems way off. I work it as : 45 mile/gallon -> 1/45 gallon/mile. divide that by 0.25 tons to get 4/45 gallon/ton-mile, right? Or 0.088 gal/ton-mile?
Or is this wrong (no coffee yet this AM)? Is there another way to do this that gives the numbers you cite.

Re:Math

[britneys 9th husband (741556)]

Ever tried to drive a Prius in a parking lot? The pedestrians don't know you're there because there's no engine noise. All priuses are stealth.

Oh and BTW 4 passengers = 500 pounds? Not in America, unless perhaps you mean Mom and Dad and their newborn twins.

O really?

[Daimanta (1140543)]

Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error

As opposed to an enemy attack? I mean, the pilot was safe(so they already have heared him out) and I think we can safely rule out sabotage or an enemy attack. This seems entirely obvious.

Re:O really?

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Knowing "officials", we should be thankful they at least confirmed that the crash was caused by a collision with the ground.

Re:O really?

[ThomasLB (1220384)]

We can also rule out "Act of God," because we all know He's on our side.

More information

[auric_dude (610172)]

A reasonable write up over at http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/b-2-crashes-on.html [wired.com]

Guam TV Reports

[by Anonymous Coward]

Here's a news report [youtube.com] from a local TV station.

Fleet is 20 years old...

[acherrington (465776)]

The B-2 Bomber [wikipedia.org] fleet is over twenty years old. Not the technology, but the entire fleet. We (congress) authorized the purchase and maintenance of these vehicles, but at some point they will need to be replaced. Now, not only that, but these planes fly 44 hour missions [bbc.co.uk], the longest on record. There are only, now, 21 of these planes left. Just under 5% of the fleet was lost in this one crash. At some point they will either need to retire the existing fleet and put in a new order, or expect the fleet to fall off one by one just like this. Still, we don't know if this was pilot failure or structural, but when you loose that much capability in one crash...it makes you think.

satellite debris?

[petes_PoV (912422)]

It wasn't hit by falling bits off a classied satellite, was it?

Re:satellite debris?

[Neurotoxic666 (679255)]

They'd blame it on the Chinese, anyway.

Atlantic insight

[gstone (236734)]

A very interesting [theatlantic.com] article was published in the Atlantic about the B2. The reporter spent some time living with the people who comprise the flight crew:

A B-2 Spirit costs roughly as much as a fast-attack nuclear submarine or a guided-missile destroyer. But whereas a Los Angeles-class submarine requires a crew of 130 and an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer a crew of 320, the B-2 has a crew of just two: a pilot and a mission commander. There are only 21 B-2s in the Air Force. Nobody else in the U.S. military is entrusted with as much responsibility, in terms of sheer dollars, as these bomber pilots are. If a single B-2 were to go down, even in training, it would be a banner-headline story.

So who are these guys?

Marginal Cost

[Detritus (11846)]

The marginal cost of the B2 bomber is substantially less than $1.2B. The problem is that if you only buy 20 aircraft, the cost per aircraft is inflated by the huge development cost of the aircraft. The original plan was to build 135 aircraft.

Sometimes I wonder how much it would cost to build some more B52s. It's an ancient aircraft, but it does the job.

Re:Marginal Cost

[Charcharodon (611187)]

Operation wise a B-52 costs 2 1/2 time the hourly rate that a B2 costs to keep in the air.

The only reason there are B52 still in service is because they built over 1000 of them orginally. It's not a particularyly good aircraft (maintenance wise), but by the shear number of airframes and spare parts it continues to serve.

A B-52 replacement would only need to satisfy a "dump truck" roll. There are plenty of modern airframes that could be modified to fill that role at a considerably cheaper cost than keeping the B52's flying.

Re:Marginal Cost

[Nimey (114278)]

The other reason why the B-52 is still in service: cruise missiles. The other two heavy bombers can't fire them. There's a study for sticking a rotary launcher in the B-1's bomb bay, but that's expensive and keeps getting delayed.

Re maintenance: O RLY? The B-52 fleet has over 95% readiness rate, because they are a well-understood problem. The B-1 and B-2 have a far lower rate, on the order of 50 to 60%, because they are more complex and less mature (can't get more mature than a 50-year-old aircraft). Plus the '52 is easier to stick new ECM tech into, because the original ECM was so huge that there are nice big ECM bays in the aircraft, and more room equals more room for the ground crew to work; compare working on a stuffed microATX case versus a sparsely-populated full-tower ATX.

Don't get me wrong, the Buffasaurus has its problems, but it's not as bad as you think.

Re:Marginal Cost

[Charcharodon (611187)]

Actually that not true all three aircraft can fire cruise missiles, the only thing that keeps the B1 from doing so is a treaty with the former Soviet Union (Russia).

It is as bad as I think because I've worked on all three bombers. The B-52 is robust much in the way an old pick-up truck is, things work because they're old school electronics. The only problem is that they're just like working on an old truck. If you need a replacement part alot of the time it meens a trip to the junk yard. I also got real sick real quick trying to trace down wiring problems on 50 year old wire bundles that are not necessarily wired the same on every aircraft. Of course while the newer digital aircraft are easier to fix, they can be nightmares when things don't show up on the diagnostics or don't hard break but fail erratically. That'll even have the engineers scraching their heads. Space wise I've only run into a few times where things were too cramped to work on. Typically of things that I'm sure some dumb ass design engineer said "They'll never need to get to that the plane is only going to be used for 20 years then replaced" Even the "brand new" B2 is over twenty years old

To say the B-52 has extra space is an understatement since most electronics these days are hundreth the size they were in the sixties, but again most of the Buff's problems are not lack of space or the inability to be upgraded, it's just the simple fact they are freakin ancient.

With the new weapon systems & munitions you don't need a specialized military aircraft to deliver them anymore. You just need something reliable that has a long endurance and can fly high.

My ideal B-52 replacement would be a B-747-8, (New Boeing 747 model coming out out). It's a well vetted design, with commonly available off the shelf commercial parts. It could carry 105,000lbs of cargo (bombs) and a full load of fuel with an 8000 mile range. For those keeping count that's 210 Mk 82 bombs compared to the B-52's 51. Park two or three of those in a race track pattern at high altitude along with two extra flight crews each and you could keep them up there 24/7. Throw in a little air refueling and they'd stay on station until either they ran out of bombs or out of hot pockets and little debbies, which ever comes first.

About a decade off

[Blackeagle_Falcon (784253)]

"which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989"

This statement is incorrect by about ten years. The B-2 didn't make it's combat debut until 1999 during the Kosovo war.

Re:About a decade off

[Lloyd_Bryant (73136)]

Maybe officially, but it definitely made some bombing runs over Iraq in Operation Desert Fox and Operation Desert Storm

I don't think so - the first combat-ready B2 wasn't delivered to the Air Force until late 1993, long after Desert Storm (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82 [af.mil]).

I suspect you're thinking of the F117, which *was* heavily involved in Desert Storm.

War

[zero.kalvin (1231372)]

I guess the Iranians are pretty happy right now.

Crashes will happen...

[Z00L00K (682162)]

It's not surprising at all that military aircrafts has some accidents now and then. They are designed to be the leading edge in technology to gain an advantage.

In this case no one died, and the situation doesn't call for any immediate use of that plane so it's no big issue that the fleet is grounded.

It's also important to consider that much of the technology that is developed for military aircraft will find its way into civilian aircraft in one way or another. Fly-by-wire, composite materials, titanium details etc. are all a result from the military development. And if the accidents happens with military aircraft where there usually is an ejection seat available it also means that the risk of killing a lot of people is decreased. OK, the ejection seat can fail, it can eject at the wrong moment or the plane can crash into a bad position and kill people. But if a flaw with a design feature can be found on such an aircraft and not be put into the next generation of passenger super-aircraft it can mean a lot.

Of course it's bad that an expensive aircraft crashes, but it's still just money - and essentially the money is already paid and has already looped through the system a few times since. Leading edge tech is always expensive, but usually there are a lot of spinoffs coming through. Otherwise we would still be using artificial limbs using wood and hooks instead of carbon fiber structures, servo motors and computers for our handicapped. (OK, not everyone gets it but its coming through)

Then you may ask what the use there is for a B2 bomber in the end. It is useful in some cases, but the original intent spurned from the cold war is actually no longer there. It sure is a long way better at what it is designed for than the B52, but the B2 is a highly specialized craft while the B52 actually has found some other secondary uses too, which I suspect that the B2 will never achieve. And don't forget that the stealth aircraft business is always a developing part - which means that as soon as someone is able to spot the B2 as easy as a B52 then it will effectively be as obsolete as the B52 - or actually even worse. So in that case the B2 has to be replaced with something new. And I suspect that such work is already in progress regardless of what is said.

As for future military aircraft there is a high probability that they will be unmanned weapons carriers that gets updates from remote systems while still being able to function mostly autonomous. Such solutions will be cheaper per unit and still being able to pack a considerable punch. The disadvantage with such systems is that the picture sometimes changes by the minute in a battle and that means that they can end up doing the completely wrong thing. "Friendly fire - isn't". Of course - humans can also do that mistake so it's no real safeguard to have manned aircraft.

But in all - in today's world the use for heavy weapons is very limited since most conflicts of today are no longer on the scale of nations but reduced to conflicts within nations or even small groups as terrorists and using a bomber in such situations is like using a sledge to eradicate cockroaches in a kitchen. The collateral damage will be too great. And it doesn't matter how great an army you have if you don't have the information to use that army. Failure to get the correct intelligence about your enemy is just leading to overall failure.

not the most expensive aircraft accident in histor

[thesazi (1245210)]

It cost $1.7bn to replace the space shuttle Challenger. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 [nasa.gov]

O'RLY!

[venkateshkumar99 (791435)]

"Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error" Is there any other way for a plane to crash?

First off

[SquierStrat (42516)]

First, this is really not a big deal as aircraft are usually grounded after an unexplained crash. Second, the B-2 didn't exist in 1989. That F-117A which is being retired was our only stealth aircraft then. Two vastly different aircraft

question ...

[codename.matrix (889422)]

... if a stealth bomber crashes and nobody sees it does it make a sound?

2.1 Billion !

[mark99 (459508)]

It is 2.1 billion, not 1.2 billion according to what I read http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm/ [fas.org]

Someone else pointed out that the marginal cost is lower, but the cost of starting up the production line again might even make it higher.

But if they only crash one ever 10 years, then we can probably hold out until the fully robitized versions designed and built in Bangladesh (or somewhere) get cheap...

Dear insane military-industrial complex

[BigTimOBrien (203674)]

Dear insane military-industrial complex,

We lost one of your ultra-secret, 1.2 billion dollar stealth planes on a routine mission in the Pacific. The nation was wondering if you would consider replacing this one for free. We've given you just about all the extra money we had saved up for years and years, and we've taken out serious loans to be able to pay for increasingly flamboyant and unnecessary toys. I'm only asking for this freebie because it is getting more and more difficult to convince people that we really need to be spending money on weapons like this when an insurgent army can bring us to our knees in the middle of Iraq. Plus, people are starting to wonder if 1.2 billion dollars would be better spent teaching more intelligence analysts how to speak Arabic, Urdu, and Pashto, and I really think that 1.2 billion would go a long way toward helping us really fight terrorism.

When you crash a B-2 bomber...

[pongo000 (97357)]

...does the government dock your paycheck?

Yes, but...

[calebt3 (1098475)]

Did it run Linux?

Cost

[AdamHaun (43173)]

Is it $1.2 billion to manufacture one plane, or is that the total cost of R&D and manufacturing divided by the number of planes sold? How much would it have cost to buy 40 instead of 20?

Obligitory Stargate

[jameskojiro (705701)]

"some duct Tape, couple of magnets, some fresh paint it will be fine"

uhoh ... someone check for the skynet funding bill

[oPless (63249)]

All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers becoming fully un-manned. Afterwards they fly with a perfect operational record. The SkyNet Funding Bill is passed.

Cost effective?

[wfstanle (1188751)]

At 1.2 billion dollars, is this the best allocation of our defense dollars? This brings to mind an adage. "Never put all of your eggs in one basket." We are in an era of asymmetric warfare, if an enemy can spend 1.2 billion for 100 12 million dollar fighters and deploy them for every B2 bomber, what is the chance that they will get through? Maybe it is time to rethink the cost vs. benefit equation.

Replacement cost is much, much, much less

[flyingfsck (986395)]

The 1.2B figure includes the whole logistical tail of the aircraft for its 40 year expected life time. One would assume that all of that remains intact, unless it exploded inside its own hangar and took everything with it. Therefore I don't expect the replacement aircraft to cost more than about 50 million dollars.

Did everybody absorb all that?

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

"America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989, has been grounded after one of the jets crashed near a military base in Guam. The crash -- the first involving the B-2 -- was the most expensive single aircraft accident in history. (The planes cost $1.2B each.) Officials assume the crash was caused by either mechanical failure or human error, but have grounded all B-2s to ensure there is not some fundamental fault developing in the 21-strong fleet. The crash occurred Saturday morning local time as the B-2 was taking off from Andersen Air Force base on Guam, a US territory south of Japan. An Air Force spokesman said, 'The cause of crash is unknown, pending an investigation. The pilots had ejected safely -- no serious injuries. One is mobile, one is still in the hospital under observation.'"

Okay. Let's look at the pertinent details which you are meant to have soaked up but not think about consciously until it becomes useful later.

"1989" "Crashed" "Grounded" "Crucial part in all major US conflicts". --The impression you are to have is of a once proud and distinguished, but now old and unreliable fleet.

"21-strong fleet." --Really? Only 21? I didn't realize. . . (But now you do. Why?)

Having known several journalists, both old guard and new, it is a curious reality that often the people publishing these stories do not know the reasons they are instructed to word things just so, knowing only that deviation is not permitted.

-FL

It's a bad summary

[kitplane01 (245414)]

The summary says "America's entire B-2 stealth bomber fleet, which has played a crucial part in all major US conflicts since 1989 ..." Which conflict did the B-2 play a crucial role in? It has dropped a few bombs a few times, and those attacks could have been carried out by other means at lower cost. The B-2 has not been "crucial" in any war ever. It has not even been "important". The plane is a fine technology demonstrator, but not an important weapon system.

Why so expensive?

[jandersen (462034)]

Does anybody else wonder why this HW is so expensive? This is paid for through the taxes, so it would be interesting to see if what we are paying for is actual value and not just pumped up salaries and patent fees.

Stealth Bomber

[RobertJon (1156451)]

Not to underplay the severity of the loss, strategically and financially, we should understand the accounting properly.

With perhaps $20 billion R&D, the B-2 may have an average cost of $1.2 b. spread over 21 built. But the MARGINAL cost to replace is more like $200 m.

Re:No biggie

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 168 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority).

The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.[13] In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget.

(source [wikipedia.org])

Huge Military Budget = Declining Empire

[catchblue22 (1004569)]

A classic sign of a declining empire is a massive surge in military spending. During the rise of an empire, many countries will voluntarily join the empire because it is in their own economic interest to do so. As the empire ages, satisfaction with the empire in outlying states begins to decline. The dominant power makes increasing economic demands on these outlying states, while providing decreasing benefits to them. In order to quell the dissatisfaction, the dominant power needs to use increasing amounts of force to preserve imperial power. The increased military spending becomes a huge economic burden for the dominant power, which in turn further increases the economic demands on the outlying states. This becomes a vicious circle of surging dissatisfaction in the empire, and surging military spending. It ends when the economy of the dominant power can no longer sustain the large military. The outlying states fall away to form other alliances, and the former imperial power becomes "just another country".

History has shown this to be true. The Roman Empire collapsed partly because its outlying states rebelled against a huge economic burden. The Spanish Empire collapsed after building a huge armada of ships, only to see the fleet destroyed by an upstart Britain. The British Empire collapsed, as outlying states fell away, despite its huge military power. The Soviet Empire collapsed under the burden of massive military spending. I believe that something similar is happening to America.

Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes. One can arguably say that the Islamic insurgency in the Middle East is also a symptom of dissatisfaction by outlying states in the Empire. As the American dollar has declined recently, other currencies, such as the Euro are displacing the US dollar is the currency of choice for international trade. Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).

I don't want this decline to happen because I am a part of this empire, but make no mistake: it is happening. Our only hope in this is that America will fade peacefully, like Britain, to become "just another country".

Sources? Evidence? Rhetoric != cash

[ChePibe (882378)]

I'll get modded down for this one, as it is Slashdot, but here goes:

Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes.

Which explains why the U.S. and Peru just struck a free trade agreement [washingtonpost.com] and why the U.S. already has a free trade agreement with, pound for pound, what is arguably the most powerful and stable economy in South America - Chile [ustr.gov].

Oh, but Chavez. He makes a lot of angry speeches against the U.S.! He MUST hate us! He must just be screwing us and cutting us out!

Try again. Venezuela's main export partner - still by massive, massive margins (46% in 2006, according to the CIA world factbook) is the U.S. He still sends vast majorities of his oil to the U.S. Economically speaking, he's lining up just fine. Security wise, he's causing a few issues with neighboring countries that we would like him to stop, but as far as his massive oil industry - which is the only real engine his economy has - massive amounts of it are coming here, and there's little reason for him to change that.

Also of note, according to CIA World Factbook figures from 2006: Brazil [cia.gov] imports almost twice as much from the U.S. as it does Argentina and exports twice as much to the U.S. as well.

Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).

Oh please. The American economy has stalled a bit, but we're not even at the point of a classic recession (failure to increase GDP).

The economic system you are discussing is referred to generally as "neo-Marxism", with its focus on large states ruining the outlying countries for their wealth in an evil capitalistic world. What neo-Marxists never came to realize is that the world is not a zero sum game - and that rhetoric rarely translates into cold hard cash.

Now, what the U.S. likely is experiencing is more akin to hegemonic diffusion. The U.S. is, pretty much, an undisputed world Hegemon at this time. However, to maintain this hegemony, it must maintain trade (using its own resources) and trade a great deal with other countries, slowly diffusing its wealth to others. The great examples of this at the moment would be China and perhaps India. China is building a massive military based on income largely from U.S. trade, for example. China improves quickly, and the U.S. finds it increasingly difficult to maintain its relative position. The big question is whether this will switch to a bi-polar world (U.S./China), remain a uni-polar world (U.S., possibly China) or become multi-polar in the end.

Re:Sources? Evidence? Rhetoric != cash

[catchblue22 (1004569)]

You make some good points, but I don't entirely agree with you.

The economic system you are discussing is referred to generally as "neo-Marxism", with its focus on large states ruining the outlying countries for their wealth in an evil capitalistic world. What neo-Marxists never came to realize is that the world is not a zero sum game - and that rhetoric rarely translates into cold hard cash.

I disagree. I am not discussing a "neo-Marxist" system. The simple fact is that American client states send America resources, and America sends them back other resources in trade. If the client state is sending America goods in return for a pittance, then this situation is in America's favor. This imbalance in the trade of goods is highly comparable to the situations in previous empires. It doesn't matter whether the trade takes place in the context of a free market system between private corporations, or within the confines of a neo-Marxist empire. You still have a dominant power receiving a huge amount of goods without having to give much back in return. That for me is at the heart of what it means to be an empire.

Try again. Venezuela's main export partner - still by massive, massive margins (46% in 2006, according to the CIA world factbook) is the U.S. He still sends vast majorities of his oil to the U.S. Economically speaking, he's lining up just fine. Security wise, he's causing a few issues with neighboring countries that we would like him to stop, but as far as his massive oil industry - which is the only real engine his economy has - massive amounts of it are coming here, and there's little reason for him to change that.

I didn't say that Venezuela had stopped trading with America. What I said was that Venezuela was not acting according to the economic wishes of America. They have expropriated oil producing properties from American oil companies, including Exxon Mobile. They are keeping a larger amount of the proceeds of selling oil in the country, and they are redistributing those resources. They are also selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, which is a huge blow to America's economic power. The moves in South America against the US are largely moves to demand more from America in compensation for the goods they ship to the US. And although there are still some US friendly governments in South America, opposition is growing.

Oh please. The American economy has stalled a bit, but we're not even at the point of a classic recession (failure to increase GDP).

We'll see. However, let's look at some of the facts. Firstly, if America is such an economic juggernaut, then why is it such a huge net borrower? One would think that such an economic superpower would be a net lender. And it might not be such a problem if that money was loaned out to finance increased production, to finance the building of factories and infrastructure. But instead, much of that money has been spent on unproductive consumption of disposable consumer goods, or indirectly on outrageously expensive weapons systems. The only redeeming factor of the American debt is that it is in American dollars, and will thus shrink as the dollar loses value. The simple fact is that the American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, as evidenced by their shockingly large trade deficits. Close to 70% of the American economy is based on consumer spending.

Re:Huge Military Budget = Declining Empire

[by Anonymous Coward]

"The Spanish Empire collapsed after building a huge armada of ships, only to see the fleet destroyed by an upstart Britain."

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? If you're referring to the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588, you should read Garett Mattingly's Pulitzer-prize winning "The Armada". You'd discover that (1)England was not an "upstart," and its fleet was roughly as powerful (probably more powerful) than the Spanish fleet; (2)It was an English fleet, not a British fleet (and yes, there was a real difference then), (3)The English fleet did not "destroy" the Spanish fleet, and, most important, (4)The defeat of the Armada marked the beginning, not the end, of Spain's strongest navy, and the Spanish empire *grew* in strength following that defeat; it did not "collapse."

Most of your other comments were similarly simplistic or just outright wrong. If you want to make sweeping historical statements it might help if you actually studied some history first.

Re:No biggie

[Danny Rathjens (8471)]

Those types of comparisons are kind of silly. Consider that a lot of countries don't even pay their soldiers other than room and board. Ah, your link provides some info about that: the US military budget includes $110.8 billion to pay salaries (and college tuitions I would guess). Your selective quote also conveniently neglected to paste the line before your quote which says that comparison, "... is not adjusted for purchasing power parity." In other words, the same item both militaries have to buy might actually cost 8 times more in the USA vs China.

I don't dispute that america spends a lot on military, but the way people like to exaggerate and bias to make it seem more than it really is is annoying. My ex-gf used to ignorantly claim the *majority* of US government spending is military thanks to her believing disingenuous people misleading folks with selective stats and the like.

Re:Stop talking out of your ass

[imsabbel (611519)]

Oh, so you manage to spend more than everybody else even _without_ fancy new bombers.

See how that doesnt help your argument one bit.

Re:Stop talking out of your ass

[McGiraf (196030)]

The USSR was a big part of it.

Re:Stop talking out of your ass

[McGiraf (196030)]

The USA did not give any aid to the other allies, they mostly made loans to to them so the could buy stuff from American companies. After Japan attacked perl harbour then they sent the army.

Without the USA the allies would probably have lost, that is obvious. England would not have turned back the German attack without all the food, supplies and money the USA sold and loaned. Loan with interest from private banks, who also financed the nazi before , and some even after, the USA entered the war. I think the last payment from England has been made just a few years ago. But the USA surely did not win the war by itself.

Re:Stop talking out of your ass

[Planesdragon (210349)]

Of course fighting against an army that commits genocide as a matter of policy is morally reprehensible, right ? Well that's how democrats view things.

Not even close, asshat.

The Democratic party wants to get out of Iraq because, well, we WON. Saddam is out of power. His constant genocides stopped. He is no longer training terrorists -- in fact, the only terrorists in Iraq are a hell of a lot closer to the patriots of the American Revolution than the dimwitted asshats who attacked in 2001.

Those who say we never should have gotten into Iraq don't say it because they feel that somehow it was a morally bad thing. It was a tactically bad thing -- with Iraq neutralized, Iran is now unchecked in the region. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, and finished what we started. And if we HAD to invade Iraq, we should have gone in and handled it a hell of a lot better than we did. (Did you know that there were still Nazis running Germany immediately after WWII?)

The only thing morally reprehensible here is the lies that the right-wing neo-facists constantly spread about what Democrats believe. It's as if they can't come up with a simple argument about why they're right and the other guy is wrong, without misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. No, wait... that's exactly it.

In parting:

1: Democrats began nearly every just war we've ever fought. And more than a few of the unjust ones. If you wanted to split the political parties to simple terms, the Democrats think the military is a tool to be used. The Republicans feel that the military is a good end unto itself. (Both are oversimplifcations.)

2: Interesting how you're ignoring things like WWI, or the Indian Wars, or the Civil War, or the War of 1812, or the American Revolution. Sometimes we fight an army with no moral compass. Other times we do. It happens. (And the only post-American withdrawl "genocide" I recall was in Iraq, when we didn't follow through like we said we would. Korea and Vietnam were, well, war, followed by run of the mill starvation.)

liberals talk out of their asses because they are.

[p51d007 (656414)]

I love it when people complain how expensive something is. When you ONLY make 22 of something, factor in the R&D, and that is why the per copy version is so expensive. You think McDonald's double cheese burgers would be only $1 dollar if they sold only 20 per day? They sell thousands per day, bringing the per cost copy down. If they would TEACH economics properly in the United States, maybe asshats wouldn't comment on things they know nothing about. As once said by a GREAT statesman.... "It's not that liberals are wrong, it's that they know so much that isn't true"

Re:Worm?

[RedK (112790)]

Are you being funny or serious ? Because those embedded systems sure as heck don't run on Windows...

Re:Worm?

[Dun Malg (230075)]

If they use smart bombs and smart rockets, they should be connecting these weapons via USB. Or aircraft to some base station.

They don't

If it was a worm, it could mean the beginning of the end of the smart bombs and guided missiles.

You're an idiot. You think the planes are running Windows Warfighter Edition? That the missiles are running under Windows CE For Guided Munitions? A "worm" isn't something you can just generically write for "computers". It requires some knowledge of the internals of the systems your exploiting. All such systems in the military are classified. Go back to watching Independence Day and quit bothering the adults.

Re:Good to know the ejection seats work, usually

[NetNinja (469346)]

American ejection seats work just as well as Russian ones. The reason you don't see footage in those sensationalist TV shows is a testament to American aricraft being fairly reliable.

Martin Baker

Connection to the wiretap issue.

[einhverfr (238914)]

If the Bush administration could tap everyone's phone without a warrant, maybe they would be able to get information from some random guy as to the real root of this crash. Therefore the crash is clearly the fault of the Democrats who let this bill expire.