B2 bomber stunt

[Zorba]

EK had it right, I just used the Lear as an example of something that might have somewhat close to the range of a B-2 (enough to be able to go a distance before refueling) along with the speed. Avionics and cockpit could be mocked up to resemble the B-2. It's practice, so evading radar isn't really needed unless you need to actually practice that. My point really is that there could be other, far cheaper to operate, airframes out there than can give our B-2 pilots the air time needed to remain proficient at flying a B-2 on training missions...or at least ones that don't require actual stealth and actually dropping bombs. Huge plus if that can be accomplished is less stress on our expensive and irreplaceable airframes.

If that can't be done, or, done well enough where they can remain mission capable, then I'm fine with them using the real thing. I hope they've at least considered it though, instead of just saying, F yeah, lets go fly our B-2's around!

Chuck

I am an airline engineer and I used to design military jet engines, and even did improvements on the engines used on the B-1B (the F101).

First, aircraft do not like sitting, don't know why they just don't. Sometimes we would have aircraft come in for a long modification (~45 days), once we fired them back up, leaks everywhere avionics not working, etc stuff that wasn't touched at all, it could take days to fix everything. Aircraft in for 3 or 4 days on a maintenance check, (i.e. lots of components removed/checked/overhauled) would return to service with no issues.

Second, corrosion (the number one killer of an airframe) is caused mostly by calendar time and environment. 40K feet isn't a very corrosive environment due to the lack of moisture, the ground is a very corrosive environment. This is probably the biggest reason the B-2 has climate controlled hangars.

Third, fatigue (the number two killer of an airframe) is caused from flight cycles, not hours. So flying around town for 30 minutes, on a bomber will do about 96% (yes this is a real number, from an engine) of the damage to the aircraft as a 30 hour flight. Fighters will do more damage on longer flights, because they have much higher in flight cyclic loadings.

Flight time does eat away at the life engine airfoils, slowly, but the air force can still get parts for the F118 engine, so not a big deal.

Fourth, military aircraft really don't build time and cycles all that quickly, especially compared to airliners. B-52s built in the 60s have less time and cycles than 767s built in the late 90s.

Fifth, if you have the money to spend, extending the life an airframe is not that difficult. The maintenance checks get longer and more detailed. The number of inspections and findings go up, but you can fix just about anything. I have seen crazy aircraft damage fixed in a month, such as a 757 that took a direct hit from an F2 tornado or the reskinning of a large portion of the fuselage due to storm damage. Fixing fatigue and corrosion damage is just a matter of time and money.

Sixth, training in Sims and other aircraft is fine, but at some point you have to train in the real equipment, flying a "real" sortie. You must also give the mechanics a chance to learn how to work on the aircraft.

 

[chucky2]

Thanks Zorba, that is good info! Like I said I'm fine if it makes sense, my worry with all things Fed is that cost to society is never factored in. If it makes sense then I'm all for it...sounds like from what you're saying, at least from an airframe perspective (which is what I am more concerned about) it's not a big deal to let'em fly.

Chuck

 

[Zorba]

No mission means no chance of an accident. A less risky mission means less chance of an accident. A more risky mission means more chance of an accident.

How was this a more "risky" mission? The airframe was designed to fly non-stop from the US to anywhere in the world, fully loaded, and back. It was fulfilling its designed mission.

The riskiest times in any flight are takeoff and landing, this mission had the same number of takeoffs and landings as a 30 minute flight around St Louis would've had. In fact the only accident involving a B-2 was on takeoff.

I am not sure if they do this with the B-2s (sure they do), but the air force loves doing touch and goes. I've watched them do them multiple times in F-16s, A-10s, C-130s, KC-135s, E-3s, E-4s and VC-25s (Airforce One). Repeated touch and goes are statistically much more risky than a long flight at cruise altitude.

 

[cwjerome]

I am an airline engineer and I used to design military jet engines, and even did improvements on the engines used on the B-1B (the F101).

(...snip...)

Thanks for the info. Not to derail anything, just as a sidenote you might be interested in this.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No mission means no chance of an accident. A less risky mission means less chance of an accident. A more risky mission means more chance of an accident.



I've provided arguments to substantiate my position. You and everyone else are of course welcome to disagree, but an argumentum ad populum is pretty unimpressive.

If you do not fly missions in training; your training will be OJT when the ball drops.

That is not good.

I have not flown in over 30 years. I have flown simulators since then
Who would you rather have leading an attack. An old fogey like myself or someone that flew last week within the same parameters that is needed when such a situation occurs.

You hope to never have to use your skills, but keep them as perfected as possible just in case.

You seem to think that mediocracy (sp) will get the job done.
It wont. Some one will get killed as a result.

 

[Exterous]

No mission means no chance of an accident.

Not even close to what you said earlier. 'A mission like this' does not equal 'No mission' (perhaps this was an addendum though?)

A less risky mission means less chance of an accident. A more risky mission means more chance of an accident.

How was this more risky compared to flying in the US? Did they fly into enemy territory? Are you aware that the riskiest part of the flight is take off and landing which would be the same regardless of where they flew? If anything I would say a flight around the US would be riskier as the plane density is higher and refueling over the US has more risk than refueling over the Pacific.

Edit: I see there is a page 2 and some of this was already covered

I've provided arguments to substantiate my position. You and everyone else are of course welcome to disagree, but an argumentum ad populum is pretty unimpressive.

If this only included the opinions of the general populous you would be correct. However - as people with far more experience and information than you believe otherwise this is an improper attempt to link to a logical fallacy

You also continue to ignore historical precedent

Perhaps you would care to actually post some real data or supporting information around your opinion? To me it would seem that if I were going to argue against:
History
The military
The civilian government
A skewed section of the population (P&N)
The lack of a negative international response to the flight
I would have something other than just my own unsupported, minority, ignorance backed opinion. You say our arguments are unimpressive yet yours is the weaker position and has no substance to make its claim

 

[werepossum]

I am an airline engineer and I used to design military jet engines, and even did improvements on the engines used on the B-1B (the F101).

First, aircraft do not like sitting, don't know why they just don't. Sometimes we would have aircraft come in for a long modification (~45 days), once we fired them back up, leaks everywhere avionics not working, etc stuff that wasn't touched at all, it could take days to fix everything. Aircraft in for 3 or 4 days on a maintenance check, (i.e. lots of components removed/checked/overhauled) would return to service with no issues.

Second, corrosion (the number one killer of an airframe) is caused mostly by calendar time and environment. 40K feet isn't a very corrosive environment due to the lack of moisture, the ground is a very corrosive environment. This is probably the biggest reason the B-2 has climate controlled hangars.

Third, fatigue (the number two killer of an airframe) is caused from flight cycles, not hours. So flying around town for 30 minutes, on a bomber will do about 96% (yes this is a real number, from an engine) of the damage to the aircraft as a 30 hour flight. Fighters will do more damage on longer flights, because they have much higher in flight cyclic loadings.

Flight time does eat away at the life engine airfoils, slowly, but the air force can still get parts for the F118 engine, so not a big deal.

Fourth, military aircraft really don't build time and cycles all that quickly, especially compared to airliners. B-52s built in the 60s have less time and cycles than 767s built in the late 90s.

Fifth, if you have the money to spend, extending the life an airframe is not that difficult. The maintenance checks get longer and more detailed. The number of inspections and findings go up, but you can fix just about anything. I have seen crazy aircraft damage fixed in a month, such as a 757 that took a direct hit from an F2 tornado or the reskinning of a large portion of the fuselage due to storm damage. Fixing fatigue and corrosion damage is just a matter of time and money.

Sixth, training in Sims and other aircraft is fine, but at some point you have to train in the real equipment, flying a "real" sortie. You must also give the mechanics a chance to learn how to work on the aircraft.

Very good info, thanks. I'd add two little points. First, aircraft safety is also more proportionally compromised during take-offs and landings, because there is little room to recover. And second, your last point is especially valid. You train like you fight, always. If you don't make 6,000 mile trips, then your first 6,000 mile mission is where you work out any kinks and develop your routine. Shaking out the bugs with live nukes and active opposition is probably not the best plan.

EDIT: Erp, Eaglekeeper and Exterous already covered my points. My purpose, she is no more . . .

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Exterous, I don't really see any point in repeating myself over and over again.

I think this action was provocative and wholly unnecessary. The North Koreans already know we can bomb them back to the stone age if we want to, and pulling this stunt served only to further escalate tensions. Flying expensive planes near a hostile country when it isn't necessary is by definition taking an unnecessary risk -- because shit does happen. If you feel the action was necessary, you'll see it differently, but that doesn't make my logic fallacious.

 

[werepossum]

Exterous, I don't really see any point in repeating myself over and over again.

I think this action was provocative and wholly unnecessary. The North Koreans already know we can bomb them back to the stone age if we want to, and pulling this stunt served only to further escalate tensions. Flying expensive planes near a hostile country when it isn't necessary is by definition taking an unnecessary risk -- because shit does happen. If you feel the action was necessary, you'll see it differently, but that doesn't make my logic fallacious.

It boils down to whether one believes this is provocative or a legitimate warning that we can and will respond to violence with violence. Whether it's better to present a tough, unyielding front or a passive, non-confrontational front in the face of threats of aggression can really only be determined in hindsight. But it's the President's call and absent hard evidence to the contrary I am going to assume that with the advice of input of his military and State advisers, he made the best call he could, whether it's Bush or Obama.

 

[Zorba]

Exterous, I don't really see any point in repeating myself over and over again.

I think this action was provocative and wholly unnecessary. The North Koreans already know we can bomb them back to the stone age if we want to, and pulling this stunt served only to further escalate tensions. Flying expensive planes near a hostile country when it isn't necessary is by definition taking an unnecessary risk -- because shit does happen. If you feel the action was necessary, you'll see it differently, but that doesn't make my logic fallacious.

Sometimes a well timed and executed show of force can prevent a fight.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It boils down to whether one believes this is provocative or a legitimate warning that we can and will respond to violence with violence. Whether it's better to present a tough, unyielding front or a passive, non-confrontational front in the face of threats of aggression can really only be determined in hindsight. But it's the President's call and absent hard evidence to the contrary I am going to assume that with the advice of input of his military and State advisers, he made the best call he could, whether it's Bush or Obama.

That's fair enough. Obviously we are all armchair quarterbacking since we don't know all the facts.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It boils down to whether one believes this is provocative or a legitimate warning that we can and will respond to violence with violence. Whether it's better to present a tough, unyielding front or a passive, non-confrontational front in the face of threats of aggression can really only be determined in hindsight. But it's the President's call and absent hard evidence to the contrary I am going to assume that with the advice of input of his military and State advisers, he made the best call he could, whether it's Bush or Obama.

You also are demonstrating to China that you have the capability to being such technology/firepower to bear. Encourage China to put the brakes on NK, because if push comes to shove, does China want to take on such forces in the defense of NK stupidity

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You also are demonstrating to China that you have the capability to being such technology/firepower to bear.

If we're actually arrogant enough to underestimate China so much as to think it needs that sort of a demonstration, we have bigger problems than North Korea.

I'd also point out for the sake of argument that Guam is about as far from the US as South Korea is, with no hostile, trigger-happy neighbor.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If we're actually arrogant enough to underestimate China so much as to think it needs that sort of a demonstration, we have bigger problems than North Korea.

I'd also point out for the sake of argument that Guam is about as far from the US as South Korea is, with no hostile, trigger-happy neighbor.

China has been rattling is sabres recently, trying to bully it's neighbors.

The B2 demo shows that they are not invulnerable

We are reinforcing the concept that we can reach out and touch. Such is scary to military and political leadership.

Guam might have been nice, however, how do you coordinate with the other forces that are involved.

 

[Eureka]

If we're actually arrogant enough to underestimate China so much as to think it needs that sort of a demonstration, we have bigger problems than North Korea.

I'd also point out for the sake of argument that Guam is about as far from the US as South Korea is, with no hostile, trigger-happy neighbor.

We know that they know that we have these weapons. What we're showing is that we won't back down from a fight. Our image, as of late, is that we are becoming a far more liberal society, and that we are trying to pull away from conflicts. Which isn't bad, but we still need to posture.

If we show that we still have the guts to rattle our sabres, then we may be able to remind our competitors that they actually don't want to fight.

It's not just for the leadership, too, but for all the common people watching the news. It reminds our population that we are still ready and that we're not afraid to defend our allies. It reminds our allies that we're still there. And it reminds everyone else exactly what we can do (if not more).

 

[werepossum]

You also are demonstrating to China that you have the capability to being such technology/firepower to bear. Encourage China to put the brakes on NK, because if push comes to shove, does China want to take on such forces in the defense of NK stupidity

I'm not at all sure that China would even consider coming to North Korea's aid militarily - although that MIGHT be North Korea's end game. Draw in American forces, then have China come in and take all of Korea for the communists. I'm not completely confident that wouldn't happen, but I don't think it would. From their parallel original Communist roots Red China has morphed into a politically Communist but economically enthusiastically capitalist nation intertwined with the free world, while North Korea has evolved into an insular hereditary dictatorship with an economy based mostly on using foreign aid to allow them to devote all domestic resources toward supporting their military in general and their nuclear capability in particular. North Korea may learn that being a low cost useful irritant and buffer is a lot different from being so valuable that China will lose much of what has been gained on North Korea's behalf. That would be a very steep price to prevent loss of face.

 

[beachchica]

And you think for some reason they aren't going to underplay/distort/hide this incident as well?

Seriously.. what the heck are we doing playing South Korea's "big brother" anyway? Don't we have our own borders to protect?

We do. But as with every war we've even been involved with, we never left after the conflict was over. We still have bases in Germany and Italy and everywhere else you can think of.

As such, we have an investment in the security of SK.

Personally I'd be happy to dismantle all of our foreign bases but that's not how the world is anymore and it may not be a practical solution.

Also... funny how with all the 'pain' we're experiencing with sequestration, we can spend money when it 'really matters'. I guess SK doesn't get to experience the 'make it hurt' philosophy of this administration when it comes to spending less money.