PDA

View Full Version : The V-22 Osprey: Yay or Nay?


banyon
04-14-2007, 03:38 PM
Combat, With Limits, Looms for Hybrid Aircraft
Michael Temchine for The New York Times
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/13/business/14osprey.xlarge2.jpg

By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: April 14, 2007
The Marine Corps said yesterday that the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid aircraft with a troubled past, will be sent to Iraq this September, where it will see combat for the first time.

But because of a checkered safety record in test flights, the V-22 will be kept on a short leash.

The Pentagon has placed so many restrictions on how it can be used in combat that the plane — which is able to drop troops into battle like a helicopter and then speed away from danger like an airplane — could have difficulty fulfilling the Marines’ longstanding mission for it.

In Iraq, the V-22 will begin to replace the Vietnam-era helicopters that are increasingly facing enemy fire. The limitations on the V-22, which cost $80 million apiece, mean it cannot evade enemy fire with the same maneuvers and sharp turns used by helicopter pilots.

As a result, the craft could be more vulnerable to attack, and may result in the Marines keeping it out of the thick of battle, using it instead for less dangerous tasks.

“They will plan their missions in Iraq to avoid it getting into areas where there are serious threats,” said Thomas Christie, the Pentagon’s director of operations, test and evaluation from 2001 to 2005, who is now retired. The V-22’s debut in combatends a remarkable 25-year struggle for the Marines to build a craft they could call their own.

VideoMore Video »
In announcing the Iraq deployment yesterday, Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps’ commandant, referred to those efforts as “a road marked by some setbacks, lots of sacrifices and the success of these Marines standing before you.”

The V-22 has been the Marines’ top priority — the Pentagon has spent $20 billion so far and has budgeted $54.6 billion for it. The money has bought a craft that is half-helicopter, half-airplane and whose speed, say the Marines, will save lives.

But the V-22 has also suffered some of the deadliest test crashes in Marine history. It has claimed 30 lives, 26 of them marines, in three test flight crashes. A fourth V-22 crashed, but there were no deaths then. Many more have been damaged in lesser incidents involving fires, stalled engines and software glitches.

Critics say the V-22’s unusual design can create deadly problems that the Marines have minimized in their single-minded pursuit of the craft.

“It’s like a bad poker hand, and the Marines have been investing in it for 20 years,” said Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester from 1994 to 2001. “They might have been better if they invested in brand new helicopters.”

The plane’s most widely cited design problem is that one of its propellers can get caught in its own turbulence as it comes in for a landing, and that can cause the V-22 to roll over and head into the ground.

For that reason, V-22 pilots are trained to steer clear of their own turbulence by rules prohibiting them from making the quick maneuvers used by helicopters to evade enemy fire. Instead, the V-22 must land at speeds as slow as nine miles an hour and in a fairly straight line.

A 2005 Pentagon report said these limitations “may prove insufficient” in protecting the V-22 from ground fire. As a result, that Pentagon evaluation said the V-22 was suited only for low- and medium-threat environments, and is not “operationally effective” in high-threat environments.

Some critics say that in the heat of battle, V-22 pilots could forget these restrictions and move in ways that could bring the craft down.

“The V-22 cannot do radical evasive maneuvers” said Lee Gaillard, author of a report critical of the V-22, “Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker” for the Center for Defense Information, which studies weapons programs. “But that’s what it will need for combat.”

The Marines defend the V-22 by saying it provides a margin of safety a helicopter cannot because it can fly faster, farther and higher.

They say it can get to wounded troops quicker and speed them to medical care in what is called the “golden hour” when life can hang in the balance. Because the V-22 flies with a lower “acoustical signature,” it can enter a battlefield less noisily than a helicopter.

Officials add that the Osprey can do more evasive maneuvers than currently permitted — and further testing will prove that.


If flies twice as fast as the CH-46 that it is replacing,” said Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, head of the Marine aviation program. “It carries three times the payload; it goes five times as far; it’s six times as survivable. So what you’re deploying is an asset that increases the combat capability of the Marines.”

V-22 Osprey's Troubled Launch “That’s what you want to do,” added General Castellaw. “Give them the best you can.”

Col. Mathew Mulhern, the Pentagon’s V-22 program officer, whose Patuxent River office has an “Osprey Country” sign, says marines cannot wait to get on board.

“Every marine who sees one, when they do, a light bulb comes on,” said Colonel Mulhern. “They say, ‘my God.’ ”

Each V-22 costs about three times the price of a modern helicopter and nearly the same as a fighter jet. The Marines will get 360 Ospreys, Air Force Special Forces will get 50 and there will be 48 for the Navy.

The program’s high cost and uncertain technology led Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was secretary of defense under President George H. W. Bush, to try four times to cancel the program.

But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it.

“We have proven conclusively that this is an extraordinarily fine craft,” said Robert Leder, a spokesman for the Bell-Boeing V-22 program. “It is a very safe craft and will be of tremendous service. ‘’

All new weapons have problems in testing. But critics say the V-22 is plagued with basic design problems.

Should the V-22 lose power, it can not “autorotate” like a helicopter and allow the updraft of air to rotate its propellers for a hard, but survivable, landing. Because of this, according to the 2005 Pentagon report, emergency V-22 landings without power at altitudes below 1,600 feet “are not likely to be survivable.”

“If you lose power on a V-22, you just burn and crash,” said one Pentagon official involved in testing the craft but who was not authorized to speak publicly. “There is no way to survive. ”

The cabin is not pressurized, even though the craft can fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet and above, where breathing is difficult and it is not climate-controlled.

Pentagon reports also say the V-22 is too cramped for the 24 marines it can carry. The marines are so packed into the windowless cabin that they can become airsick, their legs can grow numb and leaving the plane quickly is difficult.

There is no bathroom on board and marines have criticized the “piddle packs” they are to use as insufficient. And, there is no place on board to store them once they are full.

V-22 downdraft is so strong, and moves in so many directions that it can create “brownout” conditions, making it difficult for pilots to see and potentially knocking down marines on the ground.

As a result, when rope ladders are used, the V-22 must hover at higher altitudes, making marines more vulnerable to fire.

“Safety is a big issue,” wrote one V-22 crew chief, in a questionnaire filled out for the Pentagon’s 2005 operational evaluation. “If we had went down in the water we would have most likely lost at least 24 troops because of restricted egress. I felt like I was in a coffin.”

These are more than theoretical concerns. On April 8, 2000, 19 marines were killed in a training exercise when a V-22 descended too fast and crashed near Tucson. It was the third V-22 to crash — seven people were killed in two previous crashes.

In December 2000, four more marines, including the program’s most experienced pilot, were killed in a crash caused by a burst hydraulic line and software problems.

These accidents led to program delays to make design changes. But as tests resumed, so have the problems.

Three engine fires occurred recently because of problems related to hydraulic lines. In March 2006, a computer problem led an idling V-22 to suddenly take off on its own. It then slammed into the ground, breaking off its right wing. All 54 V-22’s were grounded for weeks in February because of a faulty computer chip.

In preparation for deployment, the Pentagon ran tests last year in the New Mexico desert, similar to the climate of Iraq. In January, the Pentagon wrote about frequent failures with various parts and systems. The reason: “Extended exposure to the desert operating environment.”

Because of these problems, Mr. Coyle, the former Pentagon weapons tester, predicted the Marines will use the V-22 to ferry troops from one relatively safe spot to another, like a flying truck.

“They don’t want to have a ‘Black Hawk down,’ ” he said. “That would kill the program. Of course, it was not designed to be a truck. It was designed to be used in combat.”

The Marines say the V-22 will prove the critics wrong.

“Ask all the naysayers how many hours they have flown,” said Colonel Mulhern, the V-22 program manger.

“They are just sitting around a desk and crunching numbers,” he added. “Go talk to the Marines. The V-22 has come of age. The first marine it saves makes it worth what we paid for it. And I have real confidence that the V-22 will do it.”

Fans include General Castellaw, a Vietnam helicopter pilot, who has flown the V-22.

“I came in at a high altitude and then did a tactical ingress,” said General Castellaw. “Yankin’ and bankin’ to avoid simulated fire, came in low, streaked into the zone. The aircraft is nimble, agile. You can yank and bank with the best of them.

“I believe absolutely that this is the most survivable craft for the Marine Corps’ most precious assets,” he added. “ If I did not believe that, I would not deploy it. I have absolute faith in the craft to do the mission.”

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/business/14osprey.html?pagewanted=1&hp)

Video (http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=d37d41b7e39183593521081b4e0b7e1005369a80)

banyon
04-14-2007, 03:41 PM
Navy's official site (http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/)

SBK
04-14-2007, 03:55 PM
Call me crazy, but I think the generals that are running the war have a better idea of how to use this thing than any of us around here.

banyon
04-14-2007, 04:06 PM
Call me crazy, but I think the generals that are running the war have a better idea of how to use this thing than any of us around here.

Probably NFL Coaches and GM's know who to draft better than us too, but that doesn't stop our lively conversations in the Lounge.

There are a lot of military-type folks who post in this forum and I was curious about their thoughts on this.

Amnorix
04-14-2007, 04:26 PM
Boondoggle. Along with the B-1 bomber.

It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. I'm glad to fund the greatest military in the world, but the military-industrial complex, and their friends in Congress, never let a project die. Jobs and politics matter more than what the military needs/wants, or what is worth the money.

StcChief
04-14-2007, 04:39 PM
Waste of money...

Always thought it was an accident waiting to happen.

Amnorix
04-14-2007, 04:41 PM
This is all you really need to know about why this f**king fiasco survives:

But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2007, 04:48 PM
Cheney has made his millions sucking at the teat of big govt.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2007, 09:23 AM
Boondoggle. Along with the B-1 bomber.

It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. I'm glad to fund the greatest military in the world, but the military-industrial complex, and their friends in Congress, never let a project die. Jobs and politics matter more than what the military needs/wants, or what is worth the money.


Very true, but at least it's not the Sgt. York. This one actually flies. That thing couldn't hit a barn on a clear day.

Hmm...I think it's time to dust off the DVD of The Pentagon Wars, and revisit the development of the Bradley IFV. ;)

patteeu
04-15-2007, 11:38 AM
Call me crazy, but I think the generals that are running the war have a better idea of how to use this thing than any of us around here.

Yes. I voted "other" because I don't think I have enough information to give a good answer.

IMO, the Osprey is one of the coolest aircraft ever produced, but it's record in testing has been horrible. To be honest, I thought the program had been canceled years ago. But given that it's been continued, for whatever reason, if the military commanders think they can use it, it ought to be used. And if it isn't a success then it should either be used differently or it's use should be discontinued.

My first job offer coming out of college was from Bell Helicopter and shortly thereafter when I saw the first pictures of this awesome looking aircraft they were working on, I had some regrets about not going to work for them.

patteeu
04-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Boondoggle. Along with the B-1 bomber.

It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. I'm glad to fund the greatest military in the world, but the military-industrial complex, and their friends in Congress, never let a project die. Jobs and politics matter more than what the military needs/wants, or what is worth the money.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The way defense projects are distributed across dozens of congressional districts to make them more difficult to kill is one of the ugly things about the defense industry.

It is worth noting though, in this regard, that Dick Cheney tried to buck this system and kill the V-22. He's a hero in so many ways. :D

banyon
04-15-2007, 11:44 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The way defense projects are distributed across dozens of congressional districts to make them more difficult to kill is one of the ugly things about the defense industry.

It is worth noting though, in this regard, that Dick Cheney tried to buck this system and kill the V-22. He's a hero in so many ways. :D

Yep. It does make sense that your interests would ally with the dark one on even this relatively obscure issue. ROFL

Logical
04-15-2007, 06:36 PM
Boondoggle. Along with the B-1 bomber.

It's stuff like this that makes my blood boil. I'm glad to fund the greatest military in the world, but the military-industrial complex, and their friends in Congress, never let a project die. Jobs and politics matter more than what the military needs/wants, or what is worth the money.Don't you mean the B2, the B1 has been revised and successfully deployed and used?

patteeu
04-15-2007, 07:03 PM
Don't you mean the B2, the B1 has been revised and successfully deployed and used?

The B2 has been successfully deployed and used as well and it doesn't have the history of problems that the B1 has had, afaik. I'm no expert, but it seems to me like they had to make up a mission for the B1 and redesign the thing in order to justify a limited production run. I vaguely recall the B1 being involved in more than it's share of crashes too.

I'm not aware of any major V-22-like criticisms of the B2. It's big problem is cost.

Maybe you got your B1s and B2s crossed?

Logical
04-15-2007, 07:21 PM
The B2 has been successfully deployed and used as well and it doesn't have the history of problems that the B1 has had, afaik. I'm no expert, but it seems to me like they had to make up a mission for the B1 and redesign the thing in order to justify a limited production run. I vaguely recall the B1 being involved in more than it's share of crashes too.

I'm not aware of any major V-22-like criticisms of the B2. It's big problem is cost.

Maybe you got your B1s and B2s crossed?B1-A had two crashes, then they modified it and the B-1B has had no crashes and they built I believe almost 100, far more than the 22 B2s that were built. The B2 has not been adapted to drop JDAMs and guided munitions, the B1-B has been. Not sure where you are coming from. The B2 has been used very little as far a know.

patteeu
04-15-2007, 07:44 PM
B10A had two crashes, then they modified it and the B-1B has had no crashes and they built I believe almost 100, far more than the 22 B2s that were built. The B2 has not been adapted to drop JDAMs and guided munitions, the B1-B has been. Not sure where you are coming from. The B2 has been used very little as far a know.

After reviewing the B1 wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer) and the B2 wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit), both appear to have been involved in significant combat and both appear to be capable of delivering JDAMS.

The B1 looks like it has had a more troubled developmental cycle (including multiple cancellations/redesigns/mission redefinitions) and more crashes/equipment fires. The B2's problems are primarily cost and maintenance of it's Low Observable materials.

Amnorix
04-15-2007, 07:48 PM
B10A had two crashes, then they modified it and the B-1B has had no crashes and they built I believe almost 100, far more than the 22 B2s that were built. The B2 has not been adapted to drop JDAMs and guided munitions, the B1-B has been. Not sure where you are coming from. The B2 has been used very little as far a know.

The B2 I at least understand the concept of. Build a stealth bomber, and it can do things and go places that no other bomber can. Originally designed to penetrate Soviet Air Defenses, while I can quibble with the price spetn, etc., I can at least acknowledge the concept of a stealth bomber has it all over what the B-52 brings.

The B1 has never realized any serious advantages (other than being newer) over the B52s that it was designed to replace. They are less reliable, in general, and frankly haven't paid for themselves in any way in which I'm aware.


Let me back up to note that in 20/20 hindsight, both the B1 and B2 program were a mistake. With the disintegration of the USSR (which neither the B1 nor the B2 helped cause), their primary concept of penetrating advanced air defenses, has been rendered irrelevant. We can cheerfully annihilate the air defenses of a country like IRaq within a week, leaving B-52s to do their worst with impunity.

Meanwhile, tangentially, the third leg of the strategic triad -- heavy bombers with nuclear weaponry -- was absurd on its face, and I can hardly believe we kept bombers in the air 24/7 for 30+ years. Talk about a riduclous waste of money.

The USSR's chances of destroying the other two legs of the triad before they could deliver effective counterstrikes were zero.

Logical
04-15-2007, 08:33 PM
...

Meanwhile, tangentially, the third leg of the strategic triad -- heavy bombers with nuclear weaponry -- was absurd on its face, and I can hardly believe we kept bombers in the air 24/7 for 30+ years. Talk about a riduclous waste of money.

The USSR's chances of destroying the other two legs of the triad before they could deliver effective counterstrikes were zero.You have never seemed to grasp the concept that a bomber can be recalled at the last second and that SLBMs and Silo based nukes cannot.

CrazyCoffey
04-15-2007, 08:38 PM
It's a loaded question,

vote yes and we pay more taxes, people start bitching about that.

vote no and jobs are lost, unemployment goes up and people bitch about that.

trndobrd
04-15-2007, 09:11 PM
The Osprey is a really cool aircraft and facinating example of "outside the box' thinking. However, those aren't good reasons to sink that much money into a program. In the long run, it may be worthwhile and maybe not.

It seems over the years of the program the role of the Osprey has never been clearly defined. It has some obvious problems in an air assault role since it lacks any weaponsry for suppressive fire on an LZ. As a transport it lacks external slingload capacity (that I'm aware of) so it wouldn't be able to bring howitzers, vehicles or bulldozers to the fight.

It does seem to have a role as a long range, medium size cargo aircraft to fly to and from remote sites without airfields. In an environment like Iraq or Afghanistan with multiple Forward Operating Bases spread out over hundreds of miles and lacking any runways for conventional aircraft, it might be just the ticket.

An expensive ticket.

Amnorix
04-15-2007, 09:44 PM
You have never seemed to grasp the concept that a bomber can be recalled at the last second and that SLBMs and Silo based nukes cannot.

Why would the bombers be heading there to begin with. The whole concept of MAD makes it madness to send the bombers there in the first place.

They know we have ICBMs and SLBMs to lay waste to everything from Vladivostok to Riga, and they could do the same from Maine to California.

Besides, the entire concept of keeping the bombers in the air 24/7 was to make sure that theyweren't caught on the ground in the event of a RUSSIAN first strike. Why the hell would we be recalling them if that were to happen?

Amnorix
04-15-2007, 09:45 PM
It's a loaded question,

vote yes and we pay more taxes, people start bitching about that.

vote no and jobs are lost, unemployment goes up and people bitch about that.

It's not the government's job to DIRECTLY support jobs in that fashion. Boondoggle projects just to make sure some people get a paycheck is not good governance.

Logical
04-15-2007, 10:33 PM
Why would the bombers be heading there to begin with. The whole concept of MAD makes it madness to send the bombers there in the first place.

They know we have ICBMs and SLBMs to lay waste to everything from Vladivostok to Riga, and they could do the same from Maine to California.

Besides, the entire concept of keeping the bombers in the air 24/7 was to make sure that theyweren't caught on the ground in the event of a RUSSIAN first strike. Why the hell would we be recalling them if that were to happen?You do know that on three different occasions we have sent bombers in over the Soviet Union and recalled them all three times when we had went to DEFCON 2. It was a threat that could be stopped, something where it was not a no recourse solution. That is the reason for bombers vs the other two legs of the TRIAD. I know you are a liberal but I also know you to be logical so you can figure the logic of this out for yourself.

Amnorix
04-15-2007, 10:48 PM
You do know that on three different occasions we have sent bombers in over the Soviet Union and recalled them all three times when we had went to DEFCON 2. It was a threat that could be stopped, something where it was not a no recourse solution. That is the reason for bombers vs the other two legs of the TRIAD. I know you are a liberal but I also know you to be logical so you can figure the logic of this out for yourself.

Was not aware of that, and will definitely look into it. I will revisit the value of the bomber portion of the strategic triad.

I'm still pretty shaky on being in the air 24/7, but will at least look into that also.

I'm liberal, but I'm pretty pro-military for a liberal. The mindless penchant of some to just keep throwing money at the military, without limits, I don't understand at all. That's not conservative or liberal, that's just silly.

I wouldn't fund ANYTHING without limits.

Amnorix
04-15-2007, 10:56 PM
You do know that on three different occasions we have sent bombers in over the Soviet Union and recalled them all three times when we had went to DEFCON 2. It was a threat that could be stopped, something where it was not a no recourse solution. That is the reason for bombers vs the other two legs of the TRIAD. I know you are a liberal but I also know you to be logical so you can figure the logic of this out for yourself.

Gotta hit the hay, but seems like Defcon 2 only happened once, during JFK's idiotic Cuban Missile Crisis.

DEFCON 2 This refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_readiness&action=edit). It has only been declared once, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis). Wikipedia, so take it for whatever that's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON

Looks like we'v egone to Defcon 3 a few times, with some commands going to Defcon 2 during the Yom Kippur war, but nto (as far as can be told, Strategic Air Command (see same webpage as above)

Logical
04-15-2007, 11:28 PM
Was not aware of that, and will definitely look into it. I will revisit the value of the bomber portion of the strategic triad.

I'm still pretty shaky on being in the air 24/7, but will at least look into that also.

I'm liberal, but I'm pretty pro-military for a liberal. The mindless penchant of some to just keep throwing money at the military, without limits, I don't understand at all. That's not conservative or liberal, that's just silly.

I wouldn't fund ANYTHING without limits.Agreed which is why the B2 should have had its funding cut a long time ago. The day the Berlin wall came down the B2 should have had all production halted.

Logical
04-15-2007, 11:42 PM
Gotta hit the hay, but seems like Defcon 2 only happened once, during JFK's idiotic Cuban Missile Crisis.

DEFCON 2 This refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_readiness&action=edit). It has only been declared once, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis). Wikipedia, so take it for whatever that's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON

Looks like we'v egone to Defcon 3 a few times, with some commands going to Defcon 2 during the Yom Kippur war, but nto (as far as can be told, Strategic Air Command (see same webpage as above)
Interesting, since the publc has input to Wik I am not sure how much it can be totally relied upon. I thought I remember Carter taking us to Defcon3 once but I may have a faulty memory. By the way I am not sure that more than a third of the bomber force was in the air at any one time period during those years.

SBK
04-16-2007, 01:32 AM
Agreed which is why the B2 should have had its funding cut a long time ago. The day the Berlin wall came down the B2 should have had all production halted.

Your short sighted on this one. What next-gen aircraft is going to come from the research that has been put into the development of this one? Did the B2 lead to the F-22? How has the B-2 helped us dominate the couple wars we've been in since the wall came down? What fights will we have in the future that these planes will prove to be a great investment?

I think if you focus in on one enemy, like Iraq, or Russia, you can lose out on what fights you may have in the future.

That being said, I really wish I could see some of the crazy stuff we have but don't know about. :hmmm:

Amnorix
04-16-2007, 06:01 AM
Interesting, since the publc has input to Wik I am not sure how much it can be totally relied upon. I thought I remember Carter taking us to Defcon3 once but I may have a faulty memory. By the way I am not sure that more than a third of the bomber force was in the air at any one time period during those years.


Right, it wasn't like the whole bomber force was in the air 24/7. That'd be physically impossible.

The normal rule for the the navy, I understand, is 1/3rd of the fleet is actually on station at any given point in time, roughly. The rest is either in transit to or from their assignments, in for maintenance/repairs, used for training, etc.

I assume that this rule of thumb is just a regular peacetime thing, and that more ships can be deployed if there is a heightened sense of urgency.

I'd be glad to hear from any former navy guys on whether this is accurate or not.

Amnorix
04-16-2007, 06:03 AM
Your short sighted on this one. What next-gen aircraft is going to come from the research that has been put into the development of this one? Did the B2 lead to the F-22? How has the B-2 helped us dominate the couple wars we've been in since the wall came down? What fights will we have in the future that these planes will prove to be a great investment?

I think if you focus in on one enemy, like Iraq, or Russia, you can lose out on what fights you may have in the future.

That being said, I really wish I could see some of the crazy stuff we have but don't know about. :hmmm:


There's 20 of them total, in existence. They obviously haven't altered the balance of power in the universe or anything.

I'd have to know more about the numbers, but keeping ONE squadron in service doesn't see too unreasonable, if we'd already built them etc.

banyon
04-16-2007, 08:11 AM
Your short sighted on this one. What next-gen aircraft is going to come from the research that has been put into the development of this one? Did the B2 lead to the F-22? How has the B-2 helped us dominate the couple wars we've been in since the wall came down? What fights will we have in the future that these planes will prove to be a great investment?

I think if you focus in on one enemy, like Iraq, or Russia, you can lose out on what fights you may have in the future.

That being said, I really wish I could see some of the crazy stuff we have but don't know about. :hmmm:

Whoa, wait! I thought we weren't allowed to talk about this stuff. :)

Logical
04-16-2007, 12:40 PM
Your short sighted on this one. What next-gen aircraft is going to come from the research that has been put into the development of this one? Did the B2 lead to the F-22? How has the B-2 helped us dominate the couple wars we've been in since the wall came down? What fights will we have in the future that these planes will prove to be a great investment?

I think if you focus in on one enemy, like Iraq, or Russia, you can lose out on what fights you may have in the future.

That being said, I really wish I could see some of the crazy stuff we have but don't know about. :hmmm:You do know the F-117 is the exact same technology and was developed and fielded before the B-2 at much lower cost.

trndobrd
04-16-2007, 03:49 PM
Why would the bombers be heading there to begin with. The whole concept of MAD makes it madness to send the bombers there in the first place.

They know we have ICBMs and SLBMs to lay waste to everything from Vladivostok to Riga, and they could do the same from Maine to California.

Besides, the entire concept of keeping the bombers in the air 24/7 was to make sure that theyweren't caught on the ground in the event of a RUSSIAN first strike. Why the hell would we be recalling them if that were to happen?


I believe the 24/7 airborne nuclear bomber force was ended in the mid '70s as nuclear missile technology became more reliable. "Looking Glass", the 24/7 airborne command post continued in operation until 1991.

Saw it on TV the other day, still looking for a link.

edit: Operation Chrome Dome ended in 1968 after the second accident involving an aircraft carrying nuclear weapons (the first was off the coast of Spain). A portion of U.S. Bomber forces remained on 15 minute alert until 1991.
http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm

patteeu
04-16-2007, 05:09 PM
You do know the F-117 is the exact same technology and was developed and fielded before the B-2 at much lower cost.

Nonsense, unless by "exact same technology" you mean "airplanes."

I'm confident that the B2 has a far smaller radar cross section and I know it has a far larger payload.

Logical
04-16-2007, 05:20 PM
Nonsense, unless by "exact same technology" you mean "airplanes."

I'm confident that the B2 has a far smaller radar cross section and I know it has a far larger payload.
Jesus Christ, they are both the same stealth technology and no the B2 does not have a smaller RCS than than the 117. Payload yes as the 117 is designed more for ground support and fighter capability that was not my point. The argument was about the technology that the B2 brought. The B2 is of the same technology and came out of the same projects at Wright Patt. The 117 was flown first in 1981 and the B2s first flight was in 1989.
Streamlined management by Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, combined breakthrough stealth technology with concurrent development and production to rapidly field the aircraft. The F-117A program has demonstrated that a stealth aircraft can be designed for reliability and maintainability. The aircraft maintenance statistics are comparable to other tactical fighters of similar complexity. Logistically supported by Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan AFB, Calif., the F-117A is kept at the forefront of technology through a planned weapon system improvement program located at USAF Plant 42 at Palmdale, Calif. The Air Force thinking today is that it will phase out the Nighthawks after 2018.
The first F-117A was delivered in 1982, and the last delivery was in the summer of 1990. The F-117A production decision was made in 1978 with a contract awarded to Lockheed Advanced Development Projects, the "Skunk Works," in Burbank, Calif. The first flight was in 1981, only 31 months after the full-scale development decision. Lockheed-Martin delivered 59 stealth fighters to the Air Force between August 1982 and July 1990. Five additional test aircraft belong to the company.

trndobrd
04-16-2007, 06:25 PM
Jesus Christ, they are both the same stealth technology and no the B2 does not have a smaller RCS than than the 117. Payload yes as the 117 is designed more for ground support and fighter capability that was not my point. The argument was about the technology that the B2 brought. The B2 is of the same technology and came out of the same projects at Wright Patt. The 117 was flown first in 1981 and the B2s first flight was in 1989.


Suprisingly, the B2, although a much larger aircraft, has a smaller RCS. (0.0015msq opposed to 0.003msq) The F-117 was not designed as fighter* or CAS aircraft, but a precision attack bomber. The B2 represents the second generation of stealth technology (third, if you count the B-1). The F117 was test flown in 1981 and entered service in 1983. The B2 was first tested in 1989 and entered service in 1997. Although it uses many of the same concepts, as the F117, the technology is dramatically superior.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml

Whether we need a $1 Billion a pop intercontinental bomber is a different matter all together.

*The "F" was added only because the AirForce was trying to recruit pilots out of the Fighter Squadrons. Based on it's intended role, it should have received an "A" designation.

CHIEF4EVER
04-16-2007, 06:43 PM
I remember the V-22 hype when I was still in the Army. I thought it was a waste of money then. I think it is a monumental waste of money now. Not only is the design completely redundant and ineffective, the face of warfare has changed. It is irrelevant. JMO.

Brock
04-16-2007, 07:01 PM
About the only time I hear about an Osprey is when it has crashed and killed 20 marines. And this is coming from a guy who paid his mortgage off working on it.

CHIEF4EVER
04-17-2007, 02:51 AM
About the only time I hear about an Osprey is when it has crashed and killed 20 marines. And this is coming from a guy who paid his mortgage off working on it.

So it's your fault then? LMAO just kidding

You work out of Wichita?

Amnorix
04-17-2007, 04:49 AM
I believe the 24/7 airborne nuclear bomber force was ended in the mid '70s as nuclear missile technology became more reliable. "Looking Glass", the 24/7 airborne command post continued in operation until 1991.

Saw it on TV the other day, still looking for a link.

edit: Operation Chrome Dome ended in 1968 after the second accident involving an aircraft carrying nuclear weapons (the first was off the coast of Spain). A portion of U.S. Bomber forces remained on 15 minute alert until 1991.
http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm


I seem to remember it going itno the Bush1 administration. I seem to think I have specific memory of it, but maybe it was just that "15 minute alert" thing you reference.

redbrian
04-17-2007, 06:29 PM
I believe the 24/7 airborne nuclear bomber force was ended in the mid '70s as nuclear missile technology became more reliable. "Looking Glass", the 24/7 airborne command post continued in operation until 1991.

Saw it on TV the other day, still looking for a link.

edit: Operation Chrome Dome ended in 1968 after the second accident involving an aircraft carrying nuclear weapons (the first was off the coast of Spain). A portion of U.S. Bomber forces remained on 15 minute alert until 1991.
http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm

I'd put the 24/7 bomber force in the air until at least 78, had a buddy who was a boomer and got the refuling run from time to time out of McConnell (I left McConnell in 78 so do not have any first hand experince after that, except for the hardened hangers at Upper Heyford which held F-111's loaded with nukes).

patteeu
04-17-2007, 06:57 PM
Jesus Christ, they are both the same stealth technology and no the B2 does not have a smaller RCS than than the 117. Payload yes as the 117 is designed more for ground support and fighter capability that was not my point. The argument was about the technology that the B2 brought. The B2 is of the same technology and came out of the same projects at Wright Patt. The 117 was flown first in 1981 and the B2s first flight was in 1989.

It's easier to reduce the cross section of a larger aircraft from most aspect angles. Radar Chief might be able to confirm that if all else is equal you can get a higher gain out of a larger antenna. One of the ways to defeat radar is to deflect the energy away from the radar's receiver and a larger "antenna" (i.e. a larger aircraft surface) allows you to do this more thoroughly.

Another factor is that the B2 has fewer sharp corners than the F-117 which also helps reduce the cross section.

The surface coating technologies and electronic technologies may or may not be the same. I don't know. Maybe this is what you are thinking of?

Logical
04-17-2007, 10:14 PM
It's easier to reduce the cross section of a larger aircraft from most aspect angles. Radar Chief might be able to confirm that if all else is equal you can get a higher gain out of a larger antenna. One of the ways to defeat radar is to deflect the energy away from the radar's receiver and a larger "antenna" (i.e. a larger aircraft surface) allows you to do this more thoroughly.

Another factor is that the B2 has fewer sharp corners than the F-117 which also helps reduce the cross section.

The surface coating technologies and electronic technologies may or may not be the same. I don't know. Maybe this is what you are thinking of?Your last statement is indeed what I was emphasizing. One site says the RCS on the B2 is smaller than that for the 117, I admit to being suprised by that.