World most expensive warbird crashes - sets a new precident

[snj5]

With all of the exotic materials and secret equipment in a B-2 it is going to be a HAZMAT / security nightmare

I just wonder how long it will be before some enterprising young Airman starts selling pieces off it on Ebay and spills all our secrets to the enemy.

It will happen just before they escort him to the pokey if they do not shoot him first....

[gary1954]

fraid I gotta agree with Shay...this B-2 was used and a weapons delivery platform (bomber) during the Gulf War(s) So I gotta agree that the term "Warbird" for this aircraft does apply, as it does for perhaps the entire fleet, including the ancient B-52s.

[DoraNineFan]

With all of the exotic materials and secret equipment in a B-2 it is going to be a HAZMAT / security nightmare

I just wonder how long it will be before some enterprising young Airman starts selling pieces off it on Ebay and spills all our secrets to the enemy.

Video seems to show that it crashed onto the base property (from a failed takeoff) and that and it happened in broad daylight, so the wreck was probably well-secured and the odds are against any pilfering that could have happened had it crashed off military property.

[P51Mstg]

The legnth of time it takes some "Airman" to start selling pieces on EBay will probably be inversely proportional to how fast they arrest him, and toss his worthless buttox in the stockade for the same period of time that it will take to develop the Romulan "WARBIRD" with the cloaking device..........


I can't see that happening......


Mark H

[mustanglover]

Come on Randy, quit trying to separate the fly poop from the pepper. Yes, in the end both shuttles did impact (or crash) the earth, so, yes, I guess they did crash.
If you personally need to divorce yourself from your government issued vehicle because of technical difficulties that you cannot overcome, and you decide to give it back to the taxpayers and eject, did your aircraft crash or did it impact with the earth because of outside events caused by the control stick actuator being absent from its assigned place within that aircraft?
Unless you have a method for suspending gravity, then I suppose any impact is a 'crash'

Most people in airplanes can't eject, so does that mean when a civilian airplane becomes a lawndart for any reason that is a crash?

But, if it breaks up in air it is not a crash?

And if you can eject from the disabled airplane and it strikes the ground for whatever reason it is not a crash?

Dude, this can get confusing.

[warbird1]

With all of the exotic materials and secret equipment in a B-2 it is going to be a HAZMAT / security nightmare

I just wonder how long it will be before some enterprising young Airman starts selling pieces off it on Ebay and spills all our secrets to the enemy.

Video seems to show that it crashed onto the base property (from a failed takeoff) and that and it happened in broad daylight, so the wreck was probably well-secured and the odds are against any pilfering that could have happened had it crashed off military property.

Yes, hopefully that will be the case. At least it was on base, so they can exercise some amount of control. My mind wanders back to the Kosovo conflict, when the F-117 was shot down by the Serbians. The Serbians did allow Russia to have/inspect some of the F-117 pieces. I wonder how badly that damaged our technological edge? Man, the Russians have to be foaming at the mouth to get all of their little spies to Guam in a hurry!

[Randy Haskin]

fraid I gotta agree with Shay...this B-2 was used and a weapons delivery platform (bomber) during the Gulf War(s) So I gotta agree that the term "Warbird" for this aircraft does apply, as it does for perhaps the entire fleet, including the ancient B-52s.

The B-2 did not fly any missions in Desert Storm.

[Randy Haskin]

If you personally need to divorce yourself from your government issued vehicle because of technical difficulties that you cannot overcome, and you decide to give it back to the taxpayers and eject, did your aircraft crash or did it impact with the earth because of outside events caused by the control stick actuator being absent from its assigned place within that aircraft?

Sorry, my man, but I'm still not following you.

HGU said this:

Nothing this expensive has ever crashed before in the world.

And I said that two Space Shuttle orbiters, both of which are more expensive to buy (something on the order of $1.7B) and operate, crashed.

Your argument has to do with the semantics of why the crash happened...which I still don't really understand where it was going.

Is your position that 'nothing this expensive has ever crashed' because the Shuttles didn't 'crash'? That sounds sort of like President Clinton arguing over what 'is' means, if you ask me.

[bilwor]

Any id on which B-2 crashed?
bill word

[The Inspector]

Never mind, just keep your O2 regulator on 100% emergency

[JDK]

Isn't a warbird an aircraft which has survived military service? The B2 is an active aircraft, so it's hardly a warbird.

Oh my Gawd, here we go again.

I realise this is an old arguement, but......:

How are they not WARBIRDS?

Hi Shay,
Usually I agree with you, but... unlike many others, I've actually looked very hard to find solid definitions of 'warbird', and I've not found any. First published use of the term is a book on W.W.I aviation. I'm not interested in playing semantics with this as it doesn't take us anywhere or prove anything.

However, I disagree that current frontline military aircraft fit the generally accepted usage (which some hate anyway).

One - I'm not interested in current air force SNAFUs and the like. I log on here (despite a regular loading of current military aviation spam) for the purpose of the site which is to exchange information about 'warbirds'. If I wanted to drivel on about current mil ops I'd go to one of the wanna-be-jocks sites for pimply teens out there. They are about as interested in 'old' aircraft as I am in 'gee-whizz' junk.

Two - I've worked for two publications with 'warbird' in the title. Neither covered current military operations. We never had a problem with people expecting to read about current military ops, and the only confusion over the content and title was some idiot who thought he was getting women in camouflage... (And that's another story.)

Three - WIX serves as an exchange for current information on vintage military operations.

Like others here, I look on to this poorly headed threads because I think it refers to a vintage military accident or problem. I really, really don't like to get misled as these threads do. It's a great the crew are OK, but it's as relevant as reading about a current police incident.

Finally, it's clear that the content of this thread (including my own post) is about as useful and relevant as a catflap in a submarine, and the thread serves mainly to cause several pointless arguments.

HGSCU, please stop scatter-gunning poorly titled threads. If you wish, feel free to carry on, but at least put the subject in the title. Threads without clear leads aren't helpful and are a waste of time.

Thank you.

[Jollygreenslugg]

Thank you James.

There are plenty of discussion fora dedicated to current military aviation topics. The generally accepted concept of 'warbirds' would tend to exclude first-line air force usage.

As there is no 'canonical' definition of warbirds, I can't refer to an authoritative source, but I believe I'm on solid ground in pointing out the possible inappropriateness of such a post on WIX.

Cheers,
Matt

[chico]

Any id on which B-2 crashed?
bill word

Per Wikipedia, the most relieable source on earth for any and all information (:roll:) the B-2 in question was s/n 89-0127, "Spirit of Kansas", which would be #12 off the production line. Haven't seen a citation to confirm that.

Yahoo!'s article mentions that this is the second major accident on Guam in two weeks, as a Prowler went down early last week. All four crew members ejected safely and were recovered.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_re_us/b2_crash;_ylt=Ag37yNOsf0_iMsK2KMp9Y.JH2ocA

[fritzthefox]

The Serbians did allow Russia to have/inspect some of the F-117 pieces. I wonder how badly that damaged our technological edge?

Much of the stealth properties of the aircraft are inherent to it's overall design, and not the materials used in its construction (although they contribute to it). The design of a stealth aircraft is a mathematical problem, which was first discussed in a Russian research paper. No one in Russia bothered to read it, or at least failed to understand its implications, but some bright boys at the Skunk Works did. However, even with a full understanding of how to design such an aircraft, its actual engineering requires that a formidable quantity of numbers get crunched, and that some very sophisticated fly-by-wire smarts exist to make the resulting aerodynamic brick stay in the air. It also requires some very precise tooling be used in its construction.

Since the U.S. has always had a significant lead over Russia in both computing and metallurgy, it is doubtful that Russia would benefit a whole lot from a downed F117. We are a generation beyond that plane (which is already retired), and there is a vast difference between knowing how something is engineered and actually possessing the means to build it. Even for one of the richest countries in the world, their manufacturing is almost prohibitively expensive.

Not that they wouldn't find it interesting, I'm sure...but it wouldn't be likely to tilt the balance of air power or anything.

Worst case, I think it might result in some smarter SAM's.

[chico]

Not that they wouldn't find it interesting, I'm sure...but it wouldn't be likely to tilt the balance of air power or anything.

Worst case, I think it might result in some smarter SAM's.

It also makes for some very interesting souvenirs. The museum that displays the pieces of the downed F-117 is selling small bits of it as well.