B-2 Stealth Bomber Crash

[Pulsar]

I had read on PDF in some threads (I can't seem to find them now) that NO B-2 Bomber has ever crashed, especially from some members with US flags (probably Americans, proving the infallibility of the B-2 bomber!) They vociferously deny any B-2 crash in its long history of deployment. They're probably on an ego trip!

But here's proof that a B-2 did crash during take-off on February 23, 2008.

In the video your first see B-2 make a normal take-off from Andersen AFB. It is followed by the incident aircraft, tail number 89-0127. You can see the bomber pitch rapidly nose-up. Because of the skewed sensors, the flight control computer thinks the B-2 is at its 140kt rotation speed, but it's actually at 130kt. The sensors were also indicating that the bomber was nose-down, so commanded the rapid pitch-up. The combination of slow airspeed and high angle-of-attack caused the aircraft to stall and roll to the left. As the wingtip hits the ground, the pilots eject.

The video also shows the USAF's reconstruction of the accident from two viewpoints, behind and ahead of the aircraft. Along the bottom are instrument representations showing altitude, airspeed, attitude and stick position. Then you get to see video of the crash from a different angle - again the normal take-off by aircraft 88-0331 followed by the dramatic pitch-up by accident aircraft 89-0127.

Here it is...

So there! Those diehard fans of the B-2 now know that this one isn't crash proof either and at least one has gone down with a loss of almost $1 billion! (Rs 5400 crores IR and > 10,000 crores PKR )

 

[Jango]

This was during takeoff, not active combat.

 

[JohnyD]

IronMan must be behind it... ;-)

 

[Pulsar]

This was during takeoff, not active combat.

During takeoff, or active combat doesn't matter. In fact it's even worse if it crashed during takeoff! An aircraft costing $1 billion is supposed to at least take to the skies without mishap. And that's the easiest part! What does that show for the flight control systems having the most sophisticated computers in the world on board with system redundancy?

It sucks!

 

[GR!FF!N]

During takeoff, or active combat doesn't matter. In fact it's even worse if it crashed during takeoff! An aircraft costing $1 billion is supposed to at least take to the skies without mishap. And that's the easiest part! What does that show for the flight control systems having the most sophisticated computers in the world on board with system redundancy?

It sucks!

buddy,flying wing design is most unstable.you need highly advanced fly by wire and system computer to fly it properly.it is wrong to say that it sucks.this jets flew thousands of hours,both for bombing mission or during peace time and only one crash happened.so,it doesn't discredit the whole achievement..

 

[gambit]

During takeoff, or active combat doesn't matter. In fact it's even worse if it crashed during takeoff! An aircraft costing $1 billion is supposed to at least take to the skies without mishap. And that's the easiest part! What does that show for the flight control systems having the most sophisticated computers in the world on board with system redundancy?

It sucks!

Are you really that desperate to poke US in the eye? When did we ever advertised the B-2 as 'perfect'?

 

[sms]

@Pulsar What's objective of this thread? If it's about talking and analyzing the reason of crash and possible remedies, US engineers are doing/ done that. or if it's about proving B-2 can crash you succeed in mission. We all agree a machine worth billion dollar can crash.

After all it's highly complex machine and has more reason and possibilities to fail. Failure/ crashes are sad but not important to remember, The most important thing to remember are the lesson learn to avoid such indecent in future

 

[Wessstein]

First I have to recommend the book "Skunk Works" written by Ben Rich, who was the director of the skunk works program at Lockheed after the creator of Kelly Johnson retired in 1975. Speaking on the question of how could they crash in takeoff. The reply talking about the absolutely insane amount of computer power that is at work to make those planes flyable. But both the B-2 and the SR71 have lost more aircraft to training than when they are flown in war. I believe that there has been only one B2 go down during a war time mission. And they never lost a SR71 to anything except a small number when they first started flying the aircraft. In my opinion decommissioning them, which may just be what they told us because no civilian will ever see it flying but they may get to hear the booms. Anyway. I have been trying to write a book and I have a parts where I have jets fighting and another part about the B2. My question is as follows (hypothetically for the books sake). But I know a good deal about the RAM and other aspects of the plane to understand why it is nigh impossible to find one with the radar when it comes and destroys your face before you even have a chance to be afraid. My thought is if a B2 is flying and there is a active radar searching for the plane it looks as small as a humming bird to the waves that make it back to the radar station. The vast majority of the searching radar is absorbed or deflected away from the receiver. What if the plane was flying and they were hit with an array of different types of radar and all of this data received was routed to a single "brain"(for lack of a better term). What this does for them is that they are not actually looking for the plane. They are looking for where the plane is not. It might just make sense to me but I think it sounds like it would be a logical and possible way to find the plane, for the books sake. Honestly I don't think they could find the plane even like that. But I am not writing what I believe is true in that aspect but I am staying as true as I can to the preparations and actions of flying a plane.
I would appreciate any feed back as right now I really have no one that I would want to bounce this idea off of except my four year old daughter. Also I apologize if I should have posted this in a different thread. If I should put it in another one please let me know.
Thank you for your time if you read this and can offer opinion or advice.
Wess.

 

[Donatello]

First I have to recommend the book "Skunk Works" written by Ben Rich, who was the director of the skunk works program at Lockheed after the creator of Kelly Johnson retired in 1975. Speaking on the question of how could they crash in takeoff. The reply talking about the absolutely insane amount of computer power that is at work to make those planes flyable. But both the B-2 and the SR71 have lost more aircraft to training than when they are flown in war. I believe that there has been only one B2 go down during a war time mission. And they never lost a SR71 to anything except a small number when they first started flying the aircraft. In my opinion decommissioning them, which may just be what they told us because no civilian will ever see it flying but they may get to hear the booms. Anyway. I have been trying to write a book and I have a parts where I have jets fighting and another part about the B2. My question is as follows (hypothetically for the books sake). But I know a good deal about the RAM and other aspects of the plane to understand why it is nigh impossible to find one with the radar when it comes and destroys your face before you even have a chance to be afraid. My thought is if a B2 is flying and there is a active radar searching for the plane it looks as small as a humming bird to the waves that make it back to the radar station. The vast majority of the searching radar is absorbed or deflected away from the receiver. What if the plane was flying and they were hit with an array of different types of radar and all of this data received was routed to a single "brain"(for lack of a better term). What this does for them is that they are not actually looking for the plane. They are looking for where the plane is not. It might just make sense to me but I think it sounds like it would be a logical and possible way to find the plane, for the books sake. Honestly I don't think they could find the plane even like that. But I am not writing what I believe is true in that aspect but I am staying as true as I can to the preparations and actions of flying a plane.
I would appreciate any feed back as right now I really have no one that I would want to bounce this idea off of except my four year old daughter. Also I apologize if I should have posted this in a different thread. If I should put it in another one please let me know.
Thank you for your time if you read this and can offer opinion or advice.
Wess.

Welcome to PDF.

Why don't you introduce yourself in the members section and tell us something about your background etc?

 

[gambit]

I have been trying to write a book and I have a parts where I have jets fighting and another part about the B2.

Fiction or non?

My question is as follows (hypothetically for the books sake). But I know a good deal about the RAM and other aspects of the plane to understand why it is nigh impossible to find one with the radar when it comes and destroys your face before you even have a chance to be afraid.

You need to understand the basics of radar detection before touching on absorbers (RAM).

My thought is if a B2 is flying and there is a active radar searching for the plane it looks as small as a humming bird to the waves that make it back to the radar station.

Correct. Reflection is the foundation of radar detection.

The vast majority of the searching radar is absorbed or deflected away from the receiver.

Correct. But first the assumption of basic radar detection is that the body DOES NOT have absorbers installed. All materials, even base metals, do have some absorption capability, but the amount absorbed are generally statistically insignificant. Once the overall shape is calculated to reflect X amount of radiation, then absorption can be factored in.

What if the plane was flying and they were hit with an array of different types of radar and all of this data received was routed to a single "brain"(for lack of a better term).

If there is a single seeking radar, the configuration is called 'mono-static'. Mono = single. If there are two seeking radars upon the same target, this configuration is called 'bi-static'. Bi = duo. If there are multiple seeking radars upon the same target, the set up is called 'multi-static', however, the foundation of the set up is still 'bi-static'.

It looks like this...

Each transmitter-receiver pair is that basic 'bi-static' configuration. All three elements make up that 'multi-static' set up. The triangle inside each transmitter-receiver pair is called the 'bi-static triangle'.

The bi-static radar is the greatest technical threat to 'stealth'. However, it does have serious logistical issues, so great that even though this fact is known for decades, meaning bi-static radars existed long before the advent of 'stealth' aircrafts, these logistical issues keep the type from being widely deployed, especially for military purposes. The first issue is mobility. The second is data integrity. Any EE will know that distance degrades signal integrity, be it simple electricity to supply power or to relay stock trades. The greater these physical partitions and distances from each other, the greater the odds of correlating what each receiver station 'sees' of the target being degraded, and when the target have been deliberately designed to be 'low radar observable' or that the target is 'non-cooperative', data synchronicity must be in the picoseconds regardless of distances. Any thing less and the entire set up would be hunting ghosts.

Whatever book you are working on, you are treading into a highly complex technical issue. Those words in quotes you can use as keyword searches to verify what I have explained in the most simple terms possible and in the least possible to give you a hint of what you are entering. Engineers in this field have literally thousands of $$$ invested in text books as well as years of education and practical work experience. Internet forums, like this one, are NOT places for you to seek technical details, many are of classified nature, and any details given, including the ones above, can be misinterpreted and give your readers a false understanding of the issue.

So for whatever type of book you are working on, what I gave you above is only one micron thick of the depth of the field of radar detection. I strongly advise you to seek professional assistance. Not from a university where many professors do not have practical work experience or have very little or have too broad. On this forum, we have someone who claimed to be a physics professor and yet boldly asserted that the 10-lambda rule violated Born Approximation. Even after I presented professional sources that proved him wrong, sources that ranged from Chinese to Iranian working professionals, the man never retracted his assertion. If you do not understand what I just said, then you should see that you need the technical assistance of preferably a working engineer in the specialized field of radar detection, not merely any EE, and preferable at least 10 yrs in the field to help you with your book.

What this does for them is that they are not actually looking for the plane. They are looking for where the plane is not. It might just make sense to me but I think it sounds like it would be a logical and possible way to find the plane, for the books sake. Honestly I don't think they could find the plane even like that. But I am not writing what I believe is true in that aspect but I am staying as true as I can to the preparations and actions of flying a plane.
I would appreciate any feed back as right now I really have no one that I would want to bounce this idea off of except my four year old daughter. Also I apologize if I should have posted this in a different thread. If I should put it in another one please let me know.
Thank you for your time if you read this and can offer opinion or advice.
Wess.

The highlighted is just simply incorrect based upon basic radar detection principles.