HAGATNA, Guam (AP) -- A B-2 stealth bomber plunged to the ground shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on Saturday, the first time one crashed, but both pilots ejected safely, Air Force officials said.
The aircraft was taking off with three others on their last flight out of Guam after a four-month deployment, part of a continuous U.S. bomber presence in the western Pacific. After the crash, the other three bombers were being kept on Guam, said Maj. Eric Hilliard at Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii.
At least one B-2 bomber had taken off safely from Andersen Air Force Base but was brought back when another aircraft plunged to the ground.
There were no injuries on the ground or damage to buildings, and no munitions were on board. Each B-2 bomber costs about $1.2 billion to build.
Thick, black smoke could be seen billowing from the wreckage at Andersen, said Jeanne Ward, a resident in the northern village of Yigo who was on the base visiting her husband.
Ward said she didn't witness the crash but noticed a rising plume of smoke behind the base's air control tower.
She said crowds began to gather as emergency vehicles arrived. "Everybody was on their cell phones, and the first thing everyone wanted to know was did the pilots make it out in time," she said.
The Air Force, without identifying the pilots, said one was medically evaluated and released, and the other was in stable condition at Guam Naval Hospital.
A board of officers will investigate what caused the aircraft to crash at 10:30 a.m., shortly after taking off from a runway. It was the first crash of a B-2 bomber, said Capt. Sheila Johnston, a spokeswoman for Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.
All 21 stealth bombers are based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, but the Air Force has been rotating several of them through Guam since 2004, along with B-1 and B-52 bombers.
The rotations are designed to boost the U.S. security presence in the Asia-Pacific region while other U.S. forces diverted to fight in the Middle East.
The B-2 was first publicly displayed in 1988 and took its first flight a year later. The first bomber was delivered to Whiteman in 1993.
The bombers on Guam were scheduled to return to Missouri now that six B-52s from the 96th Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, have arrived to replace them.
The distinctive B-2 is described as a "multi-role bomber" that blends stealth technology with a highly efficient aerodynamic design. It is able to deliver large payloads at great range and has been used in combat over Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The accident occurred 11 days after a Navy plane crashed into the ocean about 20 miles northeast of Guam's Ritidian Point. Four aircrew members ejected from the EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft and were rescued by helicopter.
Guam is a U.S. territory 3,700 miles southwest of Hawaii.
And I think this reinforces my stance that, while we have a duty and an obligation to make sure that our armed forces are equipped with the best possible equipment available, the B-2 just doesn't deliver the best bang for the buck. While yes, it is a scientific marvel and an incredible achievement in aerospace technology, there are cheaper solutions available that can do the job while a.) not endangering the lives of an aircrew b.) not being so incredibly expensive that we're too afraid to actually USE it for fear of losing it. And let's face it, while this level of expense can be excused for something as enduring and as proven as an aircraft carrier, I don't think this level of investment in a combat aircraft is wise. When something malfunctions on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, it can be fixed, and go about its way. When something malfunctions on a stealth bomber, you have to hope and pray that you'll make it back to an airfield before a catastrophic failure occurs, all the while giving the ejection handles the hairy eyeball.
13 comments:
I saw this on the BBC yesterday. But I guess I didn't really grasp the importance, as you put it. Although,I did know that one B-2 costs a shit ton--probably more than what the US spends on welfare. Now that's a spicy meatball! I agree with your concern about it's utility. Just think what might be done if the Defense Department spent a few billion on training people as interpretors or area specialists.
1.2 billion dollars... wow... wow... I definitely agree there must be more cost effective ways to spend this money, even for the military. Beck is on the money on this!
Well, that's the thing... When an aircraft crashes, people think "gosh, that sucks", but don't give it much thought, especially if the crew ejected safely. In the grand scheme of things, an aircraft crashing is 50% of the expected outcome in the even of a malfunction. :P
Now, if an Aircraft carrier had exploded while out at sea, it would be headline news everywhere, for sure, because an aircraft carrier is a much larger, stronger symbol of our ability to project military power.
PS: In 2007, the U.S. government spent $367 Billion on welfare and unemployment.
Unfortunately, I think 50% of that in turn poured into the following industries: R&B / Country Music, Spinning Rims, and Schlitz Malt Liquor.
That is a bullshit statement. First, most unemployment benefits go to people transitioning from one job to another and they need that income to keep up with mortgages and insurance payments and college tuition bills. My father--like thousands of Americans at any given time--was on unemployment after his company downsized and every penny went to keeping up with bills. Remember that unemployment only goes to people who lose jobs through no fault of their own--like corporate downsizing and layoffs.
Second, most people on welfare spend most of their money on essentials--food, rent, medical bills. The idea that people are bilking welfare and using the money irresponsibly is a dumb stereotype. So people abuse the system? Sure. Do many people abuse the system? Of course. Do most people? No. Most people are on welfare only temporarily (less than two years) and use it as a way to keep their family together and from being forced to live on the street.
People abuse every system offered, whether it's bankruptcy protection for corporations, tax loopholes for the wealthy, or welfare for the poor. Actions should of course be taken to prevent abuse. But people who chronically abuse welfare represent a very small proportion of those who ever use it. Plus, with the exception of country music you you seem to be suggesting that most welfare money goes to blacks. About 70% of welfare recipients are white. So blacks are disproportionately represented, sure, because they are disproportionately poorer, but they do not consume most of the welfare resources, poor whites do. Maybe I misunderstood you, though. Maybe you are assuming that most whites on welfare also like malt liquor and spinners, which may be true, but I doubt it. Maybe Nascar tickets and Wild Turkey.
Lastly, I will admit to the use of hyperbole in comparing the cost of a single B-2 to the entire amount of welfare spent in a year. Apparently, welfare is equal to about 250 B-2s. My apologies.
omg, I can't stop laughing...
gimme a minute...
whew...
Ok, Reed, seriously! Of course that was a bullshit statement! That was the point! See, this is why I need to use emoticons a little more liberally... Because your funny bone is apparently lodged right beside the one responsible for bleeding heart, liberal knee-jerk reactions. Which is probably in your left knee.
"Damn you internet, for your inability to convey inflection!!1!" -Jon Stewart
:-D
Yes, either use emoticons or stop making jackass statements. I often can't tell when you are being *funny* and when you are spouting Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly-style conservative jack-holery. If I remember correctly, you once created a fictional anecdote about a Mexican family living in a crawl space whose breadwinner lopped off his foot with a lawnmower and then passed the medical bills along to the owner of the house because he was illegally working for the homeowner. At first I thought that was a joke, but I was wrong.
I can never tell--it's the sad product of having had my funny bone removed because I couldn't afford the humor-saving treatment the doctors recommended on account of the high cost of medical treatments and my lack of insurance. Please, don't let this happen to others. Mail your donation today, and please, support a not-for-profit universal health care system. Don't let another American suffer from not seeing the humor in an off-color or racially insensitive statement. You can help save a laugh today! ;].
Yeah, but would our debates be at all interesting if they weren't laced with "subtle" jack-holery? I mean really, when have we ever had a discussion in real life that didn't end with us laughing our asses off? Just pretend what I'm typing is something I'm saying in person, and if it sounds too retarded to not be a joke, then it's probably safe to assume that it is. :)
And see, even your recounting of my mexican lawnmower living in the crawl space example is hee-larious in the re-telling... I'm about to pee my pants
{;]
:O <===8
"You mUUUUst be gay!" But seriously, you put a lot of thought into that....um...good...I guess.
I can engage in ascii innuendo all day long.
Because my butt is a woman?
Exactly! }<===8
Post a Comment