Skywalkre Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Apologies if this has been covered before. Saw this by chance this morning on a channel I love but rarely get the opportunity to watch. Looks like half a billion down the drain because of shitty piloting and squadron leadership. Ugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvinb1nav Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Lot of this is due to consistent under-manning and low flying hours. However, the B-1B community has always been too laid back in my opinion. The issues about the WSOs not wearing all of their required flight gear was an issue 20 years ago when I was flying B-1 so I guess not much has changed in that regard. Also, from what I understand there is a broader cultural rot in Air Force aviation starting in training where shortcuts are routinely taken to make the mission happen and you combine that with under-manning and low flight hours (like Soviet-level of low flying hours) and it's corrosive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 I was surprised when I came across this: The investigation board also found an “unsatisfactory level of basic airmanship” within the Lancer squadron’s flight crews. As further evidence of this, investigators note that the lead instructor pilot onboard the mishap aircraft apparently exceeded the maximum approved weight for the B-1B’s Collins Aerospace ACES II ejection seat, which is rated for 111kg (245lb) according to the USAF. That individual apparently suffered more severe injuries during the ejection than the rest of the crew, according to the investigation report. https://www-flightglobal-com.translate.goog/fixed-wing/usaf-crew-faulted-for-ellsworth-b-1b-crash/159387.article?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalkre Posted August 5 Author Share Posted August 5 On 8/1/2024 at 7:59 AM, Calvinb1nav said: Lot of this is due to consistent under-manning and low flying hours. However, the B-1B community has always been too laid back in my opinion. The issues about the WSOs not wearing all of their required flight gear was an issue 20 years ago when I was flying B-1 so I guess not much has changed in that regard. Also, from what I understand there is a broader cultural rot in Air Force aviation starting in training where shortcuts are routinely taken to make the mission happen and you combine that with under-manning and low flight hours (like Soviet-level of low flying hours) and it's corrosive. Some of the comments to the vid brought up the same issues. So, I'm curious... why has it gotten to this point? Why are they getting so few flight hours? Where's the rot coming from? Why are training squadrons taking so many shortcuts and instilling this in new aviators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 One wonders if it would make sense at this juncture to reform SAC. After all, with the B21's coming into service, you are only going to see them operated in teh same slapdash manner if they dont get the training standards sorted out. Would my impression that heavy bombers in the USAF have been somewhat treated like the red headed stepchild since 1994, or am I being unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 B-1B is quite expensive to operate, perhaps it is an attractive target whenever flight operations need to be curtained when facing cuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1158 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 No douibt the reminder comes when one of these rare asse4ts is 'dropped' and they have to pay for it all over again. Harder to conduct ops when you are another airframe short........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 I remember when they dropped the G model B52, they suddenly figured out they had lost their long range antiship capability, so launch a crash program to activate the same capabilities in the H model. Over time, yes they activated the same capabilities in the H model, but it illustrates how often these cuts are fiscally based, and the surprises the managers get when they realise they lost far more than they thought they were cutting. Im sure much the same happened for us when we canned the Harrier force nearly overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtree99 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 12 hours ago, Mike1158 said: No douibt the reminder comes when one of these rare asse4ts is 'dropped' and they have to pay for it all over again. Harder to conduct ops when you are another airframe short........ This aircraft was replaced by a bird regenerated from mothballs. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-resurrecting-second-b-1-from-boneyard/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan W Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 On 8/1/2024 at 7:59 AM, Calvinb1nav said: Lot of this is due to consistent under-manning and low flying hours. However, the B-1B community has always been too laid back in my opinion. The issues about the WSOs not wearing all of their required flight gear was an issue 20 years ago when I was flying B-1 so I guess not much has changed in that regard. Also, from what I understand there is a broader cultural rot in Air Force aviation starting in training where shortcuts are routinely taken to make the mission happen and you combine that with under-manning and low flight hours (like Soviet-level of low flying hours) and it's corrosive. What required flight gear weren't they wearing? Did they trade their helmets for cowboy hats a la Major Kong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James1978 Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 25 minutes ago, Allan W said: What required flight gear weren't they wearing? Did they trade their helmets for cowboy hats a la Major Kong? The OSO wasn't wearing a flight helmet or gloves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James1978 Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 For anyone who is curious and has a little time on their hands, the complete report is available. LINK: Aircraft Accident Investigation Board Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1158 Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 11 hours ago, txtree99 said: This aircraft was replaced by a bird regenerated from mothballs. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-resurrecting-second-b-1-from-boneyard/ I believe they only have two airframes capable of this in the 'yard. Better hope the report is a crock then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtree99 Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 They had four aircraft in that category that could be restored. They have 2 left that can be reclaimed Another B-1B was pulled from storage at AMARG and recalled back to duty to bring the BONE fleet back to 45 total Lancers. B-1B Lancer 86-0115 “Rage” is one of the four bombers out of 17 the U.S. Air Force stored at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, and maintained “in a reclaimable condition” so that they could be regenerated if needed. These stored aircraft, tail numbers 85-0066, 85-0077, 85-0081, and 86-0115, covered with silicone-looking spraylat sealant, to cover gaps, engines, and glass, were placed in Type 2000 storage, just one level below the flyable Type 1000 storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvinb1nav Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 (edited) On 8/5/2024 at 3:06 AM, Stuart Galbraith said: Would my impression that heavy bombers in the USAF have been somewhat treated like the red headed stepchild since 1994, or am I being unfair? No, you are spot on, hence the stand up of AF Global Strike Command a while back. Edited August 11 by Calvinb1nav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Thanks Calvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalkre Posted August 27 Author Share Posted August 27 Another vid from the same channel with more discussion: Two comments stuck out to me from their discussion. The first was this comment along the lines of "we're no paying for the air force we think we have." Crazy to think with as much money we spend on defense that we're underfunding things... but the reality is we were effectively at war for nearly two decades and have continued in this pseudo-war reality since. That's not cheap. Still, how much is also the fault of the USAF? In my lifetime the USAF has seemingly been obsessed with the newest wunderwaffe to solve all their problems and continually shifted funds to further those goals. Contrast this with what the Army did back when I was in when they killed the Comanche because they realized the funds for that would be better utilized paying to maintain their aviation assets in the long wars to come. The second comment was this notion that the COL who wrote this report may have ended his own career. Something about "you don't air dirty laundry like that". Is this a legit concern? While the report may have been excessive, per what they've said and what was covered in the other vid, it doesn't change the fact seemingly every command at this base was tore up and it sounds like a lot of changes need to be made. Is USAF upper leadership so fucked up that they're more concerned with 'dirty laundry being aired' than the fact almost half a billion in USAF assets cratered on a runway back in Jan due to fuck-ups at all levels and in multiple commands? If that's the case... sounds like more than just the leadership of these units needs to get axed. Sounds like the USAF as a whole needs a cultural overhaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 There is something I remember reading in Tom Clancy's book on the air war over Iraq. He was interviewing the AF General in charge, Horner I think? He related an interesting tale when he was on an F4 wing. Basically there was a system in the F4 Phantom called 'Dive toss'. It was an electronic box designed to ensure the pilot, when his wso locked up the target on radar, would have correct attitude to deliver the bombs. Basically the aircraft would dive, pick up airspeed, then do a small climb, and the bombs would automatically come off. It avoided the aircraft overflying the target. The bomb would display the symbology, and pickle the bombs when the aircraft was in the right attitude. For some reason or other, there was if I recall, some variability in the results they were getting with the system, so the USAF did a study on why that would be. The results were somewhat shocking. The system didnt work, so the pilots turned it off, and delivered their bombs manually. With a reasonable degree of accuracy for the most part, but completely ignoring the system that was supposed to help them. Then they lied that yes, they were using dive toss system, because they knew they would be bollocked if they didnt use it. The result was, AF Generals thought they had accurate, war winning equipment, when it was completely broken, and the system effectively covered it up. You have to wonder how often this kind of thing happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now