Keep an eye on this NEW STORY B-1 Bomber crashes in Qatar.

[Falseflagop]

Now what would a B-1 Bomber (which is a long range bomber) doing there in the first place? CUrious?


CNN reported this about 25 mins ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080404/ts_nm/usa_qatar_crash_dc

[Rhys]

Now what would a B-1 Bomber (which is a long range bomber) doing there in the first place? CUrious?


CNN reported this about 25 mins ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080404/ts_nm/usa_qatar_crash_dc

Probably on it's way through... I'm a little more surprised Qatar let them land and it's on the news.

[steve005]

is that in iran?

[Rhys]

no, it's in the gulf by saudi

[hawks4ronpaul]

B-1 Lancers fly regular combat operations although they do not get much press when not on fire.


A single B-1B was lost in December of 2001 over the Indian Ocean; its crew was rescued. The bomber (of the 20th Bomb Wing [1], designated ICECUBE 44 and bearing the state motto of New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die", on its nosecone [2]) was approximately 100 miles north of Diego Garcia, whence it had departed, flying en route to a long-range combat mission over Afghanistan, ... http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/B-1_Lancer_-_Operational_History/id/4822573

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[kyleAF]

The B-ONE "bone" as we call it caught fire during its post-landing taxi. Everyone evacuated safely, and the plane is probably salvageable, though this might ground them temporarily until we know the exact reasons for the fire.

It was at Al-Udeid in Qatar, which is one of our main bases in the middle east. We here at the Air Force are going "ouch!" quite a bit lately... too many planes falling apart, but no one wants to fund us for new ones. Can't say that I blame them, since the military-industrial-complex has guaranteed that cutting-edge airplanes are becoming prohibitively expensive.

Still... this IS a part of that whole "strong national defense" thing. If only we'd actually stick to defense maybe we wouldn't be wearing them out so darn much!.

[kyleAF]

Now what would a B-1 Bomber (which is a long range bomber) doing there in the first place? CUrious?


CNN reported this about 25 mins ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080404/ts_nm/usa_qatar_crash_dc

And yes, the Bone flies a great many missions in the middle east. It's pretty versatile, actually, since it has a variable wing design...like the F-14. So it can do slower-flight glides, as well as high-speed afterburner flight, and can carry a wide array of munitions.

Funny story: there was once a ground unit in the Balkans who actually surrendered to a passing B-1 on a low fly-by, because the noise just scared them S***less.

Nothing unusual about the story except the fire part.

[hawks4ronpaul]

We here at the Air Force are going "ouch!" quite a bit lately... too many planes falling apart, but no one wants to fund us for new ones. Can't say that I blame them, since the military-industrial-complex has guaranteed that cutting-edge airplanes are becoming prohibitively expensive.

Still... this IS a part of that whole "strong national defense" thing. If only we'd actually stick to defense maybe we wouldn't be wearing them out so darn much!.

Exactly, I am sure that Osama, Iran, Russia, and China love our Iraq war:

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-officers-iraq-war-weakened-military.html
http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-bush-surrender-america-to-iraq.html

Heckuva job, Hannity, Kristol, et al.

[Rhys]

The B-ONE "bone" as we call it caught fire during its post-landing taxi. Everyone evacuated safely, and the plane is probably salvageable, though this might ground them temporarily until we know the exact reasons for the fire.

It was at Al-Udeid in Qatar, which is one of our main bases in the middle east. We here at the Air Force are going "ouch!" quite a bit lately... too many planes falling apart, but no one wants to fund us for new ones. Can't say that I blame them, since the military-industrial-complex has guaranteed that cutting-edge airplanes are becoming prohibitively expensive.

Still... this IS a part of that whole "strong national defense" thing. If only we'd actually stick to defense maybe we wouldn't be wearing them out so darn much!.

where don't we have a base then? damn. Russia? No wonder Ron Paul talks about putting your foot in a snake pit.

[hawks4ronpaul]

where don't we have a base then? damn. Russia? No wonder Ron Paul talks about putting your foot in a snake pit.


Base in Qatar upgraded for an attack on Iraq ... Most of the upgrading was done between January and June (2002), ... Some of the changes include: a 4,000-m runway to handle heavy bombers http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020809-iraq2.htm

US ally Qatar bombed by suicide bomber from US ally Egypt, killing a citizen of US ally Britain:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1328166.htm


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Zolah]

The B-ONE "bone" as we call it caught fire during its post-landing taxi. Everyone evacuated safely, and the plane is probably salvageable, though this might ground them temporarily until we know the exact reasons for the fire.

It was at Al-Udeid in Qatar, which is one of our main bases in the middle east. We here at the Air Force are going "ouch!" quite a bit lately... too many planes falling apart, but no one wants to fund us for new ones. Can't say that I blame them, since the military-industrial-complex has guaranteed that cutting-edge airplanes are becoming prohibitively expensive.

Still... this IS a part of that whole "strong national defense" thing. If only we'd actually stick to defense maybe we wouldn't be wearing them out so darn much!.

I think I read that there is a program in place to replace bombers with F35-Lightning jets by 2014, I can't remember all the details, apart from that each plane is expected to cost $60 mil each. And there's some joint-flight program or something that many countries signed to commit to buying them or something. It does seem like a few years ahead of hoping rather than expecting your plane lands in 1 piece though :confused: You know more than I do, I don't doubt, so I'm glad I agree with your last paragraph :)

[kyleAF]

There are a great many programs in place right now, just not a great deal of funding for them. Plus, we've got to continually deal with the corporate interests, which routinely employ ex-military senior officers as "consultants" with inside knowledge. There's a mandatory delay between these jobs, but I personally don't think that matters much. You can easily see this in the current tanker debates.

The F-35 is still undergoing questions on how many / which engines to have, and I can say that the Air Force really doesn't like the plane, unofficially. It's rife with delays and problems, for one. But yes, it is supposed to replace a wide variety of functional aircraft, including the A-10.

The F-22 is our baby, but it's a throw-back to cold war strategies, though, it's been hinted that it may actually have anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities with the proper missile...and that could be a great strategic advantage. It's also WAY too expensive... ~300 million per plane overall cost. ~150 fly-away cost, last I looked.

The Air Force really is in a bad spot right now, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. We had to cut several thousand personnel just to afford some recapitalization efforts, since Congress isn't giving us more money (The Army is sucking it all up). We had the choice between people or hardware on a fixed budget. We need the hardware for the mission, so people got cut.

And of course, we've got it relatively good compared to the Army and Marines (The Navy seems to be doing fairly well).

[Hook]

There are a great many programs in place right now, just not a great deal of funding for them. Plus, we've got to continually deal with the corporate interests, which routinely employ ex-military senior officers as "consultants" with inside knowledge. There's a mandatory delay between these jobs, but I personally don't think that matters much. You can easily see this in the current tanker debates.

The F-35 is still undergoing questions on how many / which engines to have, and I can say that the Air Force really doesn't like the plane, unofficially. It's rife with delays and problems, for one. But yes, it is supposed to replace a wide variety of functional aircraft, including the A-10.

The F-22 is our baby, but it's a throw-back to cold war strategies, though, it's been hinted that it may actually have anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities with the proper missile...and that could be a great strategic advantage. It's also WAY too expensive... ~300 million per plane overall cost. ~150 fly-away cost, last I looked.

The Air Force really is in a bad spot right now, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. We had to cut several thousand personnel just to afford some recapitalization efforts, since Congress isn't giving us more money (The Army is sucking it all up). We had the choice between people or hardware on a fixed budget. We need the hardware for the mission, so people got cut.

And of course, we've got it relatively good compared to the Army and Marines (The Navy seems to be doing fairly well).

Well, the F-22 had a kill ratio of something like 220 to 2 in wargame tests. With that kind of ratio, you can afford the more expensive plane because so few of them get shot down compared to F-18s, etc.

Anyway, if all they did was protect our homeland, we could scuttle the whole "black projects" and stealth stuff and spend that money on fighters and personnel. Why do you need stealth on your own land?