Aircraft Losses-Contingency Ops

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 07 Jul 2009, 14:56

From AF Daily Report 2 Jul 09

Contingency Losses Climb: The Air Force has incurred an additional 10 aircraft losses while supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since our first report on this topic last October, bringing the total number of airframes lost in those contingencies since 9/11 to 75, as of June 30. According to Air Force data supplied to the Daily Report, there have been nine additional MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle contingency losses and one F-16 lost. The F-16 crashed upon takeoff last November at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, due to engine failure. Factoring these 10 airframes, the breakdown of all 75 Air Force contingency losses since 9/11 is as follows: one A-10A, two B-1Bs, one B-2A, one C-5B, one C-130H, one F-15E, five F-16s, two HH-60Gs, two MC-130Hs, one MC-130P, six MH-53s, one MQ-9 Reaper, 48 RQ/MQ-1 Predators, two RQ-4 Global Hawks, and one U-2. The number of combat losses—those contingency losses that occurred as a result of direct contact with the enemy—has not changed and remains at seven: one A-10A, one F-16, one MH-53, two MQ-1s, and two RQ-1s.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 07 Jul 2009, 15:02

48 RQ/MQ-1 Predators......

What is going on here, and these are 48 NON combat loses? Steep learning curve I guess?

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 07 Jul 2009, 15:28

Traditionally there have always been far more non-combat losses. From the data I've seen, over two thirds of losses in WW2 were non-combat related. The figures are staggering.

Even after WW2 the losses are staggering. On one night in the 50s the RAF lost an entire Sqn of Meteors when all of the, young and inexperienced, pilots entered low cloud at night in the circuit, lost control and crashed.

That's probably why, even today, we teach instrument flying before we teach night flying.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 07 Jul 2009, 19:57

To me it's interesting to see the unmanned aircraft have such a higher rate of losses than the manned versions. I wonder if it boils down to less situational awareness since the vehicle is remotely piloted.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 07 Jul 2009, 21:19

Good question, Mike. I guess we should be happy that it's not 48 lost lives.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 07 Jul 2009, 21:43

MIKE JG wrote:To me it's interesting to see the unmanned aircraft have such a higher rate of losses than the manned versions. I wonder if it boils down to less situational awareness since the vehicle is remotely piloted.

I would guess take-off or landing accidents. But that is also partly SA. Maybe someone in the UAV community could shed some light on it. Look at your own experience in flight sims. Unless someone was giving advice, you probably dug a lot of virtual holes or ran through some virtual buildings.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 07 Jul 2009, 21:45

....that leads me to wonder when they break even in cost.

IE

When does losing 4 F-16s at 17mil each for a total of 68mil become better than losing 10 MQ-9s at 7mil each??

Humor me, I'm looking for any way to kill the armed UAV programs lol

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 07 Jul 2009, 22:26

Well like Celtic is saying, it could have been 48 or even more lives lost if those were manned vehicles. UAVs and UCAVs are here to stay I'm afraid. I hate to say it but we all know that the generation 6 fighters will not have a cockpit built into them.

Just study hard in UPT and don't graduate last in your class!

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 07 Jul 2009, 22:33

Yea but out of those combat losses how many lives were actually lost?? (ejection seats are wonderous pieces of equipment lol). And not for nothing, give a pilot the option of:

A) Strapping on a jet, and flying into the middle of a flak storm to drop ordnance

or

B) Strap on an armchair in New Mexico and fly a UAV into Kurblakistan to drop ordnance

and I guarantee they'll pick A lol

I know they're here to stay, I just wish they were'nt. And for the record I'm against ARMED UAVs....but I do believe they are one of the best advancements in the area of RECCE.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 07 Jul 2009, 22:38

Not so sure they would, especially those officers with a wife and kids. Can you imagine that discussion at the dinner table, LOL.

There will always be those that are willing however, no matter the danger involved.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 07 Jul 2009, 22:43

The other thing to consider on the cost side is the training that's involved for the UAV operator vs. an aircraft pilot.

If a manned aircraft crashes killing the pilot, not only have you lost a very expensive national asset, but you've lost the aircraft as well. Last I heard it was around a million dollars to train a raw recruit to fly fighters. I hate to say it this way but that adds up over the years and these days the dollars are no longer growing on trees like they did during the Cold War.

If you lose a UAV, at least you've only lost some of your investment, not all of it.

Aircraft Losses-Contingency Ops

Aircraft Losses-Contingency Ops

Re: Aircraft Losses-Contingency Ops