| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| War zone drone crashes add up |
| 2010-07-07 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #14 All of the crashes added together do not equal the $ value of one fighter plane crash. - That doesn't include the pilot's value either.. End of Story! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2010-07-07 23:42 |
| #13 Joe, the 7000 number includes lots of little RPAs like Ravens and Shadows. The article was talking about MQ-1B Predators and MQ-9 Reapers. While the number deployed is classified, the Secretary of Defense has said that our objective is to field 50 MQ-1B/MQ-9 Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) by the end of 2011 and 65 CAPs by end of 2013. A CAP is defined as Predator or Reaper continuously on station. |
| Posted by: rwv 2010-07-07 20:44 |
| #12 OOOOPSIES, forgot to say D **** NGED LONG DIVISION! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-07-07 19:35 |
| #11 HMMMM, HMMMM, well lessirree, WMF says there are 12000 Robots + 7000 UAVS of all types serving in Afghanistan = AFPAK, ergo select = nominal Math says: To wit, * 7000 UAVS times _% = 79 drones tote lost * 7000 UAVS times _% = 38 drones lost in IQAF/AFRAQ [Iraq-Afghan]. * 7000 UAVS times 20,000 flying hours pm =??? * 7000 UAVS times mimima US$3.9Milyuhn = ??? versus 7000 UAVS times maxima US$5.0Milyuhn = ??? DITTO 12,000 Robos + 7000 UAVS = 19,000 Tote Robos-UVS BY ANY OF THE ABOVE + OTHER [e.g. COSTS PER HUMAN PILOT] = ???? Yokay fine, my Klakulator says its worth it. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-07-07 19:33 |
| #10 Between the MQ-1s and MQ-9s, the AF has logged a little over 830,000 hours (about 80% combat hours) as of the end of May. |
| Posted by: rwv 2010-07-07 18:48 |
| #9 zing! |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-07 15:45 |
| #8 critic = n. (from lat. criticare, to kvetch), "one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" (Oscar Wilde) |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-07 15:40 |
| #7 I think the real question is what it would have cost to operate manned aircraft as opposed to drones for the number of hours flown. I suspect the arithmetic falls squarely in favor of drones from a cost standpoint. Just goes to show that for a reporter, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2010-07-07 15:31 |
| #6 Article sez current flight time is 20,000 hours per month. More: "185,000 hours over Afghanistan and Iraq in 2009". |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2010-07-07 15:24 |
| #5 also 30 something crashes. how many flights have they made all together? Prob in the tousands i would say , not a big deal in my opinoin. |
| Posted by: chris 2010-07-07 14:52 |
| #4 Yep. They're working hard. I don't think manned combat aircraft could come close to this kind of record on the day-to-day stuff. At some point, the effort isn't worth the return. To be fair, I don't know if this program is at that point yet or not. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-07 13:04 |
| #3 Add them all together and I doubt it equals the cost of one conventional combat aircraft crash (what's an F-22 go for?) And none of the pilots are dead or captured. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-07-07 12:56 |
| #2 The bozo who wrote this article failed to mention how may HVTs these drones have splattered. Seems to me the small cost is worth it. |
| Posted by: FighterAce 2010-07-07 12:46 |
| #1 "It's a big payoff for the Air Force to make sure the next generation of systems learns from the first generation," This hints at the unmentioned and enormous benefit - namely, what generation of development has any other nation attained? The IDF, perhaps, but not in this volume. The Chinese, in simulation, maybe? |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-07-07 11:57 |