Unmanned US spy plane crashes in Pakistan

The Times of India ^ | July 10 2002 | AP

[knighthawk]

WASHINGTON: An unmanned US spy plane crashed in Pakistan on Wednesday, US officials said. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the cause appeared to be engine failure rather than hostile fire.

It was the second Global Hawk aircraft to crash since the war in Afghanistan began last October. The first, in late December, went down in an undisclosed country near Afghanistan.

The Air Force said last week that an accident investigation pinpointed structural failure as the cause of that crash. The investigators traced the problem to an improperly installed bolt that caused a control rod to fail.

The officials said US troops had been dispatched to the crash site in Pakistan to examine the wreckage.

The Air Force has only a small number of Global Hawks. The exact number is secret.

The Global Hawk is still in development. Eventually it is expected to replace the Air Force's U-2 spy plane, which has been operating worldwide since the 1950s.

The Pentagon made the unusual decision last fall to use the Global Hawk in connection with the war in Afghanistan even though it had not completed normal developmental tests. Among its uses: finding targets for US strike aircraft.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Dog Gone]

bummer

[gubamyster]

How soon until we hear that OBL will have a video out claiming to have shot down a US fighter jet?

[knighthawk]

I heard rumors he even downed the space shuttle, and sunk the Pacific fleet, while at the same time defeating the 1st Armored division who wanted to conquer Afghanistan.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[RonF]

That's what happens when you put a test system directly into production use. Not that it was not an acceptable risk in this case, given the benefits. But it's to be expected that this would happen.

[mikeIII]

Good find, KH!

[neutrino]

Interesting...

[hchutch]

Never trust a drone to do the job of a pilot.

[Poohbah]

If the engine had failed on the airplane, we might be scraping what's left of the pilot into a baggie.

Global Hawks are not man-rated. This makes them fail slightly more often and cost a LOT less than an airplane with similar performance and a warm body aboard.

[hchutch]

Three of an inventory that is under 10 airframes is NOT what I'd call insignificant. That is a 30% attrition rate IF there are 10 airframes (and it could be a lower number).

If our B-2 force had this sort of loss rate, it would be crippled. 8th Air Force was crippled with much smaller loss percentages, and we're possibly exceeding the figure.

It might be a better idea to dvelop a stealthy, MANNED, high-altitude, high-endurance, aircraft because I'm NOT convinced Global Hawk is there yet. Predator has proven itself, though.

[Poohbah]

Three of an inventory that is under 10 airframes is NOT what I'd call insignificant. That is a 30% attrition rate IF there are 10 airframes (and it could be a lower number).

But production can be ramped up quickly, in part because you don't need to do "man-rated" quality control (and that just about triples the flyaway price all by itself).

If our B-2 force had this sort of loss rate, it would be crippled. 8th Air Force was crippled with much smaller loss percentages, and we're possibly exceeding the figure.

Because of AIRCREW losses associated with that sort of rate.

It might be a better idea to dvelop a stealthy, MANNED, high-altitude, high-endurance, aircraft because I'm NOT convinced Global Hawk is there yet.

Got several hundred billion dollars lying around in the budget? I don't think so...

[hchutch]

I can see the point, but I'm not sure that unmanned aircraft will ever totally supplant the manned aircraft. They will make an excellent supplement, but you'll still want manned aircraft.

UAVs and UCAVs will be closer to "single engine, single use" platforms for Day One of a war.