| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Predator crashes in Iraq |
| 2008-05-03 |
 BAGHDAD - An American spy plane crashed in southern Iraq on Friday during a pre-dawn mission, the US military said.The remotely piloted long-endurance MQ-1 Predator crashed after it was launched from what was described as “Ali Base,” the US airforce authorities in Iraq said in a statement. It gave no additional details about the incident or where the aircraft went down, but added that an investigation would be launched. “Mechanical failure is suspected,” the statement said. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 The Raven! How could I forget. Hope it's not reported in this encounter simply as an oversight - otherwise, the Marines should have them buzzing up and down this road. - seems the perfect setting for them to keep watch laterally. |
| Posted by: Harcourt Jush7795 2008-05-03 15:46 |
| #17 Yeah, I noticed that after I posted but hoped you wouldn't come back. Still, the exception that proves the rule. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-03 13:44 |
| #16 The more likely a weapon will be used by a private, the less likely it will be funded. Nope. Sorry, NS - it's a funny snark but not true in this case. The Type Is are funded and pushing forward quickly -- and those are the little UAVs that get carried by squads and launched by privates. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-03 13:11 |
| #15 Sounds to me like there may have been a bad hand-off. IIRC, the Predators are launched and recovered using local control, but mission control is switched to Nellis via secure comm channels. If Nellis wasn't ready, or if the handoff was initiated too soon, it could cause a crash. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-05-03 12:55 |
| #14 Yup. The more likely a weapon will be used by a private, the less likely it will be funded. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-03 12:20 |
| #13 Yup. Sorry, I wasn't clear. The reason for putting the FCS Type II UAV on hold had to do with overall budget, not the cost per UAV. This was the least mature of the 4 FCS UAV designs. They're pressing ahead with the others: - Type I man-packable little airplane that resembles the Raven (organic to platoons) - Type III battalion level asset that resembles the Shadow - Type IV brigade level helicopter UAV The reason for an induction fan design for the Type II is that it can be launched without requiring an airstrip. But some studies have questioned whether company commanders would get better reconnaisance data by owning a Type II vs. sharing an additional battalion-level Type III. Reasons include flight altitude & duration, time to repair etc. So with budget for FCS under Congressional pressure, the least mature design & possibly least needed of the 4 was put on hold for now. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-03 11:23 |
| #12 It's shelved for now due to cost. M/em> Bet they cost less than an F-35. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-03 11:16 |
| #11 The Future Combat Systems plan for UAVs includes a Type 2 UAV that would be organic (assigned to) maneuver companies (infantry, armor ....). It's shelved for now due to cost. Design is a 'flying trashcan' with an induction fan propulsion rather than the airplane-with-wings. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-03 11:13 |
| #10 The airframes do launch themselves, triggered by a control console at the point of launch. The systems are made up of 4 airframes plus one control console so that the soldiers can have one unit flying, one ready to launch and the other two being maintained/fueled/etc. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-03 11:12 |
| #9 A major paradigm shift in UAVs will come when they are perfected enough for mass production at reasonably low cost. Imagine a "Predator lite", that only can stay in the air a few hours, carries some "off the shelf" weaponry, yet only costs as much as a new car? That would be cheap enough to issue at the company level, with several company's CAS coordinated at battalion level. Each UAV would restrict its flight pattern to a 3D box of airspace in front of the company's position, with an upper altitude limit. The big question would be what weaponry it would carry. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-05-03 09:28 |
| #8 unfortunately, the Jihadis captured the AF Special Ops Pilot. Here's hopes and prayers for his safe return |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-05-03 08:49 |
| #7 What if the alternative is loss of pilot seats? |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-03 08:15 |
| #6 These stories are few and far between. Unless there's far more than meets the eye, this seems a very acceptable loss rate, especially considering the alternatives. |
| Posted by: Angavins Scourge of the Munchkins9583 2008-05-03 07:31 |
| #5 It's likely the aircraft could have been saved with a real pilot making RT decisions, course those Baker 0/0 seats are not inexpensive. |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-03 07:02 |
| #4 I don't know jack about Preds, but I would assume that they can, and do, launch themselves. I'm inclined to buy the mechanical failure, but if anyone is in the know... |
| Posted by: Vanc 2008-05-03 04:31 |
| #3 Plus they can stay in the air for like 20 hours at a time, carry enough munitions to do some serious damage, and even after being all tricked out, they cost about 10% of a F-16. Also, MUCH lower per hour operational costs, and no lost pilot if one goes down. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-05-03 03:41 |
| #2 The good thing about UAV's is that there is nobody in the plane to die when things like this happen. |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-05-03 02:05 |
| #1 Could have been pilot error. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-05-03 01:02 |