Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DIDiMISSsomethin t1_je9voqr wrote

I feel like I see more military crashing aircraft from routine training exercises than in combat. Does anyone know if there's data on that?

12

C-c-c-comboBreaker17 t1_je9wem7 wrote

Well, there's not exactly a lot of high intensity combat going on in the US.

20

blamdin t1_jea78la wrote

US Public schools have entered the chat

16

Mycopixel t1_jec4vfr wrote

I dunno man, that just seems like extreme hide and seek to me

1

DIDiMISSsomethin t1_jeb0swt wrote

In the US, yeah, but we've been at war for most of the past century and have 600 military bases overseas.

1

C-c-c-comboBreaker17 t1_jeb0z7c wrote

And most of those wars have been against insurgents and guerillas without major anti-aircraft power.

1

DIDiMISSsomethin t1_jebl06w wrote

To be fair, the domestic routine exercises that are crashing don't have those either

3

C-c-c-comboBreaker17 t1_jed8r64 wrote

Transport helicopters are dangerous. Fly a lot of helicopters and have them do dangerous maneuvers and eventually you'll have a crash. In an actual war you expect to lose helicopters basically constantly. They're buses for the troops, and they're not meant to be particularly survivable.

Hell, we expected to lose basically every A-10 warthog in minutes if the US went to war with the Soviet Union. And helicopters are slower, fly lower, and they're more fragile.

Of course, none of that would've mattered. The idea was that the conventional war would probably only last until the nukes started to fall.

1

GreenStrong t1_jea8bzi wrote

There is data on it. Helicopters are inherently dangerous, and they have to practice flying low and fast in the dark, and inserting troops in dense groups. If they don't practice those things, they'll face increased risks on the battlefield. That isn't to say they can't do better with safety, but they have a bona fide need to practice dangerous flying.

9