I hope the crew are okay, but from the look of the aftermath and the fact there's no mention of the crew yet, I assume not all survived. Shortly after takeoff is one of the most challenging times for an incident. Low altitude, low-speed and full fuel means things can go very bad, very fast.
Is there something systemic behind these frequent incidents with military aircraft? It is using old, legacy equipment? Is it due to using rushed, streamlined procedures designed for war-time even outside an active battle environment? Are there just many, many military flights daily so statistically one will be in the news every couple weeks?
IMO the danger to US service members outside of combat seems way too high. It's a well known fact most fatalities occur during training than during combat. (Sure this due to there being many more training exercises than active combat engagements but from a policy perspective it is very worrying).
They are very rare these days compared to the 1950s-80. I presume it's a combination of aircraft design developing and also the scale of the military and the intense training during the Cold War.
Have a flick through these links listing losses or two RAF types, it's quite sobering.
15 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 49.6 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OIxo00UeM
IMO the danger to US service members outside of combat seems way too high. It's a well known fact most fatalities occur during training than during combat. (Sure this due to there being many more training exercises than active combat engagements but from a policy perspective it is very worrying).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
Have a flick through these links listing losses or two RAF types, it's quite sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/harrier...
https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Display/Article/4517897/b-52...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-s...