Why are combat aircraft operations very dangerous?

Because like all military groups (at least the good ones), they "train as
they fight".


Why does the supersonic environment make them more dangerous?

Take a gander at the accident rates for the early Century Series fighters.

Kevin,

Surprisingly, your typically insightful and poignant method of addressing an
issue was absent in this response (I mean this genuinely, not sarcastically,
Kevin.). Unfortunately, you didn't address my question. You responded with a
convenient metaphor.

"You train as you fight" is a fine objective, but it never happens in totality.
Until military personnel start shooting real bullets and missiles at each
other, they're not training as they fight. Red Flag and other similar
exercises fall short of their objective, because while an F-15 may take ten
missile shots at its adversary (due to the inflight reload capability that
they're famous for during peacetime training exercises), at the end of the day,
everybody lands and knocks back a cold one. This is not true in combat. To
quote Alan Shepard on combat, "You gotta go out. You don't gotta come back."

I felt no sense of danger carrying twelve thousand pounds of iron at 600 knots
and 100 feet, doing tactical turns, and manuevering in response to Red Air.
While I flew with a sense of urgency, and a serious disposition, there was also
a distinct level of excitement involved. All of this would have changed had I
known that people were firing weapons at me. The danger is in the threat, not
the flying. I haven't flown in combat. Some of the visitors and contributors
to this group have. I contend that any competent pilot will acknowledge that:

a: risk does not necessarily imply or equate to danger,

b: in the absence of a threat, danger is present when incompetence is
present.

Some pilots are dangerous because they're incompetent. Flying fast,
supersonic, low, pulling G, carrying iron, flying very near other aircraft, et.
al. does not suggest or equate to danger. Doing these things when you're not
competent to do so, is dangerous. Driving a car when you're not competent to
do so, is dangerous. I don't consider driving a car to be dangerous. Or using
a hand saw, or lighting a firecracker, or cooking food. These acts may be
dangerous for some people, however, they are not dangerous acts in and of
themselves.

Essentially any action can be considered dangerous. I do not adhere to this
type of thinking. Nor do I patently associate danger to risk. If the author
intended the statement "Combat aircraft operation are always very dangerous,
especially if supersonic." to mean the actual act of flying in combat, then I
couldn't agree more. I interpreted his statement to mean the "operations of
flying combat aircraft", but not necessarily in combat. As such, I disagree
with his statement.




Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.