One Good Reason To Use Unmanned Systems
Writing by Evan Ackerman on Friday, 16 of July , 2010 at 12:08 am
Every time the Air Force sends a B-1B bomber on a mission over Afghanistan, it spends costs $720,000 in fuel, repair, and other costs. And when the plane comes back, it has to spend 48 hours being repaired for every hour it was in the air. All of which is double-crazy, because the bomber doesn’t really drop bombs over Afghanistan any more, thanks to the military’s airstrike restrictions. The B-1B just lingers over the country with a camera: a big Predator drone, at many, many times the price. “If the B-1 is not dropping its load of ordnance, we should withdraw it, and use unmanned systems instead,” Michael Wynne, former secretary of the Air Force, tells me. “They’re much cheaper.”
I tend to argue for unmanned systems on the basis of getting humans out of harm’s way, but the expense of an aircraft like the B-1 is just staggering. Maybe in the context of the military it’s not a big deal, but I am officially staggered. Admittedly, a B-1 is capable of many things that Predators and other UAV/UCAVs aren’t, but the point that Danger Room makes is that expensive assets are being used in situations where the majority of their capabilities are not being utilized, and it’s just a waste of resources.
Incidentally, if 48 repair hours for every 1 operational hour seems a bit, um, excessive (!), that number comes from USAF HQ, while a commenter on the Danger Room article who actually works with B-1s says that it’s nothing like that. If anybody here happens to know anything about B-1 maintenance (yeah?), please feel free to post in the comments.
[ Danger Room ]
Comments (3)
Category: Military
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg
Comment by Joey1058
Made Friday, 16 of July , 2010 at 11:04 am
Considering that the B1-B is state of the art, the turn around numbers sound about right. Just like today’s autos, I’m sure the plane goes int a hangar full of techs that plug into a master port and run diagnostics looking for things like bomb bay doors that stick, or engines that are under performing. But to use such a huge plane for just surveillance is indeed wasteful. That’s what the heck drones are for, after all!
Comment by cire
Made Tuesday, 20 of July , 2010 at 8:14 pm
Just a guess, but maybe the 48 hours of repair means 48 man hours, not 48 actual hours sitting in the hanger. Like 15 people look at it for 3 hours or so, less if there is a need for it to get back out in the field asap.
Comment by ethan454
Made Saturday, 31 of July , 2010 at 12:27 pm
I agree with cire and that it is wastfull and that it is an advanced plane. But, $720,000 sounds way too high… Perhaps a bit of stretched facts to get the vote for the UAV?
