Aircraft destroyed in Afghanistan (USAF E-11A (BACN))
Well firstly this is a very surprising crash of probably one of the most expensive piece of equipment of the USAF. This will be in the hundreds of million $ write off. Not speaking about the crew as their whereabouts seems fairly uncertain.
Dual engine flameout is pretty unlikely, just as a SAM if we are to believe the limited information available and the picture presented thus far.
Very puzzling
Dual engine flameout is pretty unlikely, just as a SAM if we are to believe the limited information available and the picture presented thus far.
Very puzzling
The Taliban are meanwhile claiming it, with talk of photos of "the aircraft and charred bodies".
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1619011/world
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1619011/world
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents - from the state of the tail that looks like a survivable crash-land. I would make a guess there are (i hope) survivors and it was they who torched the a/c to destroy tech or info. I hope it will come out that the crew has been recovered.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fight to get to the wreck
Reports now that Taliban and Afghan troops in a fight as the latter attempt to approach the site.
Nothing new in a fight but this may mean something to hide.
Nothing new in a fight but this may mean something to hide.
One of the original reports I read, but can no longer find said that the a plane came down and that special forces team went in to destroy the sensative equipment and recover the 1 deceased and 1 surviving crew member
There is actually very little that makes sense in the reporting so far. All we know is one of those very high tech birds went down... That's pretty much the whole extent of it!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder if these aircraft and others of their ilk are fitted with destruction charges to protect their equipment in the event of forced landing in hostile territory.
I hope the answer doesn’t comprise OPSEC. I will fully understand if no one wishes to respond. Thanks for your time and trouble.
Be lucky
David
I hope the answer doesn’t comprise OPSEC. I will fully understand if no one wishes to respond. Thanks for your time and trouble.
Be lucky
David
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NL
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an article on that right now on reuters.com (sorry, can't post a link):"Ghazni provincial police chief, Khalid Wardak, told Reuters that two bodies were airlifted by U.S. forces from the crash site on Tuesday."
Latest report is two Dead, bodies recovered, no indication of hostile action on the ground or as a cause of the downing.
That Reuters piece is a bit more nuanced than that, I think, theoradical
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-af...-idUKKBN1ZR0OW
airsound
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-af...-idUKKBN1ZR0OW
Ghazni provincial police chief, Khalid Wardak, told Reuters that two bodies were airlifted by U.S. forces from the crash site on Tuesday.
Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said Afghan forces backed by U.S. military support had tried to capture the area around the crashed aircraft and clashed with fighters of the Islamist militant group.
The attempt was repelled, he told Reuters, but the Taliban would allow a rescue team access to recover bodies from the crash site.
“Taliban fighters on the ground counted six bodies at the site of the U.S. airplane crash,” he said, adding that while there could have been more, the militant group could not be certain, as fire had reduced everything to ashes.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, U.S. officials said the plane was carrying fewer than five people when it crashed, with one official saying initial information showed there were at least two.
Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said Afghan forces backed by U.S. military support had tried to capture the area around the crashed aircraft and clashed with fighters of the Islamist militant group.
The attempt was repelled, he told Reuters, but the Taliban would allow a rescue team access to recover bodies from the crash site.
“Taliban fighters on the ground counted six bodies at the site of the U.S. airplane crash,” he said, adding that while there could have been more, the militant group could not be certain, as fire had reduced everything to ashes.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, U.S. officials said the plane was carrying fewer than five people when it crashed, with one official saying initial information showed there were at least two.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.airforcemag.com/remains-...om-e-11-crash/
Crew Remains Recovered From E-11A Crash
Remains of the two crew members aboard the E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node aircraft that crashed this week in Afghanistan were recovered Jan. 28, a US defense official confirmed.
At first, Afghan special forces couldn’t reach the site of the crash—a snowy field in Ghazni Province north of the aircraft’s operating base of Kandahar Airfield. The site is in a Taliban-controlled area, and helicopters were unable to land shortly after the crash because insurgents were nearby, The Washington Post reported.
US Forces-Afghanistan said in a statement following the crash there were no indications that hostile fire downed the manned plane.
A US defense official confirmed to Air Force Magazine that two people were onboard the aircraft when it crashed, despite earlier reports that the E-11 was carrying more.
“The remains were found near the crash site, treated with dignity and respect by the local Afghan community, in accordance with their culture,” US Forces-Afghanistan said in a statement.
US forces also recovered the aircraft’s flight data recorder, then destroyed the rest of the aircraft, according to the statement. The E-11A is outfitted with a payload of sensitive equipment, the defense official said.
The Defense Department will release the names and service details of those who were killed in the crash once their families are informed..........
Crew Remains Recovered From E-11A Crash
Remains of the two crew members aboard the E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node aircraft that crashed this week in Afghanistan were recovered Jan. 28, a US defense official confirmed.
At first, Afghan special forces couldn’t reach the site of the crash—a snowy field in Ghazni Province north of the aircraft’s operating base of Kandahar Airfield. The site is in a Taliban-controlled area, and helicopters were unable to land shortly after the crash because insurgents were nearby, The Washington Post reported.
US Forces-Afghanistan said in a statement following the crash there were no indications that hostile fire downed the manned plane.
A US defense official confirmed to Air Force Magazine that two people were onboard the aircraft when it crashed, despite earlier reports that the E-11 was carrying more.
“The remains were found near the crash site, treated with dignity and respect by the local Afghan community, in accordance with their culture,” US Forces-Afghanistan said in a statement.
US forces also recovered the aircraft’s flight data recorder, then destroyed the rest of the aircraft, according to the statement. The E-11A is outfitted with a payload of sensitive equipment, the defense official said.
The Defense Department will release the names and service details of those who were killed in the crash once their families are informed..........
That being said it seems there were indeed two on this specific flight. My understanding is that there are usually also operators for the massive BACN payload but as it seems that they are now shifting these tasks to UAVs (Global Hawks) I guess the human presence is not anymore a requirement.
In any case, I think that there is a lot we don't know behind this accident (if it was one). I find it notable that "US forces also recovered the aircraft’s flight data recorder, then destroyed the rest of the aircraft" despite not being able to reach the site crash (I understand they eventually did, but it took time).
Last edited by atakacs; 30th Jan 2020 at 01:32.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double engine flame out is unlikely, but possible, (the Heathrow B777 being an example) wondering if flight recorder findings will be made public once duly de sensitized, or cause remain forever hidden under Opsec
Ttfn
Ttfn
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question. I remember reading that at some point but I can't find any reference
That being said it seems there were indeed two on this specific flight. My understanding is that they are usually also operators for the massive BACN payload but as it seems that they are now shifting these tasks to UAVs (Global Hawks) I guess the human presence is not anymore a requirement.
That being said it seems there were indeed two on this specific flight. My understanding is that they are usually also operators for the massive BACN payload but as it seems that they are now shifting these tasks to UAVs (Global Hawks) I guess the human presence is not anymore a requirement.
Last edited by Chris Kebab; 29th Jan 2020 at 10:20.
I notice from the video that the APU inlet door is fully open. This would not be 'normal' for the Global in flight. The crew must have selected the APU to RUN for this to be open.
Its obvious from the outcome, but it would suggest that the crew must have been dealing with something "non-normal".
Anything from me beyond that is speculation.
Its obvious from the outcome, but it would suggest that the crew must have been dealing with something "non-normal".
Anything from me beyond that is speculation.
That's what I don't quite understand. If we are to believe the two crew statement (and speaking personally that seems a big if) and this really is two pilots (presumably both were) boring holes in the sky over dodgy territory with a rack load of unattended kit down the back why the heck has that role not moved to a GH or similar unmanned asset?
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the interview posted above, they do use three/four EQ-4B GH derivatives, and the article mentions their advantage over the E-11. What the article doesn't say is why the E-11 is also used (rather than just a GH fleet). Presumably there are some situations where a manned aircraft is preferred
S
