AIR LOSSES BY U.S.

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26560, 24 October 1951, Page 7

AIR LOSSES BY U.S.

Replacing Rate Exceeded (Rec. 9 p.m.) NEW YORK. Oct. 22. The United States is losing combat aircraft raster than it can replace them, says the aviation correspondent of the United Press. That is the plain fact behind the curtailed flying in Europe, tne reduced bomber operations in xkorea, and the planned transfer of let fighters from air national guard units to Air Force air training, command, says the correspondent. The losses have been suffered in combat in Korea and from other causes in normal world-wide operations. There have also been temporary losses of planes grounded, or on reduced nying status, because of engine and parts shortages. The extent of aircraft destruction and damage in Korea has never been revealed xuily, and will not be while the fighting is going on, says the correspondent. It is known, however, that more than 360 planes under Far East Air Force control have been lost to enemy action.

About 76* per cent, of these were fighters knocked down by enemy (round fire. What is not generally .known is that another 350 planes of all types operating under the Far East Air Force probably have been lost or damaged during the war for reasons not dlrectlv related to enemy action. These figures do not include Navy losses.

Reduced Superiortress bomber operations In Korea have been attributed by Air Force sources partly to the engine and parts problem. The lack of parts tor jet engines is reported to have .cut down the flying time of Thunderjet fighter groups in Europe. Current information on losses, aport from those in the Korean war, is not available, but in 1940. when there was much leas flying, 030 Air Force and Navy planes were damaged beyond repair in accidents. The Director of Defence Mobilisation, Mr Charles JS. Wilson, said in his latest report that aircraft production Is twice what it was a year ago. This means that the United States has reached a rate of about 430 aircraft a month of all types for all three military services. The correspondent adds that in terms of air frame weight, however, which is the customary standard of measurement, the nation is producing little more than it was at the 1950 peak. This fact, combined with Mr Wilson's report, indicates that the loss of trainers and other lightweight planes must be in the 450 figure class. The present situation illustrates a point often made by production experts—that there is a big gap between the time money is appropriated and the time combat planes materialise. The gap measures about 20 months for fighter planes and longer for bombers..