81–90 of 693 posts
This sounds too ridiculous to be true. I'd be more inclined to believe that it's a gambit to flush out an intelligence leak rather than an inability to find their own $160M plane.
It’s definitely BS. Transponders aside, the US has radar and near real-time satellite imagery of every square inch of American territory. There is a zero percent chance they don’t know where this plane is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You don't actually have to crash the jet, just tell everyone you did.
"We can't find the wreckage ANYWHERE! Maybe if we cleaned up some of this pollution, we would find the plane underneath it? Is there anyone who wants to find F-35 wreckage? Chinaaaaaa?"
This sounds too ridiculous to be true. I'd be more inclined to believe that it's a gambit to flush out an intelligence leak rather than an inability to find their own $160M plane.
It’s definitely BS. Transponders aside, the US has radar and near real-time satellite imagery of every square inch of American territory. There is a zero percent chance they don’t know where this plane is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incompetence is positively correlated with salary and responsibility. The more money you handle on your job the likelier you are to be incompetent. It comes as no surprise to me that people responsible for these machines of war are more incompetent than you or me.
> The more money you handle on your job the likelier you are to be incompetent. And your source for this data is…?
This sounds too ridiculous to be true. I'd be more inclined to believe that it's a gambit to flush out an intelligence leak rather than an inability to find their own $160M plane.
This sounds too ridiculous to be true. I'd be more inclined to believe that it's a gambit to flush out an intelligence leak rather than an inability to find their own $160M plane.
It’s definitely BS. Transponders aside, the US has radar and near real-time satellite imagery of every square inch of American territory. There is a zero percent chance they don’t know where this plane is.
(And even if it did, radar is not magic. If the plane is at the bottom of a murky lake, then no amount of radar or satellite imagery is going to find it.)
> The "Cornfield Bomber" is the nickname given to a Convair F-106 Delta Dart, operated by the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron of the United States Air Force. In 1970, during a training exercise, it made an unpiloted landing in a farmer's field in Montana, suffering only minor damage, after the pilot had ejected from the aircraft. The aircraft, recovered and repaired, was returned to service, and is currently on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Given it's a military plane (which IIRC, aren't required to have transponders or have them activated) and stealth. it seems understandable that it would be hard to find if it didn't crash immediately.
$1.2T to OPERATE the F-35 program, yikes! I would love to see the TCO figures on an F-35 (or not). US Military budget concepts have always blown my mind.
> $1.2 trillion to operate and maintain the fleet over more than 60 years.
Maybe it's another Cornfield Bomber ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber ): > The "Cornfield Bomber" is the nickname given to a Convair F-106 Delta Dart, operated by the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron of the United States Air Force. In 1970, during a training exercise, it made an unpiloted landing in a farmer's field in Montana, suffering only minor damage, after the pilot had ejected from the aircraft…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely BS. Transponders aside, the US has radar and near real-time satellite imagery of every square inch of American territory. There is a zero percent chance they don’t know where this plane is.
Isn't the whole point of an F-35 that it is really hard to track with radar?
I believe for “routine” training they’ll keep a radar reflector in them. Very little need to have stealth when bouncing around the US.