Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 693 posts

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#131

Post by kunwon1 »

btbuildem wrote: post #70

An 80's movie dream is playing out for some rural kids, where they stumble upon a smouldering high-tech wreckage and as they explore it, men in suits pour out of black SUVs and talk to them in taciturn ways. Seriously though, these jets sound terribly overpriced for how unreliable they seem to be.

I'm no expert on aircraft procurement or government contracts (I'm an engineer who used to work on fighter jets) - that being said, it's my understanding that the F-35 is actually a very successful project, and a very affordable one at that. I haven't got any citations or evidence to present, I could be wrong about all of this, it's a topic I've got only casual knowledge about.

A broad overview of my understanding of the situation: Most critics are making unfair comparisons (e.g. criticizing the F-35 for its inability to dogfight, or comparing its cost to 4th generation fighters, rather than its 5th generation peers)

This argument is further complicated by (as I understand it) a general lack of knowledge in the west concerning the true cost of Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters (PAK FA and Su-57)

All of that being said, I think this is a heavily politicized topic, and I can never discount the possibility that I've been hoodwinked when it comes to such matters.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#132

Post by SonicScrub »

btbuildem wrote: post #70

An 80's movie dream is playing out for some rural kids, where they stumble upon a smouldering high-tech wreckage and as they explore it, men in suits pour out of black SUVs and talk to them in taciturn ways. Seriously though, these jets sound terribly overpriced for how unreliable they seem to be.

The F-35 is cheaper than it's contemporaries, and has a lower accident rate.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#133

Post by standeven »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
tivert wrote: post #87

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…

I've always wondered what his squadronmates changed his callsign to afterwards.

Scarecrow?

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#134

Post by rplst8 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #100
sebzim4500 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the whole point of an F-35 that it is really hard to track with radar?

It's really hard to track with active radar, which is why the first thing NATO does in a foreign country is bomb all TV and radio stations off the air. With passive methods it's no problem at all.

What do TV and radio stations have to do with active radar?

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#135

Post by melling »

delfinom wrote: post #60
Fluorescence wrote: post #56

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.

[flagged]

Sort of an absurd thing to say. However, it’s repeated all the time, and in every generation in some form.

One really has nothing to do with the other. If we could educate people at a younger age so they understand this, maybe we can make more progress in creating a better society.

Start with the fact that military spending has decreased as a percentage of GDP:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defen...

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#136

Post by safety1st »

ensignavenger wrote: post #105
woodruffw wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2021, roughly 1 in 8 children in the US experience food insecurity[1]. [1]: https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/child-hunge...

"food insecurity" is not the same as starving.

I was wondering how 1 in 8 children could be experiencing food insecurity in a nation with a 40% obesity rate, and what food insecurity was exactly, so I poked around in their methodology a little.

https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/M...

Happy to be corrected if I'm misreading this. But if I understand correctly, they go into it on page 8, and there are basically two ways they calculate food insecurity.

The first is a weighted average of variables that are unrelated or indirectly related to food - including income, race and disability rate.

The second is self-reporting (basically asking households if they need more money for food).

Hmm.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#137

Post by AustinDev »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #90
sebzim4500 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the whole point of an F-35 that it is really hard to track with radar?

It can be. I believe for “routine” training they’ll keep a radar reflector in them. Very little need to have stealth when bouncing around the US.

I was in a stealth fighter squadron. It really depends on the mission profile as to determine if the reflectors will be on the plane during CONUS training. If we're doing BVR 'tag' drills, they won't have them installed. If we're just putting butts in seats to keep certs current or maybe some air to ground training, then the reflectors will be installed.

Caveat, I was in the Air Force and I'm not too familiar with NATOPS which is what I believe the Marines would be operating under to determine SOP. I was not a pilot, but I was in operations and received the same briefings. My training was also from when we first got real stealth fighters and SOP has probably evolved a lot in the last decade.

What's most interesting about this story to me is... What sort of mishap would lead to an ejection with autopilot left functioning? That all seems very peculiar. Weird way to join the Caterpillar Club.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#138

Post by dr-detroit »

btbuildem wrote: post #70

An 80's movie dream is playing out for some rural kids, where they stumble upon a smouldering high-tech wreckage and as they explore it, men in suits pour out of black SUVs and talk to them in taciturn ways. Seriously though, these jets sound terribly overpriced for how unreliable they seem to be.

[dead]

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#139

Post by sschueller »

flangola7 wrote: post #66
sschueller wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all the software issues how do we know the plane didn't just randomly eject the pilot due to some buffer overflow...

Hopefully that isn't a networked system. It should be physical action only.

Eject-by-wire, I can envision some proponents for automated ejection in case the pilot is not responding or a machine is able to determine ejection is needed before a pilot realizes and it would be too late.
Post reply on HN