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

421–430 of 693 posts

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

#421

Post by chinathrow »

MarkMarine wrote: post #316
Scoundreller wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if some of the "autopilot" functionality for military aircraft is to swan-dive into water/forest if everyone has already ejected. If it's going to crash (and can't autoland, which it probably shouldn't attempt even if it could if something ejection-worthy happened), might as well obliterate the thing in a safe place.

The thing you’re thinking of is the pilot. If the plane is capable of control, the pilot will move it on a trajectory away from populated areas if possible. Protecting innocent people on the ground in the case of an emergency was always top of mind, you can see this in the crash reporting for multiple real world incidents (in airframes with, and without ejection seats, where the last actions of the aircrew were steer…

Depending on the situation, there might be not enough room or time to save lives in ground.

Sample dual ejection:

https://youtu.be/zN_Zl64OQEw?si=5Nk-LGBFxf4pmEDr

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

#422

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #174
kunwon1 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've read some analyses of the F35 vs A10 which don't favour the F35 for CAS operations much. The main thing I saw was that F35 requires more maintenance and longer runways than the A10 and is more fragile. It depends on what kind of a war that is being fought, but in a major great power war, you couldn't always guarantee having nice high quality air bases, runways, and support teams near the front. Sometimes it is p…

The F-35 is for deleting (or helping others delete) air defenses and other fighter aircraft. Once those are gone you can use whatever you want for CAS. I can't imagine troops being so far forward that the air above is still contested.

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

#423

Post by Jtsummers »

cameldrv wrote: post #409
MarkMarine wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the real world, and there are incident reports that go into great detail about every aircraft loss. I’ve read every one since 1999, and I’ve never seen an incident where the pilot ejected over a populated area in an aircraft that was still controlled. What you all are imagining does not happen, and the odds of it happening are vanishingly small.

Have you looked at the MiG-23 that crashed last month in Michigan?

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

This one? Which reads as though the back-seater (not the pilot) was the one that ejected and took the pilot with him?

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

#424

Post by ceejayoz »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #395
mrtksn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let the human pilot make decisions == let the machine make decisions It's not like pilots are making political decisions. They pilot and shoot predefined targets, avoid hostile actions. AI is capable of doing this. > Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions. On the contrary, AI is very capable of making that decision. There are no philosophical dilemmas or children in the skies and even if t…

I'm more worried about domestic use. It's hard to get soldiers to carpet bomb wrong thinkers.

> It's hard to get soldiers to carpet bomb wrong thinkers.

I'm not sure how accurate that is historically.

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

#425

Post by dragonwriter »

gonzo41 wrote: post #162
tivert wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the Ukraine war and Russia's poor showing has proved that in some ways the west is overestimating the capabilities of it's enemies. That attitude is a recipe for overconfidence and failure, and is probably the biggest reason for Russia's poor showing in Ukraine. Also, from what I've read, electronic warfare is one of the areas where the Russians have shown strong capability. It's a mistake to misinterpret "…

WRT to Ukraine, it's a mistake to think that competence at EW and incompetence at land warfare balance each other out when the fight is primarily land warfare. And you need to be better at the land warfare to win. Also, the B21 is reported to be designed for remote control. And that's the sort of thing you put the really big weapons on. I understand the idea behind reducing attack surface. But the JSF is a hub of int…

> Also, the B21 is reported to be designed for remote control.

AFAIK, that is all misreporting the (also abandoned) idea of an bomber drone companion aircraft and/or speculation about a potential future application of its modular upgradability.

> But the JSF is a hub of interconnected technology it's not unreasonable to think they don't have a software package for all sorts of remote options.

I agree that its not unreasonable to think that they don't have that.

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

#426

Post by dragontamer »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #420
dragontamer wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MANPADs can't even shoot at a jet because they're flying too high. There's only so much rocket propellant you can put onto a shoulder-mounted device that humans have to carry around. If you're only guarded by MANPADs, then a traditional bomber will blast your position repeatedly. The MANPADs are really there to deal with low-flying aircraft (A10 and Helicopters). EDIT: I guess the AC-130 cruises at high speeds, but s…

> Because its large profile and low operating altitudes around 7,000 feet (2,100 m) make it an easy target, its close air support missions are usually flown at night.[7] AC-130 is only effective against a flipflop army... which doesn't have a friend which would supply tons of MANPADs to the gallant people of your country.

And the A10 is even lower-altitude than that.

Welcome to the CAS role. You fly low and shoot cheap bullets (lots and lots of cheap bullets), but you're also vulnerable to ground fire.

At least the AC-130 has a ton of flares to misdirect enemy missiles automatically. A10 basically has no form of defense. In any case, a CAS aircraft is in a position of higher risk than most other aircraft since it needs to travel low enough (and long-enough) on the front-lines.

That doesn't mean that CAS is useless. It just means you need a _LOT_ of support before CAS is helpful. That's why an aircraft like F35 (which can perform SEAD / Wild Weasel, as well as CAS later in the war when the air-defenses go down) is better.

Not to mention, F35 has stealth capabilities, so I'm not even sure if MANPADs can lock onto an F35 reliably. Stealth is more than just invisibility, its also one of the best layers of armor since missiles need a RADAR signature to hit airplanes these days.

-----------

But you're right. In the current Ukrainian war, there's almost no need for AC-130 or A10. Neither side has air superiority and both sides have incredible amounts of anti-air defenses. If anything, this is the war that shows why the F35 would be such an incredible aircraft.

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

#427

Post by selimthegrim »

ceejayoz wrote: post #221
mrtksn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let the human pilot make decisions == let the machine make decisions It's not like pilots are making political decisions. They pilot and shoot predefined targets, avoid hostile actions. AI is capable of doing this. > Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions. On the contrary, AI is very capable of making that decision. There are no philosophical dilemmas or children in the skies and even if t…

Military pilots absolutely make all sorts of decisions, like "that looks like a civilian target, maybe I have incorrect info" or "a little kid just ran into the target area" or "the controller says I just shot at friendlies". I would not currently trust an AI to handle those very well. What would an AI have done in this situation? What should it have done? "Russian pilot deliberately fired missiles at a Royal Air For…

Or the USS Liberty for that matter.

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

#428

Post by simmerup »

23B1 wrote: post #412
eevilspock wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I'd be happy with... There's a lot of armchair quarterbacking in these comments, this one taking the cake.

HN weighing in on military stuff is always comedy to those of us who've been in the military. It's nobody's fault – this stuff can be baroque in its complexity – but it does make for some entertaining reading!

HN weighing in on anything outside of tech is comedy

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

#429

Post by selimthegrim »

k12sosse wrote: post #228
ceejayoz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same way the F-35 does I guess. No, because that's in part "let the human pilot make decisions". > Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days... Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions.

> Tarnak Farm incident Canada's first losses in a combat zone since Korean War. > "Let's just make sure that it's, that it's not friendlies, is all" > Twenty-two seconds later, he reported a direct hit. Ten seconds later, the controller ordered the pilots to disengage, saying the forces on the ground were "friendlies Kandahar".

Weren’t they in Croatia under UNPROFOR in the Medak pocket?

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

#430

Post by mannerheim »

pydry wrote: post #354
hollerith wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? Consulting this next page, I count 8 countries besides the US that have taken delivery of F-35s, plus many that have ordered it, but not yet taken delivery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... The UK for example currently has a fleet of 32, and Australia has 50.

Because it cost $2 trillion and it's so so. Mostly becausr it cost $2 trillion. $2 trillion is a fair chunk of cash. Allies buying American hardware isnt necessarily a sign of quality, also. America puts pressure on them to buy its hardware.

Turkey seems awfully broken up about not being allowed to buy the F-35.
Post reply on HN