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

611–620 of 693 posts

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

#611

Post by saiya-jin »

dragontamer wrote: post #516
justsomehnguy wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> F35 has gun-pods and absolutely is expected to play some CAS role > in a war you use what you can get your hands on In a war you don't use a multi-billion toy for it's marketing qualities. Because this is the way lose your multi-billion toy. > MANPADs are (probably) useless Beam riders (eg Starstreak). And as soon as you are -lt 2km then you are in IR/UV/Image recognition danger zone too, because: low, fast, precis…

> In a war you don't use a multi-billion toy for it's marketing qualities. Because this is the way lose your multi-billion toy. The most recent batch of F35A unit cost was $110 Million. I think you've got some severe misunderstandings about the nature of the F35 project. Its a multi-billion $$ *research* project, but each airplane is much cheaper than that. > The F-35’s price per unit, including ancillary costs like…

There are some automated AA guns (Oerlikon or Rheinmetall IIRC) who lock with combination of radar and visual, or just one of those. No locking missiles, just good old ammunition and 21st century computing power. Well not precisely, every round is primed to detonate at exact altitude/flight duration.

Put a hundred rounds in few seconds (so 5-10k projectiles) on the sky where the plane will be in 3 seconds, they will create basically impenetrable cloud and yes you can quite easily shoot down F35 flying during day flying low enough just by visual lock.

One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag

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

#612

Post by throw0101c »

eevilspock wrote: post #398
throw0101c wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If F-35 is such a failure, how come many countries have chosen to buy it? What's the alternative? How many other models can be purchased at all? Canada went through a bunch of drama to find a replacement for the legacy F/A-18s, and the main options were: Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35, and the Saab Gripen. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... Gripen wasn't in t…

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

> There's a lot of armchair quarterbacking in these comments, this one taking the cake.

If one's government is going to spend billions and billions of your money, having some level of public satisfaction for its use isn't a bad thing to have. Or at least having a decision making program that people have confidence in.

The F-35 is a decent enough result, especially in comparison to what's going on with Canada's naval procurement program.

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

#613

Post by zikzak »

MarkMarine wrote: post #370
LorenPechtel wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no. A pilot might punch from a perfectly flyable aircraft that ran out of fuel and can't be glided in due to terrain. Or a plane that has no propulsion for other reasons. They might even punch from a plane with some fuel but damage that precludes landing--if they're over civilization they might point it into nowhere and punch so they come down over civilization.

Ok, and here we go with the armchair aviators. Time in a Microsoft flight simulator doesn’t give you expertise. I’ll just reiterate, by the time a pilot is ejecting from the aircraft, everything has been done. Read through the incident reports and find me an incident where this wasn’t done, cite it please. I can’t find one. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/docs/type/accident/

I think people think ejecting from one of these planes is like something you would do casually if things aren't going well.

My limited knowledge leads me to believe this would be an absolute last resort and has a high risk if injuring the pilot.

Also, installing these in the passenger seat of your car is expensive, difficult, and illegal just in case anyone is also thinking of this right now.

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

#614

Post by justin66 »

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…

> 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

One of the things I remember from Chuck Yeager's autobiography (his first one - I think he eventually had several) is that he called bullshit on this. His view was that the pilot was putting all his attention and focus into saving the aircraft, and stories about how the pilot steered a failing aircraft away from something important on the ground were not true.

Of course, after the fact a pilot is going to say he tried to save people on the ground...

(his view might have been cynical, but I expect it often holds true)

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

#616

Post by hajile »

dragontamer wrote: post #494
justsomehnguy wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the A10 is even lower-altitude than that. So the window where you are vulnerable to MANPAD operator is less than of that AC-130. > Welcome to the CAS role. You .... Ah, yes, sorry, sir, looks like I need to take my Hazelnut Bianco Venti Latte and get out of your lawn, sir? > AC-130 has a ton of flares to misdirect enemy missiles automatically There is no ejection seats on AC-130. It would be never be operated w…

> If F-35 is at the MANPAD altitude then somebody (pilot) fucked greatly. F-35 in CAS role would never drop to MANPAD altitude and Shilka doesn't care about the plane stealthiness. *Multi-role* fighter. F35 has gun-pods and absolutely is expected to play some CAS role. Its not a dedicated CAS aircraft, no. Its not as good as other aircraft at the job (AC-130 has more loiter time, bigger guns, etc. etc.), but in a war…

> Stealth is the modern armor: if you can't be seen or can't be tracked, you can't be hit.

Next gen weapons are going to make F-35 stealth irrelevant in a handful of years.

F-35 is visible on low-frequency radar for hundreds of miles along with general heading and speed.

Most missiles are using 30+ year old technology. Since then, the cellphone economies of scale in both R&D and manufacturing have made CMOS cameras both incredibly good and incredibly cheap. Meanwhile, modern AI technology seems like a match made in heaven for interceptor missiles because you get all of the accuracy, but there's not much to cause the edge case interference we get with something like a self-driving car.

A missile with a $80 cell-phone chip would have enough processing power to run cameras to visually spot the fast-flying plane in multiple light spectrum ranges, lock in, and dynamically adjust to any changes the plane might take all while being mostly immune to modern chaff interference.

In our theoretical interception, low-frequency radars triangulate a stealth plane within a 50-100km cube (30-65 miles). Verify that you don't already have air assets that can take on the threat. If not, SAM sites shoot fire and forget missiles into that general area without even needing to turn on radar. The missiles fly into the given area and attack any fast-moving plane(s) they see. It is even possible to send back telemetry and add that to the training models making the missiles even better the next time.

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

#617

Post by versteegen »

ReptileMan wrote: post #597
viscanti wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By the time a pilot ejects they’ve exhausted EVERY other option to control the aircraft, no AI is going to regain control at that point. It seems like they probably bail out when they've exhausted every option of being able to land it and survive. There are likely some scenarios where there's limited controls remaining, that wouldn't provide high enough odds of guaranteeing someone's survival, but that could optimi…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision >Notably, the F-15, (with a crew of two), managed to land safely at a nearby airbase, despite having its right wing almost completely sheared off in the collision. The lifting body properties of the F-15, together with its overabundant engine thrust, allowed the pilot to achieve this unique feat. Just posting here because it is awesome.

At first I thought you were referring to this case where a crew landed an A300 with a large part of a wing missing and no hydraulic controls, using only differential engine thrust to control pitch, roll, yaw and speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_sho...

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

#619

Post by Someone »

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…

> By the time a pilot ejects they’ve exhausted EVERY other option to control the aircraft, no AI is going to regain control at that point.

Every other option with the pilot on board. The plane _may_ be easier to fly without it.

FTA: “The loss of the weight of the crew, seats, and canopy, as well as the shift in the center of gravity, have seen aircraft pull out of an imminent crash with nobody left onboard.”

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

#620

Post by pwython »

rootusrootus wrote: post #506
XorNot wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticism of the F-35 has been coming from a vocal selection of loons who's most common media appearances tended to be on Russia Today, and who's qualifications have been to lie about their qualifications, and misrepresent actual events which happened. Here's the thing: you don't know anything about the F-35. Because the project is secret. The capabilities are secret. And in a US political system that's incredibly fr…

I was an early armchair skeptic, and I've always had a not-so-secret love of the F-16. But after watching an F-35 demo at a recent airshow, I'm a convert. Anyone who says this plane can't out-dogfight an F-16 is delusional.

Was it worth $1,700,000,000,000 though ($1.7 trillion)? I'm all for aviation innovation, but the US defense budget is just wild.
Post reply on HN