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

A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

postandcourier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 213 posts

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#101

Post by chgs »

mcv wrote: post #86
atmosx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception - often echoed on this site - is that NATO allies and the U.S. operate on equal terms. They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen. Even today, with all this talk around NATO, there’s a massive U.S. military presence at NATO bases across Europe. These forces are, in effect, under U.S. control, stationed in countries like Germany and Italy. And if Germany…

> They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen. How do you imagine that will work? The US may have to lower the price more than they can afford to. Some countries have already cancelled their F-35 orders. You can't force someone to buy what they don't want.

> You can't force someone to buy what they don't want.

The opium wars would disagree

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#102

Post by Propelloni »

atmosx wrote: post #45
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail" Allies cancelling orders may force Washington’s hand: the cost of additional jets, parts, et cerera skyrocket if spread over fewer planes.

A common misconception - often echoed on this site - is that NATO allies and the U.S. operate on equal terms. They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen. Even today, with all this talk around NATO, there’s a massive U.S. military presence at NATO bases across Europe. These forces are, in effect, under U.S. control, stationed in countries like Germany and Italy. And if Germany…

That's a fantasy, unless you think Germany is occupied by the USA. But that's not the case. Occupation ended in 1954, since then the USA military is stationed in Germany (and Italy) due to contracts. This so called deployment contracts have been confirmed in 1990, when Germany became a sovereign nation again. I know, the current USA is not big on "rule of law" anymore, but even a bad deal maker should understand that there is not much to win in a war over bases they get for free now. (I'm not saying that maintaining those bases is cheap, but that's more on how the USA runs military bases than anything else.)

I find it refreshing, however, that the "we are the evil empire now" idea is getting out of the closet. Call a spade a spade.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#103

Post by jandrewrogers »

guappa wrote: post #90
jandrewrogers wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 was designed for export. The F-22 wasn’t and I suspect the F-47 is not either. There are different objectives at work here. The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.

I think at large european industry has more stake in F-35 not being bought, and local planes be used instead.

The internal conflict is that the European planes that exist are nowhere as capable as the F-35.

While the European defense contractors may promise a comparable plane, they have a poor track record of delivering such a thing anywhere close to the near future.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#104

Post by TomK32 »

instagib wrote: post #71

They had one short sentence in there that he still had a tiny alternate primary flight display. Still had control surfaces. He knew he was descending and his authorized air space. Pull up, look at the pfd, do some resets, follow helmet malfunction protocols. There was very little about a devils advocate side to the story. I could imagine others joking about ejecting for minor warnings or trolling him. Especially in t…

Even if he would have trusted the alternative controls the jet has, he was in clouds over a densely populated area going 350mph just 750 feet above the ground, far below the 6000 feet the article quotes from the manual.

"In fact, the F-35B’s flight manual said, “the aircraft is considered to be in out of controlled flight (OCF) when it fails to respond properly to pilot inputs,” adding, “if out of control below 6,000 feet AGL (above ground level): EJECT.”"

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#105

Post by zimpenfish »

guappa wrote: post #94
wongarsu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also refuse to update the electronic countermeasures systems installed in Ukraine's F16. Not a kill switch, but it is impacting the usefulness of the planes. Whether actual kill switches exist is unknown. But if you were a European country, would you take the chance of buying fighters from a country threatening to invade multiple of your allies based on their assurance that the rumors about kill switches are not…

Well denmark is going ahead to buy F-35 from their enemy that wants to invade them.

Regretting it though[0] - "Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of the Danish Parliament’s Defence Committee, has expressed regret over the decision to purchase the F-35. [...] He now advocates for reassessing Denmark’s strategic dependency on the United States and calls on European allies to consider doing the same."

[0] https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/den...

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#106

Post by jandrewrogers »

blobbers wrote: post #88
jandrewrogers wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 was designed for export. The F-22 wasn’t and I suspect the F-47 is not either. There are different objectives at work here. The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.

This is a really interesting 'first thought'. "Designed for export" Not the typical mindset of someone wanting true superiority through military power. Makes you think twice. The F35 is expensive, keeps the defense apparatus going, and ultimately gets paid for by other countries. F22 barely reached production, so F47 will be interesting.

The F-35 is cheap for what it is capable of. F-22 and F-47 are immaterial. And the export F-35 is nerfed to some extent.

The unfortunate reality, which the US is exploiting, is that Europe would struggle to produce an equivalent of the nerfed F-35, never mind one that hadn’t been nerfed. As a consequence, the US can sell nerfed F-35s all day. There aren’t many alternatives currently. 4.5 gen aircraft aren’t competitive in a serious conflict and everyone knows it. Even the US has to contend with that reality.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#107

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chgs wrote: post #101
mcv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen. How do you imagine that will work? The US may have to lower the price more than they can afford to. Some countries have already cancelled their F-35 orders. You can't force someone to buy what they don't want.

> You can't force someone to buy what they don't want. The opium wars would disagree

The United States using military force against the home territory of a NATO member basically guarantees Chinese troops and weapons in Canada and Mexico. We would (deservedly) force the world to ally against us as we’d have proven ourselves to be an expansionist menace.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#108

Post by guappa »

blatantly wrote: post #72
whatever1 wrote: post #63

I mean if the air force is so uncomfortable with soldiers surviving while the $150M gadget bursts into flames, why do they even request for an ejection function in the aircrafts?

Cynical take would be it is a free soldier behind enemy lines.

I sincerely have any doubt they will ever actually use one against a country that has any military capability, because of what the PR would be if it gets shot down.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#109

Post by Sabinus »

yard2010 wrote: post #58
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #24

If you hate the long form filler and know what a fighter jet is, start (with the knowledge that the pilot is landing in poor weather) at "Suddenly, at 1:32:05 p.m", read until the first two sentences in section 2, then skip to section 5. Edit: That said, there are no answers. It's just the long known story: A pilot ejects from a malfunctioning (but likely flyable) jet, gets cleared in the first two investigations bec…

The soviet russians nuked Chernobyl with this attitude, it must be good

Your comment reminded me, an excellent showcase of institutional shenanigans is the Chernobyl miniseries on Netflix. Denial, blame, coverups, accountability. It's a very well made series in a grim Soviet setting.

Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake

#110

Post by TomK32 »

russellbeattie wrote: post #12

Seems like there was already a thread about this. But after reading the article, my one takeaway is this: Pilots can decide in less than a minute to bail out of a fighter jet aimed at who knows what and that's OK?? I don't expect every pilot to go down with their plane, but holy crap. That plane could have taken out half a street of houses. I'm not sure how one pilot's life is worth more than potentially dozens of in…

He had no vision to aim the jet at an unpopulated area, not bailing out might have just killed +1 person and leave an even greater mystery about the plane's technical condition and the pilots state of mind.
Post reply on HN