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

121–130 of 213 posts

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

#121

Post by jajko »

libertine wrote: post #56
daemoens wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such kill switch exists, the US stopped providing electronic warfare intelligence that made the jets more survivable. The stoppage of all military aid was significantly more damaging.

The kill switch first reported wasn't for jets, but was for HIMARS[0], which stopped receiving data for strikes. But everyone viewed this kill switch as a way broader than HIMARS, and rightfully so. It will be foolish to assume that the USA has the capacity to turn HIMARS targeting capacity off, literally incapacitating the system which was built in the 90s, but somehow won't be able to kill switch a F35... This is d…

I find it curious that Israel managed to convince US that they can run their own firmware, (most probably) bypassing all this. I mean do get that region politics, oil and Iran and all, plus who sits in US power places but still.

Or why Europeans didn't insist to get same version (probably no leverage). Well any next armament purchase by Europe thats smarter than a lead bullet should have full code delivery with all build processes. Still not 100% perfect scenario but least minimum acceptable.

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

#122

Post by jpgvm »

kopirgan wrote: post #118

The pilot, del Pizzo himself seems to have realised upon return to flying, the sound of engine dying he heard was actually the thrust engine not the main one. Not sure if that's one factor the investigation considered. You can't wish away fact that the plane flew several minutes after he bailed. Very hard for us to know it's complex.. We Can only guess

Losing all instruments with no visibility is still ejectable even if he thought the engine was still running. He was disorientated and relying on his instruments, when flying under IFR (instrument flight rules) loss of instruments is tantamount to loss of control. The likely outcome in those situations is controlled flight into terrain at 350+mph.

With low altitude being an aggravating factor he was always 100% correct in ejecting and whatever the plane did afterwards is largely irrelevant.

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

#124

Post by atmosx »

gorgoiler wrote: post #87
atmosx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. However, did you notice the emojis used in relation to the leaked Huthi attack? It’s difficult to place confidence in individuals wielding significant power when they conduct themselves like adolescents.

This doesn’t feel fair. The standards we have for how elected officials conduct themselves is very different from what we expect from non-political career civil servants, General Officers, and the like. At our most charitable, we ought to recognize that in a democracy elected officials are plucked from the ranks of the general public. The qualifications for office are that you are the most popular person in the room,…

That’s a fair assessment :-)

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

#125

Post by stefanfisk »

Sabinus wrote: post #109
yard2010 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t you mean HBO?

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

#126

Post by kopirgan »

jpgvm wrote: post #122
kopirgan wrote: post #118

The pilot, del Pizzo himself seems to have realised upon return to flying, the sound of engine dying he heard was actually the thrust engine not the main one. Not sure if that's one factor the investigation considered. You can't wish away fact that the plane flew several minutes after he bailed. Very hard for us to know it's complex.. We Can only guess

Losing all instruments with no visibility is still ejectable even if he thought the engine was still running. He was disorientated and relying on his instruments, when flying under IFR (instrument flight rules) loss of instruments is tantamount to loss of control. The likely outcome in those situations is controlled flight into terrain at 350+mph. With low altitude being an aggravating factor he was always 100% corre…

Yes 750m doesn't give much room for errors or time

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

#127

Post by XorNot »

guappa wrote: post #95
XorNot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is both bad but also being heavily misreported: the US can't shutdown hardware remotely, but loss of access to proprietary software effectively disables critical functionality which can effectively render a platform useless. Up till now, there was no demonstrated risk of this happening - but that's a broken trust which won't be repaired for generations, if ever.

> the US can't shutdown hardware remotely And you know this because you've personally audited those planes?

If people are going to declare there's definitely a kill switch, then the burdens on them to provide proof.

The story being reported as a "kill switch" does not include this capability existing or being used.

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

#128

Post by jajko »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #103
guappa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well unless we in Europe want to do in direct conflict with US (ie for Greenland), this is mostly irrelevant extra capability. As Ukraine shows, peer conflicts are won by other means, not stealth air superiority over sheep herders with AKs.

Some general's wet dream of dogfights in Maverick's style are modern day fantasies. What those planes are used for are just lobbing glide bombs or shooting missiles. Their biggest enemy is on ground. Sure, small radar signature helps massively but that's not enough. Otherwise US would send 500 F-35 into North korean airspace and wipe out most of its military... not going to happen.

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

#129

Post by petre »

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…

As I have said before: the pilot is alive instead of deceased so it was a good decision.

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

#130

Post by guappa »

XorNot wrote: post #127
guappa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US can't shutdown hardware remotely And you know this because you've personally audited those planes?

If people are going to declare there's definitely a kill switch, then the burdens on them to provide proof. The story being reported as a "kill switch" does not include this capability existing or being used.

I think they're saying there might be one, and we no longer trust the USA to believe there isn't one (and I can't really understand why we ever did, USA has been an unreliable ally even before trump).

You made the extraordinary claim that the USA has no kill switch. Where's the proof to your claim?

Post reply on HN