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

141–150 of 213 posts

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

#141

Post by dgroshev »

jajko wrote: post #128
jandrewrogers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> As Ukraine shows, peer conflicts are won by other means, not stealth air superiority

I don't think you can conclude that when neither of the belligerents has the capability. As Gulf War shows, training and capabilities (including stealth) do enable SEAD/DEAD to an extent that unlocks air superiority.

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

#142

Post by watwut »

yaro330 wrote: post #133
Sabinus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just please don't take it as a documentary. It's a disservice to the people that actually worked at the plant that day and portrays them as arrogant fools, which none of them actually were. That Chernobyl Guy on YouTube did great breakdowns.

The actual guy in charge was actually not qualified and a fool tho. Afaik, arrogant too. So, "none of them actually were" is not true.

The rest of them are shown as afraid, questioning until they feel like they cant, then understanding what is happening but being helpless.

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

#143

Post by exe34 »

daemoens wrote: post #34
pjmlp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only happening thanks to the way US view on the world has changed, and the remote kill switch used against Ukrainian jets. US has killed the allies trust. Had these two events not happened, and most likely sales would not have been cancelled regardless of the F-35 issues.

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.

A system that has to call home to work and is no longer being replied to is by any functional definition under a kill switch. The orange buffoon pushed a switch in Amerikka Oblast and the weapon can no longer defend itself.

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

#144

Post by exe34 »

jajko wrote: post #121
libertine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> next armament purchase by Europe

Or buy European.

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

#145

Post by Gud »

jajko wrote: post #121
libertine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

The smart European nations didn’t buy the F-35 to begin with.

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

#146

Post by rcakebread »

kopirgan wrote: post #126
jpgvm wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It was 750 feet, not meters. So much less room.

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

#147

Post by libertine »

jajko wrote: post #121
libertine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> Or why Europeans didn't insist to get same version (probably no leverage).

I don't think it was a matter of leverage, but more of a blind trust in US Institutions, and denying the reality of their collapse.

No one would have believed at any point in the last 80 years that the US would be threatening to invade and annex Canada or Greenland, all while having a group of protected billionaires promoting the collapse of the European Union, the rise of nazism and the protection of a Russian autocratic regime.

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

#148

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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.

The F-35 was sold to us as an important multi billion business deal, with lots of European companies being promised to be subcontractors or technology partners; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... has a good overview of how much was involved. Basically, you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours kind of deal.

In hindsight, the project was (as expected) over budget etc. I wish our government(s) had given that money to European fighter jets instead. There's a chance the US will remote disable the jets that have been put into service now, or withold service / spare parts.

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

#149

Post by dgroshev »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #99

$2 trillion to develop something that can't even dependably fly and the Pentagon can't even pass an audit. What a joke.

$2t is the price tag of the entire program [1], from its conception to the jets retiring decades from now (note that programs tend to get extended, so the retirement year is probably too pessimistic). For comparison, the US is still producing F-16s, with the first F-16 produced in 1976.

F-35s has a much lower crash rate than F-16s during their first 20 years in service [2] and just recently passed 1 million flight hours [3]. The program has its problems, but it resulted in an incredibly capable fighter plane. Practically every US ally that has access to the F-35 run their evaluations and concluded that the F-35 is the best option (eg [4], quote: "F-35A offers highest overall benefit at lowest cost by far").

[1]: https://www.gao.gov/blog/f-35-will-now-exceed-2-trillion-mil...

[2]: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/are-new-fighter-jets-more...

[3]: https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/04/f-35-one-million-fligh...

[4]: https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releas...

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

#150

Post by bjornsing »

kelnos wrote: post #19

This was discussed four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475 From my memory at the time, I was initially fully on the side of the pilot, but after reading through the discussion, I wasn't really sure anymore. He didn't try to see if his flight controls (pitch, yaw, roll) were still responding, he didn't make use of the backup instruments, he didn't try the backup radio, and he had enough fuel to…

Personally I think the risk he exposed others to gets too little attention. That jet could have come down anywhere. I can understand it’s a nerve wrecking situation and that ejecting is a likely outcome in any event, so “sooner rather than later” might feel like the better option. But sending the jet off as a cruise missile could have been avoided.
Post reply on HN