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

161–170 of 213 posts

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

#161

Post by guappa »

dgroshev wrote: post #160
guappa wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're not aware that this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid... USA has air superiority only against 3rd world countries, and even then, history shows that air superiority has never won any war.

I don't understand what that link is supposed to prove. A single F-117A getting shot down in Yugoslavia due to complacency and chance doesn't negate Nighthawks bombing SAM defended areas with impunity. Iraq had a strong and integrated AD network for the time. Air superiority alone doesn't, but it's a massive force multiplier.

I sent a link about Iran, you comment about Jugoslavia.

You don't have to read my link, but you can also skip on making completely unrelated comments if you don't feel like doing the reading.

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

#162

Post by computerfriend »

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 people wanted the opium.

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

#163

Post by FpUser »

jiggawatts wrote: post #82
pjmlp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically every time someone proudly assert the existence of F-35 C++ coding standard [0], I am not sure if they actually understand the impact. The software mess from F-35 would it be even worse without the standard, or has the existence of the standard hardly improved the coding practices as usually gets told. Not that the answer to this philosophical question solves the issues for everyone affected by the F-35 so…

One fun thing about “too big” projects like the F-35 is that the project management overheads cause a kind of recursive overhead, like the rocket equation, but applied to technical outcomes instead of orbital velocity. Any change isn’t “just” the change, it now has to got through review boards, subcontractors, liaisons, integration reviews, etc… The result is that the F-35 computers are being “upgraded” (lol) to the…

>"Weep for the poor C++ developers forced to shoehorn modern software into a computer that isn’t yet as powerful as a battery-powered consumer device most people have upgraded three times already."

You might be surprised by what kind of functionality can be squeezed out of "weak" CPU when programmers know how to work on hardware with limited resources.

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

#164

Post by chopin »

rob74 wrote: post #156
TomK32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, that's the crux of the issue: apparently the aircraft still did respond properly to pilot inputs. Of course, it's totally understandable to get spooked by all the electronics failing and decide to rather bail out than bet on the plane still being flyable, but if you go by the book, he shouldn't have ejected...

You can't know whether the plane responds correctly to your inputs under instrument conditions when you can't trust the instruments.

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

#165

Post by atmosx »

Propelloni wrote: post #102
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…

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…

> 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.

“Good” and “evil” are moral constructs that haven’t played a meaningful role in documented geopolitics since at least the 4th century BC.

There’s a well-known quote often attributed to Hastings Ismay that captures NATO’s original purpose. I won’t paste it here as it might come off as a bit harsh, and I’m not trying to drag this discussion out further.

> That's a fantasy, unless you think Germany is occupied by the USA. But that's not the case.

Circling back to Germany—I honestly can't think of a more humiliating moment for any NATO member than this[^1]. Sure, Mr. Biden was more aesthetically pleasing than Mr. Trump but take a moment to consider the symbolism and the signals sent to ally nations. Regardless of media narratives, the events of September 26, 2022, marked a turning point that fundamentally altered Germany’s economic path and future. It was a hostile act on a massive scale, and its consequences are undeniably real for the country.

[^1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8

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

#166

Post by glimshe »

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…

I do hate the long form filler. Are there a lot of people that will only consume information if there is a huge article around it? I'm not saying I like tldr either, but there's an optimal middle ground somewhere.

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

#167

Post by dgroshev »

guappa wrote: post #161
dgroshev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what that link is supposed to prove. A single F-117A getting shot down in Yugoslavia due to complacency and chance doesn't negate Nighthawks bombing SAM defended areas with impunity. Iraq had a strong and integrated AD network for the time. Air superiority alone doesn't, but it's a massive force multiplier.

I sent a link about Iran, you comment about Jugoslavia. You don't have to read my link, but you can also skip on making completely unrelated comments if you don't feel like doing the reading.

I read it and I know about that case. However, as I said I'm struggling to see your point.

I guessed you meant that that one case proves something about air superiority or Iran having an advantage over USAF, so I responded with a historical parallel.

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

#168

Post by MaKey »

kelnos wrote: post #50
bradgranath wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much, much less than a minute. Usually less than ten seconds. Planes most commonly crash during takeoff and landing (why they turn on the seatbelt sign below 10000ft). The FAA tries to make sure that approach lanes are mostly clear, but they can't plan for every scenario. In this case the pilot knew that last time he checked, he was less than a thousand feet off the ground and descending in a plane that was out…

He's supposed to spend the next 5 seconds actually testing the flight controls to see what's working and what isn't. He's supposed to look at the backup instruments to see what his status is. He's supposed to try the backup radio to see if someone outside can help him figure out his status. Instead, he switched the flight mode from STOL to forward flight, misinterpreted the result of that as his engine spooling down,…

> I'm not a pilot, and I can't fathom what being in that situation would have been like.

In IFR conditions (= you can't see anything) losing your instruments means you're hosed as you can't trust your senses.

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

#169

Post by jiggawatts »

FpUser wrote: post #163
jiggawatts wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fun thing about “too big” projects like the F-35 is that the project management overheads cause a kind of recursive overhead, like the rocket equation, but applied to technical outcomes instead of orbital velocity. Any change isn’t “just” the change, it now has to got through review boards, subcontractors, liaisons, integration reviews, etc… The result is that the F-35 computers are being “upgraded” (lol) to the…

>"Weep for the poor C++ developers forced to shoehorn modern software into a computer that isn’t yet as powerful as a battery-powered consumer device most people have upgraded three times already." You might be surprised by what kind of functionality can be squeezed out of "weak" CPU when programmers know how to work on hardware with limited resources.

Having written 4KB assembly demos for BBS sites back in the 80s and 90s, I would not be surprised at all.

What does surprise me is a $110M plane that is being upgraded at the low-low-cost of a mere $300K each to this: https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/high-performance-i...

Yes, that "High-Performance Integrated Core Processor" is pulling 4.5 kW to produce as much computer power as a typical PC in the late 1990s!

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

#170

Post by stogot »

stevage wrote: post #46
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…

I feel like in previous reporting I'd seen suggestions that the other pilots had lost confidence in him, and that you couldn't be the leader of a squadron if any of the pilots had any doubts. This story seems to completely discount any "lost confidence" as a made up story.

It seemed only to be one commandant that said he was “at fault” (in complete disregard to the other two investigations and stellar reviews to his two bosses).

Simplest reason: that commandant had a vendetta against him

Post reply on HN