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

Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

marinecorpstimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 508 posts

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#171

Post by mmooss »

some_random wrote: post #85
mmooss wrote: post #77

Has this become a politicized, viral, ideology thing? I keep seeing this story pop up in several places, but it doesn't seem like its impact merits the attention. I'm not trolling and please don't bring the politics and ideology here. I am asking factually. (I'm here because I prefer to avoid those things and as a result can be ignorant of them.)

Hating the F-35 in general has been a thing for the Anti-American crowd, mainly driven by western peaceniks who don't see a point in military might (largely depleted now) and the pro-Russia/China/etc crowd who need it to be shit so their fighters can seem competent. As is usual the latter "inform" the former.

> Hating the F-35 in general has been a thing for the Anti-American crowd mainly driven by western peaceniks

I hadn't noticed that at all. Could you give some examples?

What I've seen is budget hawks on all sides, meme-following mobs, competing defense contractors, and anyone politician looking for an easy target of 'corruption', etc.

There are legitimate criticisms, including of the one-design-for-all concept, which we can see is not being repeated; sustainment issues, including maintenance; readiness; relevance in the era of missiles with longer range than F-35 fuel tanks, pushing bases and carriers out of range.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#172

Post by nradov »

suid wrote: post #170
acjohnson55 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a pilot, but a plane can be landed without propulsion.

Not these fighter planes. They literally need both the propulsion and an active flight computer to fly stably. Without the flight computer, they are uncontrollable. Think balancing a pencil on your finger - if your finger is immobilized or loses control, that pencil will fall almost immediately. The plane's controls are much more complex and unforgiving. And without propulsion, they are just flying rocks. No gliding.

No. As long as it has electrical power and the flight controls are working it can remain stable and glide even with a complete engine failure. Of course the glide ratio is fairly low but it's totally possible for a skilled pilot to make a dead stick landing provided there's a suitable site nearby with acceptable weather conditions.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#173

Post by njtransit »

caseyy wrote: post #167

This reminds me of how in the 18th century, captains in the Royal Navy wouldn't call to abandon ship because that would have career-ending consequences. So there were cases like HMS Tribune in 1797, where it is claimed that only 12 of the 240 seamen survived because the captain Scory Barker, even having ample time, was effectively prohibited from abandoning the vessel. Four survivors who escaped early were seen as mu…

Comparing going down with the ship to dying for a cause seems like a false equivalence. When a ship sinks, the outcome is more or less the same whether people are onboard or not: in either case the ship will sink. The only difference is whether or not the passengers / crew survive.

Fighting for a cause, on the other hand, generally requires that people sacrifice themselves. If no one is willing to die, then the fight is very unlikely to be successful. Being willing to die (and sometimes dying) has the ability meaningful change the outcome.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#174

Post by tzs »

WalterBright wrote: post #116

My dad was reprimanded for not following orders ejecting when the engine on his F-86 failed. He did the calculations and figured he could make the field, which he did. They said the pilot was far more valuable than the airplane.

Planes were cheaper then. I wonder if the higher costs of today's planes results in any pressure to try to save planes that in your dad's day would have been considered not worth the risk?

An F-86 ranged from $180-$580k in 1950 dollars, depending on the model. That's around $2.4-7.8 million now. That's quite a bit lower than the statistical value of human life that is currently used by the government for regulatory analysis, which is $13.1 million.

An F-35 is something like $80-$110 million. Even if we add the cost of training for the pilot, which Google tells me is $10.1 million for an F-35, to the statistical life value we only get $23.2 million which is only 21-29% of the cost of the plane.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#175

Post by Syonyk »

ahoka wrote: post #72
Syonyk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that when you make the call to get out, you don't know that. There's no shortage of "planes that can no longer maintain flight" according to all sorts of standards continuing to do so - a few that come to mind were a B-36 that had several engines fail and several others unable to make full rated power, was unable to hold altitude, and so the crew bailed out. The plane somehow managed another 200 m…

Just trim it out. Everything is a wing if you are fast enough.

Thrust to weight solves most known problems!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evJe_j_RQCQ

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#176

Post by [deleted] »

njtransit wrote: post #173
caseyy wrote: post #167

This reminds me of how in the 18th century, captains in the Royal Navy wouldn't call to abandon ship because that would have career-ending consequences. So there were cases like HMS Tribune in 1797, where it is claimed that only 12 of the 240 seamen survived because the captain Scory Barker, even having ample time, was effectively prohibited from abandoning the vessel. Four survivors who escaped early were seen as mu…

Comparing going down with the ship to dying for a cause seems like a false equivalence. When a ship sinks, the outcome is more or less the same whether people are onboard or not: in either case the ship will sink. The only difference is whether or not the passengers / crew survive. Fighting for a cause, on the other hand, generally requires that people sacrifice themselves. If no one is willing to die, then the fight…

[deleted]

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#177

Post by karaterobot »

So he'd lost the ability to see, the cockpit warnings were blaring, the flight manual says to eject in that situation, but he's supposed to trust the instrumentation and fly it anyway. He lost his command without technically doing anything wrong.

So glad I didn't join the military, and instead work in an industry where leadership doesn't make bad decisions oh wait.

Anyway, it's a good thing it's super easy to replace elite, highly decorated pilots oh wait.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#178

Post by treis »

mmooss wrote: post #166
cfcfcf wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being dysfunctional is a convenient stick for this crowd to beat it with, but I wouldn't discount the issues. The U.S.'s allies aren't exactly thrilled with it.

> The U.S.'s allies aren't exactly thrilled with it. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and the European countries prioritized defense, the F-35 seems to win every competitive bid.

Not any other realistic stealth options. China has the J-20 and Russia sort of has the SU-57 but that has seen limited production.

Re: Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying

#179

Post by Supermancho »

njtransit wrote: post #173
caseyy wrote: post #167

This reminds me of how in the 18th century, captains in the Royal Navy wouldn't call to abandon ship because that would have career-ending consequences. So there were cases like HMS Tribune in 1797, where it is claimed that only 12 of the 240 seamen survived because the captain Scory Barker, even having ample time, was effectively prohibited from abandoning the vessel. Four survivors who escaped early were seen as mu…

Comparing going down with the ship to dying for a cause seems like a false equivalence. When a ship sinks, the outcome is more or less the same whether people are onboard or not: in either case the ship will sink. The only difference is whether or not the passengers / crew survive. Fighting for a cause, on the other hand, generally requires that people sacrifice themselves. If no one is willing to die, then the fight…

> seems like a false equivalence. When a ship sinks,

It seems that way, but that's a subjective stance. This is during a time when ships were the armies of the time. It's not complicated to understand that 250 men were worth less than a ship for the purposes of late 1700s warfare. Dying for a sinking ship was a heroic thing, in that it was an attempt to hold on to an immense power for their country. How many untold millions have died to defend a parcel of land? The value of trying to save a ship is contextual, equating to defending your country, even in the face of insurmountable odds.

Post reply on HN