Marine pilot loses command after ejecting from F-35B that kept flying • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by jalla » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:33 PM UTC

Hilift wrote: post #295

acyou wrote: post #228

If you're familiar with USA military history, the Americans are (were) famous for not doing things by the book for the right reasons, and letting common sense prevail, as well as incentivizing good outcomes. “A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.” “The reason that the American Navy does so well…

That quote was Russian observations on their securing valuable technical information, but lamenting on their inability to overcome their capability gap through spying due to changes in tactics of their "main adversary". In WW2, a major factor for the US Naval success in the Pacific was a change in attack doctrine. Aircraft would attack relentlessly from multiple directions, overwhelming the Japanese defenses. In the…

The major factor in winning the Pacific battles was code breaking the Japanese communications. Doctrine doesn't matter when you know what the enemy is doing or planning.

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

#372

Post by cmrdporcupine » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #352

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It works the exact opposite way. People from totalitarian shitholes improvise a lot more than people from functioning democracies (because they have to improvise to survive daily life). And they trust their state and follow the rules a lot less (and for a good reason - their state exploits and lies to them to a degree you can't imagine living in a free country). USA wouldn't send its army to Mexico with 12 hours of f…

You nailed it.

Lack of social solidarity and communal trust has got to be a kiss of death in wartime. Especially when fighting against an opponent who has it in spades. (US in Vietnam, Russia in early days of the war in Ukraine, etc.).

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

#373

Post by kjellsbells » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

victorbjorklund wrote: post #263

acyou wrote: post #228

If you're familiar with USA military history, the Americans are (were) famous for not doing things by the book for the right reasons, and letting common sense prevail, as well as incentivizing good outcomes. “A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.” “The reason that the American Navy does so well…

US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2. It might be true. But we probably shouldnt extrapolate from bombing terrorists in the desert to actually fighting against say China.

I imagine this is one reason why the current Ukrainian war is so interesting to belligerents other than the Ukrainians themselves. The US is taking copious notes on what modern land wars could look like, how drones can and can't be used in place of conventional air cover, etc. Ditto the other side, eg the North Koreans.

One might say, crudely, that US military superiority is based on an overwhelming advantage in materiel, plus troops skilled in the use of advanced weaponry (so that one soldier has the impact of 10, say).

That might work in large scale massed battle against a mid range opponent, but is untested against a true industrial peer like China, and has been shown not to work especially well against highly dispersed, low tech adversaries such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

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

#374

Post by crazygringo » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #92

tzs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ejection was months before he got the role at VMX-1. Even if it had been after he got the role I'm not sure it should matter. I'd expect validating and updating "the book" to be a carefully planned and methodical activity, with alternate approaches tested during simulated failure or failures induced under controlled conditions. Would they really expect a pilot who encounters a failure not under such conditions to…

From the article: "Del Pizzo’s “decision to eject was ultimately inappropriate, because commanded flight inputs were in-progress at the time of ejection, standby flight instrumentation was providing accurate data, and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional. Furthermore, the aircraft continued to fly for an extended period after ejection.”" He lost contact with the tower and his wingman, and did…

> * and the [jet’s] backup radio was, at least partially, functional*

What does "at least partially functional" even mean?

Either a radio lets you communicate on the frequency you need or it doesn't.

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

#375

Post by close04 » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:54 PM UTC

the5avage wrote: post #332

close04 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the report said its standby flight display and backup communication system “remained basically functional.” Just to be clear, the pilot had the backup instruments available and functional, and the plane could be substantially controlled (i.e. could be pointed in the pilot's desired direction). People are using feelings rather than facts to judge this pilot. So they do it differently then they would for example a po…

He didn't kill someone. He bailed out of a malfunctioning plane with little time to decide. If his plane went towards the ground with mach 1 at 1900 feet impact would occur in 1.5 seconds.

> He didn't kill someone.

The pilot left that to chance and chance made it that nobody was killed. At the very least you can recognize this was a failure of the pilot especially when the plane was realistically flyable, and backup instruments were available, in line with his training. In line with that overly broad definition of "uncontrolled flight" he ignored the backup instruments and punched out before attempting alternatives.

> a malfunctioning plane

The report called the aircraft flyable. The manual being overly broad on what's an "out-of-controlled flight" means he was not derelict in his duties but ejecting from a flyable aircraft (and leaving it to crash at the whims of randomness) was a mistake.

> If his plane went towards the ground with mach 1 at 1900 feet impact would occur in 1.5 seconds

But it wasn't, he wasn't in the middle of the crash, some instruments malfunctioned, the backups were working (they're there to be used in case the primary fails or else the designers would have bothered to put backups). The plane flew another 64 miles which took substantially more than 1.5s.

The "well technically" argument works less as the stakes go higher, and even less when dealing with a squadron commander. The plane flew, the instruments worked, and the pilots are trained for this. The report recognizes this.

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

#376

Post by xeonmc » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:57 PM UTC

ayewo wrote: post #290

fragmede wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

64 miles sounds quite far, and I've gone quite fast on my motorcycle, but the top speed of the F-35B (that they tell us) is 1,200 mph. At that speed that's just over 3 minutes.

From the article: > The jet had flown for 11 minutes and 21 seconds after Del Pizzo’s ejection, slowly climbing as high as 9,300 feet. After about 11 minutes, the report said, the jet banked down and started descending to its right, clipping the treetops of a forest along the way before crashing. The report said no one was injured by the crash, but it did damage several trees and crops. The $100 million jet was shred…

To shreds you say? Well how were the trees? To shreds you say?

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

#377

Post by close04 » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 1:59 PM UTC

the5avage wrote: post #256

UltraSane wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the plane was able to fly over 60 miles after he ejected kinda proves that ejecting wasn't really needed.

But it doesn't proof that it was possible for the pilot to know this.

Which is why he still has the job as a pilot. He followed an overly broad procedure so wasn't derelict in his duties but ejecting from a flyable plane was considered a mistake. He was a squadron commander so the expectation of assessing a situation even under pressure and with limited information is a lot stronger.

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

#378

Post by rightbyte » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 2:01 PM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #365

rightbyte wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cuts both ways. Personally I wouldn't want to be led by someone that rather hit the ground in a ball of fire than risk the embarrassment of ejecting. A pilot that eject has at least shown that he has the balls to lose... Fighter jets fall out of the sky quite often. I don't get why it suddenly is such a big deal with F35. It seems like some hardware fanboyism.

That is from your point of view. Perhaps the military point of view is they would rather have a leader who takes more risky action and attempts to win the fight for the team rather than one who only prioritizes their personal survival.

Sure. But it is a trade off.

I guess it is somewhat futile to reason about the pilot since we don't really know how bad the situation appeared to him. Like, we don't know where he is on the scale, except that we know he is not suicidal.

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

#379

Post by aceofspades19 » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

gm3dmo wrote: post #266

nradov wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little too late for that. The JSF program probably should have been cancelled or completely restructured circa 1996. But now there's no remaining alternative. The inventory of legacy AV-8, F-16, and A-10 aircraft are going to be retired no matter what because they're literally falling apart and it's impossible to keep extending their service lives.

> and it's impossible to keep extending their service lives. B52 projected to last till 2050

B-52s aren't subject to the same stress as fighter aircraft are, that's why they are able to keep flying for so long (among other reasons).

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

#380

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Nov 12, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

elashri wrote: post #345

cdot2 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US air force fought significant enemy air forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and in the Balkans. Their doctrine has not remained untested since 1945.

The closest wars are the Iraqi and Balkans ware. For the first the vast majority of Iraq air force were destroyed on the ground or fled to neighboring countries, there were rarely any meaningful air to air fights. For Balkans, there were minimal air activities for Serbian air force. They were up against NATO (not only US) and all of the little opposition they had were using air defence systems which managed to down a…

Huh? The US was essentially fighting the Soviets in Korea and Vietnam. It was a contentious, significant conflict.

Vietnam in particular saw the cost of allowing the SAC/bomber mafia from dominating strategy. The Soviet and Vietnamese pilots were pretty badly mauling the US Air Force and Navy, whose armament and tactics were built around bomber interception.