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

481–490 of 508 posts

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

#481

Post by sgjohnson »

timcobb wrote: post #410
Hilift wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my opinion, the Russians are quite tactically adaptive. The current war has seen tit-for-tat adaptation between both sides. The Russians don't/can't invest resources in not losing personnel. It's not a priority for them.

> In my opinion, the Russians are quite tactically adaptive.

But they aren't. They just added Iranian drones to their arsenal.

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

#482

Post by Ragnarork »

close04 wrote: post #322
cwillu wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Better to die than to look bad” is one of the more toxic sayings associated with military aviation.

Nothing in the incident report suggests the pilot's life was at any point in imminent danger, with the backup instruments functioning, and the plane being flyable. He "technically" did well to eject only because the manual was too vague. But at the very least "I could have done more but technically didn't have to" is not what you're looking for in a squadron commander. Which is why he's still allowed to fly (he follo…

There's a big difference between seeing the report in hindsight and being in that aircraft at that given time, having lost your HUD and electronics a couple times already, not ejected and carrying on for a while before deciding its probably too risky to continue operating the aicraft.

How would that pilot know for certain the aircraft was still flyable? That it technically was at that moment is absolutely not the point, and is only known retrospectively after analysis.

I unfortunately don't have anything to confirm that, but I wouldn't be surprised that the fact that it was an F35 didn't help that man's case, as in losing a cheaper piece of equipment would have been less impactful.

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

#483

Post by zaphirplane »

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…

> The reason that the American Navy does so well in wartime

Is not fighting a near peer since WWII 80 years ago, really hate using rubbish to prove a point

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

#484

Post by acyou »

During military conflict, preserving lives of valuable and highly trained personnel has been paramount for USA. With a huge amount of resources and manpower available to the US, effectively the entire western world, materiel is essentially replaceable but pilots and crew are extremely finite.

They can just make another plane. Yes, it's 100 million dollars. But when you print dollars and the entire western world serves to make these jets (2% of GDP), the pilots are going to be the limiting factor. I think every aspect of the plane's production can simply be fairly rapidly scaled up, except for the pilots and the forgings.

What also hurts is damaging the plane's reputation. That is costly beyond calculation.

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

#485

Post by Spooky23 »

josefresco wrote: post #427
Spooky23 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American military is world class in every respect, but its weakness the by design lack of integration with civil and intelligence functions. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. The anti-colonial movements in India, Ireland and other places underlines that. I think what Ukraine demonstrates is that we collectively don’t real…

> Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. Afghanistan was an evolution in American military strategy. Post 9/11 the Americans did what no one thought was possible - They (using the CIA and then JSOC) infiltrated Afghanistan secretly, forged alliances (bribed) with local militias/tribal leaders and within weeks had significantly deg…

Like what was said… world class military, strategy and tactics.

But… 20 years of grind. Asymmetric always wins.

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

#486

Post by sgjohnson »

nradov wrote: post #172
suid wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that flight controls are directly tied to thrust, because it would be the engine that also drives the hydraulic system.

It's like that even on passenger jets. If you lose both engines, you also lose hydraulics (aside from whatever little hydraulic pressure the ram air turbine provides). I would not expect there to be a ram air turbine on a fighter jet, which would mean complete engine failure = complete loss of hydraulics = complete loss of flight controls.

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

#487

Post by timcobb »

sgjohnson wrote: post #481
timcobb wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the Russians are quite tactically adaptive. The current war has seen tit-for-tat adaptation between both sides. The Russians don't/can't invest resources in not losing personnel. It's not a priority for them.

> In my opinion, the Russians are quite tactically adaptive. But they aren't. They just added Iranian drones to their arsenal.

The war evolves every day... Russia has upgraded those Iranian drones themselves many times, including just this week introducing a variant with a thermobaric warhead. There is a constant tit-for-tat with electronic warfare devices and drones, with armaments, with how radar stations positions are identified, the routes the drones take to uncover additional targets etc. The tactical play is pretty endless. I'm not sure how you would reduce it to "they bought some drones from Iran."

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

#488

Post by marcuskane2 »

kstrauser wrote: post #404
InDubioProRubio wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’ve never been through boot camp, huh. Such a person would have an unbelievably unpleasant time until: - The military sent them home, - They cracked and sent themselves home, or - They got over themselves and learned how to be part of the larger whole. Making it through with those edge opinions intact is not an option.

You should listen to interviews with special operations folks. Navy Seals, Green Berets, Delta Force, etc.

There is a strong culture of do what's needed to accomplish the mission. Even a "if you're not cheating, you're not trying" to many challenges.

HN has a curiously strong hatred of libertarians (although also professing to dislike authoritarians?) so it's not surprising the comment got downvoted though.

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

#490

Post by nradov »

sgjohnson wrote: post #486
nradov wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that flight controls are directly tied to thrust, because it would be the engine that also drives the hydraulic system. It's like that even on passenger jets. If you lose both engines, you also lose hydraulics (aside from whatever…

Nope. While it's true that the F-35 lacks a ram air turbine (RAT), it does have an auxiliary power unit (APU) that can power the flight controls, avionics, and electro-hydrostatic actuators as long as fuel remains. It also has a battery that can power critical systems for a few minutes when all else fails.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/e...

Post reply on HN