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

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81

Post by ashoeafoot »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #73
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

The F-35 was designed for export. The F-22 wasn’t and I suspect the F-47 is not either. There are different objectives at work here. The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.

What european companies built the F35? Especially what part of the software is from Europe ?

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

#82

Post by jiggawatts »

pjmlp wrote: post #15
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

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 same compute power as a first-gen Apple Watch… starting this year and finishing who-knows-when.

Meanwhile the F-16 which is “not as important” has already been upgraded with the same kind of chips as modern GPUs and has orders of magnitude more performance than the “flying computer” the the F-35 was supposed to be.

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.

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

#83

Post by lloeki »

maxglute wrote: post #29
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…

IIRC he had no visibility so he couldn't test controls with eyeballs, can only assume out-of-control-flight scenario. Backup instruments said he was below 6000ft above ground level, aka trust instrument = potential for single digit seconds from hitting ground, and supposedly the F35 manual states ejection is the only option under those conditions.

It started at 750ft

> Observe, orient: Jet still in the clouds, about 750 feet above ground, still in his control, descending glide path, about 800 feet per minute

Then brokenness again

> About 30 seconds had passed.

By then he might have been gliding halfway towards terrain.

> He felt the nose of the aircraft tilt upward. He felt a falling sensation.

Subtext is that this feels like stalling with only a few hundred feet and a few seconds left. There's no room to recover control surface.

There's only so much you can read in so little time with fallback instruments. Airspeed means squat, climb rate can be unreliable.

> Forty-one seconds.

Next loop is going to be either nothing happened or ground contact. What to you do.

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

#84

Post by Aeolun »

atmosx wrote: post #49
Aeolun wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bizzare to think that high command in the US is that shortsighted.

True. However, did you notice the emojis used in relation to the leaked Huthi attack? It’s difficult to place confidence in individuals wielding significant power when they conduct themselves like adolescents.

I can hardly blame them for that when my own communication is full of emojis. I mean, I blame them for literally everything else, but not that.

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

#85

Post by xlii »

whatever1 wrote: post #63

I mean if the air force is so uncomfortable with soldiers surviving while the $150M gadget bursts into flames, why do they even request for an ejection function in the aircrafts?

Good PR I guess? Highest level specialists have demands. I fail to see how top pilots would agree to sit in suicide machines.

Article mention 1/10 critical failure rate (injuries or worse). I wonder how much of a push is made in this direction?

Given (implied in article) sentiment I wouldn’t be very surprised if stakeholders wouldn’t want ejection to be too safe.

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

#86

Post by mcv »

atmosx wrote: post #45
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail" Allies cancelling orders may force Washington’s hand: the cost of additional jets, parts, et cerera skyrocket if spread over fewer planes.

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.

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

#87

Post by gorgoiler »

atmosx wrote: post #49
Aeolun wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s bizzare to think that high command in the US is that shortsighted.

True. However, did you notice the emojis used in relation to the leaked Huthi attack? It’s difficult to place confidence in individuals wielding significant power when they conduct themselves like adolescents.

This doesn’t feel fair. The standards we have for how elected officials conduct themselves is very different from what we expect from non-political career civil servants, General Officers, and the like.

At our most charitable, we ought to recognize that in a democracy elected officials are plucked from the ranks of the general public. The qualifications for office are that you are the most popular person in the room, not the smartest, or the most professional.

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

#88

Post by blobbers »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #73
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

The F-35 was designed for export. The F-22 wasn’t and I suspect the F-47 is not either. There are different objectives at work here. The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.

This is a really interesting 'first thought'. "Designed for export"

Not the typical mindset of someone wanting true superiority through military power. Makes you think twice.

The F35 is expensive, keeps the defense apparatus going, and ultimately gets paid for by other countries. F22 barely reached production, so F47 will be interesting.

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

#89

Post by tzs »

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,…

> He was a test pilot who was later given command of a group responsible for that textbook. It sounds like he's not supposed to just follow the textbook; he's supposed to know when the textbook is too vague, and dig deeper.

Isn’t that only for test flights?

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

#90

Post by guappa »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #73
avidiax wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general. So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to delive…

The F-35 was designed for export. The F-22 wasn’t and I suspect the F-47 is not either. There are different objectives at work here. The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.

I think at large european industry has more stake in F-35 not being bought, and local planes be used instead.
Post reply on HN