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

1–10 of 213 posts

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

#2

Post by YZF »

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads.

Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

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

#6

Post by jyunwai »

YZF wrote: post #2

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads. Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

Past discussion from November 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475

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

#8

Post by avidiax »

YZF wrote: post #2

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads. Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

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 deliver the F-47 in a similar fashion.

At the same time, you send a message: eject when your plane is misbehaving and you'll end your career. Sure, there's a risk that someone won't eject when they should, but there's also a chance that you'll be able to cover up another malfunction when the pilot nurses the plane back to base.

Did Pizzo say anything disparaging about the F-35? I doubt it. But when you've got billions of dollars of revenue/potential embarrassment on the line, you don't take chances.

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

#9

Post by JumpCrisscross »

avidiax wrote: post #8
YZF wrote: post #2

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads. Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

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…

> 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.

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

#10

Post by makeitdouble »

jyunwai wrote: post #6
YZF wrote: post #2

I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads. Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

Past discussion from November 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42098475

Going through the past threads, a lot of comments are about how the backup instruments were still on and functioning, while in this article he's said to have 0 visibility and no idea what is still accurately working and what is not, with no possible communication and the HUD rebooting 3 times before going dark..

Did more information come up during the time period ?

Either way, asking a pilot to not bail out in these circumstances sounds crazy.

Post reply on HN