F-35 premature ejection? No pun intended.

[weaponoffreedom]

NBC news. Not that there any kind of bastion of truth to begin with

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-inverted-crash-eyewitnesses-say-rcna105794

I would not gig the pilot for flying inverted. Why not. That should have no bearing on the issue.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I would not gig the pilot for flying inverted. Why not. That should have no bearing on the issue.

Well either the pilot messed up, or the airplane failed. Either way, flying one upside down above a densely populated area sounds like taking more risks than needed, given only like 1% of our country is densely populated there are lots of other places to do such things. Assuming it was in fact inverted.

 

[Astro14]

Copy that, figured you would have good insight on the subject.

Would you say that the "older generation" aircraft such as the F14 or FA18 or F-16 or F-15 would have this same issue? Have you heard of this happening before? Either premature ejection by pilot or auto ejection by the aircraft?

Well, first, none of those airplanes had any sort of automatic system for ejection. In fact, this F 35B system is the first I’ve ever heard of .

The general tendency of pilots is to stay with the airplane, and “try to save it”. We had a lot of instances of people ejecting too late and ending up dead.

Ejection is not something to take lightly, there’s a high chance of injury.

At low speed, the initial charge will compress your spine under tremendous G. At high speed, you’re going to get hurt by the wind blast. Ejection was not recommended above 450 knots, and the NATOPS said injury was likely above 350. In reality, that’s true. The seat itself would survive above 450 knots, but you would not.

I know of a crew who ejected from a F-14 at 600 knots. The only trace of them that was ever found was the scrape of a boot on the tail of the plane. Years later, a crew ejected at that speed, and did not survive, though their bodies were found.

All that to say, that we were not predisposed to ejecting. I’ve got a good friend who ejected twice from an F 14.

The first time, they had an engine failure. The turbine blades ruptured fuel cells, and the flew that airplane with visible flames coming out of it for over 50 miles before they lost control, and then, and only then, did they eject.

 

[y_p_w]

View attachment 179887

Nah - I can't say it. Really. It was hard to find a GIF of this without some caption of the magic word that can get me in trouble on BITOG. And I had to change it from a hotlink to an upload because the link had the magic word.

 

[y_p_w]

Well, first, none of those airplanes had any sort of automatic system for ejection. In fact, this F 35B system is the first I’ve ever heard of .

The general tendency of pilots is to stay with the airplane, and “try to save it”. We had a lot of instances of people ejecting too late and ending up dead.

Ejection is not something to take lightly, there’s a high chance of injury.

At low speed, the initial charge will compress your spine under tremendous G. At high speed, you’re going to get hurt by the wind blast. Ejection was not recommended above 450 knots, and the NATOPS said injury was likely above 350. In reality, that’s true. The seat itself would survive above 450 knots, but you would not.

I know of a crew who ejected from a F-14 at 600 knots. The only trace of them that was ever found was the scrape of a boot on the tail of the plane. Years later, a crew ejected at that speed, and did not survive, though their bodies were found.

All that to say, that we were not predisposed to ejecting. I’ve got a good friend who ejected twice from an F 14.

The first time, they had an engine failure. The turbine blades ruptured fuel cells, and the flew that airplane with visible flames coming out of it for over 50 miles before they lost control, and then, and only then, did they eject.

There was that F-35B that bounced on landing during a flight test in Forth Worth. I found it interesting that they have no issue doing all this stuff in plain sight right next to a public road.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pilot-ejects-from-f-35-at-fort-worth-joint-reserve-base/3149776/

This video bleeps out the salty language from the guy taking the video.

 

[97K15004WD]

I would not gig the pilot for flying inverted. Why not. That should have no bearing on the issue.

That article makes no sense. They said they saw the canopy and the aircraft was inverted. This was over Williamsburg county. The pilot had long since ejected so there would be no canopy. I wonder if they saw the “false“ canopy painted on the bottom

 

[weaponoffreedom]

That article makes no sense. They said they saw the canopy and the aircraft was inverted. This was over Williamsburg county. The pilot had long since ejected so there would be no canopy. I wonder if they saw the “false“ canopy painted on the bottom

No clue. of course the pilot could have been in it when inverted?

 

[weaponoffreedom]

There was that F-35B that bounced on landing during a flight test in Forth Worth. I found it interesting that they have no issue doing all this stuff in plain sight right next to a public road.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pilot-ejects-from-f-35-at-fort-worth-joint-reserve-base/3149776/

This video bleeps out the salty language from the guy taking the video.

Kind of looks like what @Astro14 was talking about. We sure aint going to win no wars with that piece of junk. What a waste.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Kind of looks like what @Astro14 was talking about. We sure aint going to win no wars with that piece of junk. What a waste.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Well, first, none of those airplanes had any sort of automatic system for ejection.

Do you think it is a good idea?

In fact, this F 35B system is the first I’ve ever heard of .

Does not surprise me. You think they ought to delete that system? I am assuming that there is a SOP for "preejection" such as "tighten your neck or core muscles", look straight, pray, or something like that. Further assumption would be that if this auto ejection system was needed and or worked like it should (whereas perhaps the pilot would not have time to react) it could cause more damage to the pilot. It would be an intersting experience to be just flying around no problem, minding your own business, comparing yourself and your navigator to Maverick and Goose.............then bam, thrown out. Am I on the right track, or do you reckon it would be better to be surpised, like a drunk driver?

Ejection is not something to take lightly, there’s a high chance of injury.

I have jumped from slightly over 300 and it was not comfortable.

 

[IndyFan]

Kind of looks like what @Astro14 was talking about. We sure aint going to win no wars with that piece of junk. What a waste.

I heard from an F-16 pilot who said if you did 10 fights against the F-35, with no holds barred, he'd be declared dead in all 10 and would be clueless as to where the F-35 was and how he was killed until the debrief.

I'm sure all the allies who are tripping over each other to buy the F-35 have seen some data that shows what it can do. Even the Canadians, after all the political grandstanding, are coming right back to it. Hmmmm. I wonder why?

 

[97K15004WD]

No clue. of course the pilot could have been in it when inverted?

"It was probably three quarters of the way," added her husband, Stephen Truluck, as he gestured with his hand. "We could see the canopy" of the plane.

They didn't think much of it at the time, they said, because Shaw Air Force Base is about 60 miles away. But after learning an F-35 fighter jet had gone missing — and that a debris field was found Monday just miles from their home in rural Williamsburg County"

They saw it in Williamsburg county according to the article. The pilot ejected in Charleston, a very long way from the crash site.

 

[MSCH]

I heard from an F-16 pilot who said if you did 10 fights against the F-35, with no holds barred, he'd be declared dead in all 10 and would be clueless as to where the F-35 was and how he was killed until the debrief.

I'm sure all the allies who are tripping over each other to buy the F-35 have seen some data that shows what it can do. Even the Canadians, after all the political grandstanding, are coming right back to it. Hmmmm. I wonder why?

its not like they have multiple choices to change their mind or the ability to back out.. like some other weapons program's, 3 branches of the military and the political industrial complex made up their mind this is the one... and they are about 20 years into the idea, good or bad that is probably going to be in use for 100..

next air war will be mostly fought with drones and missiles.

 

[97K15004WD]

its not like they have multiple choices to change their mind or the ability to back out.. like some other weapons program's, 3 branches of the military and the political industrial complex made up their mind this is the one... and they are about 20 years into the idea, good or bad that is probably going to be in use for 100..

next air war will be mostly fought with drones and missiles.

The F-4 was the same. Some of the first iterations had no guns, as it was deemed guns were no longer needed with missiles available.

IMO, aircraft designed for specific missions always seem to perform better than aircraft "adapted" to a mission.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

If tech is the big driver, i say use drones. They have do endurance limit like human drivers, and the drone would cost less in theory as there has no cockpit.

this of course cheapens warfare, but that is another conversation

sorry @Astro14

pilots, it seems are obsolete? or will be?

 

[y_p_w]

If tech is the big driver, i say use drones. They have do endurance limit like human drivers, and the drone would cost less in theory as there has no cockpit.

this of course cheapens warfare, but that is another conversation

sorry @Astro14

pilots, it seems are obsolete? or will be?

Isn’t the primary mission for aircraft blowing up stuff on the ground, and everything else is in support of that? That can be done with cruise missiles or other assorted long range weapons.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Isn’t the primary mission for aircraft blowing up stuff on the ground, and everything else is in support of that? That can be done with cruise missiles or other assorted long range weapons.

Yes, in conventional warfare, every plane, tank, ship, sub, missile, drone, bean, bullet, etc, is in support of the infantryman on the ground in truth.

No, over the horizon technology cannot replace a continuous presence in the air by a pilot, especially in conventional warfare, in my opinion.

 

[DuckRyder]

Fascinating stuff...

I would never have guessed this thing had vertical takeoff and landing capability (not that i keep up with such things) much less an automatic ejection seat...

I think as a general rule I would prefer to be the one to decide when to abandon ship, even if it was possible that i might not be able to decide fast enough.

 

[y_p_w]

Fascinating stuff...

I would never have guessed this thing had vertical takeoff and landing capability (not that i keep up with such things) much less an automatic ejection seat...

I think as a general rule I would prefer to be the one to decide when to abandon ship, even if it was possible that i might not be able to decide fast enough.

The US Marine Corps wanted something to be able to be used on amphibious assault ships, which are operated by the US Navy. The USMC is also using the F-35C version that the US Navy operates, where they serve rotations on conventional aircraft carriers.

This was part of the Joint Strike Fighter program, where the entries were the X-35 from Lockheed-Martin and the X-32 from Boeing. The requirement was for a (primarily) Air Force version (which became the F-35A), a short/vertical take off and landing version which became the F-35B, and a naval version with beefier landing gear, a stronger tail hook, and foldable wings, which became the F-35C. The naval version is also bigger, where the larger wings have better lift to help with carrier takeoffs. Also - several of the customers for the F-35B are air forces that wanted the ability to operate in poor environments where airfields might be damaged or unavailable.

There were many criticisms that this was a weird set of requirements for a more or less common airframe with variations for these disparate purposes. With the prototypes, Lockheed Martin used a lift fan, which was just a fan that was driven by a shaft coming from the engine, while Boeing had vectored thrust nozzles like the AV-8B Harrier, which they had experience from the former McDonnell-Douglas (merged with Boeing).

Some feel that Boeing had a better solution, although their demonstration for the short/vertical takeoff version wasn't ready where it could do vertical and conventional operations. It had to be modified by ground crew, although they were claiming that they would have that worked out in production versions where switching modes would be automated. Another issue was that it didn't look cool. Some called it "The Flying Guppy".

Here's what it looked like from above.

Boeing had some renditions of what the production version would look like, and it was less chunky. That being said, a lot of people have names for the F-35 that are less than flattering.