4 ms·

I’m surprised that a crashing F-35 wouldn’t generate enough fire and smoke to be easily detected.

by 542458 3y ago

josefresco 3y ago
Maybe not? This article references some examples of planes landing intact: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-after-pilot-ejected https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-aft...
- ikeashark 3y ago
  Planes like the F-22 are inherently aerodynamically unstable because it allows then to be highly maneuverable, The stability of the aircraft is handled by the electronics. So back then planes of the that type would be able to just glide down and land but with a F-22 or any modern military jet, it wouldn't.
gonzo41 3y ago
It could fly until it finds ocean, runs out of fuel and then darts in. My god think of the bill.
- kashunstva 3y ago
  If the plane is in trim (does the F35 even have manual trim?) and/or on autopilot, I can see a long glide to somewhere with a stable flight path, at least until the loss of thrust due to fuel exhaustion leads to an aerodynamic stall. But in of these circumstances, there would have been no need for the pilot to eject. Strange indeed.
  - giarc 3y ago
    It's the most advanced plane the military has. You would think that an eject would trigger some additional communications or allow remote control of the jet.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      "Remote control of jet" comes with fairly obvious adversarial risks the military likely wishes to avoid.
      - bpicolo 3y ago
        Drones?
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        We’ve had this trouble with them, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident No one wants to lose a B-2 or F-22 this way.
    - nradov 3y ago
      There is no remote control of manned tactical aircraft. That was never a requirement. The jet may have been transmitting it's position via civilian ADS-B or military data link. But those systems could have been switched off, or malfunctioned during the mishap.
    - _moof 3y ago
      Pilots don't eject from controllable aircraft. If the pilot ejected, remote control won't help.
  - gonzo41 3y ago
    I heard a story about an FA-18 where the pilot passed out, suffocated and died, and the jet just flew until it ran out gas and went down in the ocean. We know the JSF is a giant expensive computer. I wonder what code is in the exception block for when the plane is working but the pilot leaves. Maybe it does just try and gently crash somewhere. It's more surprising it didn't have some sort of phone home, become a drone, style fall back mechanism. I certainly think that'll be on the Jira board next sprint.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > We know the JSF is a giant expensive computer. I wonder what code is in the exception block for when the plane is working but the pilot leaves. Maybe it does just try and gently crash somewhere. I doubt there's an exception block for that. What if there's a fault and it triggers while the pilot is still in the plane? > It's more surprising it didn't have some sort of phone home, become a drone, style fall back mechanism. I certainly think that'll be on the Jira board next sprint. I doubt it. All of those ideas seem to have deal-breaker drawbacks in a military system. What if there's a fault and it "phones home" during a mission, breaking radio silence? What if an adversary figures out how to activate drone-mode, then hijacks and crashes the planes when they need to perform?
      - gonzo41 3y ago
        I think the Ukraine war and Russia's poor showing has proved that in some ways the west is overestimating the capabilities of it's enemies.
        tivert 3y ago
        > I think the Ukraine war and Russia's poor showing has proved that in some ways the west is overestimating the capabilities of it's enemies. That attitude is a recipe for overconfidence and failure, and is probably the biggest reason for Russia's poor showing in Ukraine. Also, from what I've read, electronic warfare is one of the areas where the Russians have shown strong capability. It's a mistake to misinterpret "sucks at some things" as "sucks at all things." Remember too that significant amounts detailed technical data for the F-35 have been stolen: https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-snowden-documents-reveal-chinese-behind-f-35-hack/ https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-snowden-documents-reveal...: > Last week, Der Spiegel published a new tranche of documents provided to the German weekly magazine by the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden. The documents are the first public confirmation that Chinese hackers have been able to extrapolate top secret data on the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jet. According to sources, the data breach already took place in 2007 at the prime subcontractor Lockheed Martin. A U.S. government official recently claimed that as of now, “classified F-35 information is protected and remains secure.” > ... > The Snowden files outline the scope of Chinese F-35 espionage efforts, which focused on acquiring the radar design (the number and types of modules), detailed engine schematics (methods for cooling gases, leading and trailing edge treatments, and aft deck heating contour maps) among other things. The document claims that many terabytes of data specific to the F-35 joint strike fighter program were stolen. When designing military aircraft, it makes sense to reduce attack surface and avoid implementing exploitable features to address unusual scenarios.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
If it flew until it ran out of fuel and then crashed the amount of fire and smoke would be significantly reduced.
jl6 3y ago
It sounds like they’re looking in lakes. Could have gone splash without leaving much trace on the surface.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I’m surprised that a crashing F-35 wouldn’t generate enough fire and smoke to be easily detected.

by 542458 3y ago

I’m surprised that a crashing F-35 wouldn’t generate enough fire and smoke to be easily detected.

Maybe not? This article references some examples of planes landing intact: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-after-pilot-ejected https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-aft...

ikeashark 3y ago
Planes like the F-22 are inherently aerodynamically unstable because it allows then to be highly maneuverable, The stability of the aircraft is handled by the electronics. So back then planes of the that type would be able to just glide down and land but with a F-22 or any modern military jet, it wouldn't.

gonzo41 3y ago

It could fly until it finds ocean, runs out of fuel and then darts in. My god think of the bill.

kashunstva 3y ago
If the plane is in trim (does the F35 even have manual trim?) and/or on autopilot, I can see a long glide to somewhere with a stable flight path, at least until the loss of thrust due to fuel exhaustion leads to an aerodynamic stall. But in of these circumstances, there would have been no need for the pilot to eject. Strange indeed.
- giarc 3y ago
  It's the most advanced plane the military has. You would think that an eject would trigger some additional communications or allow remote control of the jet.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    "Remote control of jet" comes with fairly obvious adversarial risks the military likely wishes to avoid.
    - bpicolo 3y ago
      Drones?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        We’ve had this trouble with them, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident No one wants to lose a B-2 or F-22 this way.
  - nradov 3y ago
    There is no remote control of manned tactical aircraft. That was never a requirement. The jet may have been transmitting it's position via civilian ADS-B or military data link. But those systems could have been switched off, or malfunctioned during the mishap.
  - _moof 3y ago
    Pilots don't eject from controllable aircraft. If the pilot ejected, remote control won't help.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  I heard a story about an FA-18 where the pilot passed out, suffocated and died, and the jet just flew until it ran out gas and went down in the ocean. We know the JSF is a giant expensive computer. I wonder what code is in the exception block for when the plane is working but the pilot leaves. Maybe it does just try and gently crash somewhere. It's more surprising it didn't have some sort of phone home, become a drone, style fall back mechanism. I certainly think that'll be on the Jira board next sprint.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > We know the JSF is a giant expensive computer. I wonder what code is in the exception block for when the plane is working but the pilot leaves. Maybe it does just try and gently crash somewhere. I doubt there's an exception block for that. What if there's a fault and it triggers while the pilot is still in the plane? > It's more surprising it didn't have some sort of phone home, become a drone, style fall back mechanism. I certainly think that'll be on the Jira board next sprint. I doubt it. All of those ideas seem to have deal-breaker drawbacks in a military system. What if there's a fault and it "phones home" during a mission, breaking radio silence? What if an adversary figures out how to activate drone-mode, then hijacks and crashes the planes when they need to perform?
    - gonzo41 3y ago
      I think the Ukraine war and Russia's poor showing has proved that in some ways the west is overestimating the capabilities of it's enemies.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > I think the Ukraine war and Russia's poor showing has proved that in some ways the west is overestimating the capabilities of it's enemies. That attitude is a recipe for overconfidence and failure, and is probably the biggest reason for Russia's poor showing in Ukraine. Also, from what I've read, electronic warfare is one of the areas where the Russians have shown strong capability. It's a mistake to misinterpret "sucks at some things" as "sucks at all things." Remember too that significant amounts detailed technical data for the F-35 have been stolen: https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-snowden-documents-reveal-chinese-behind-f-35-hack/ https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-snowden-documents-reveal...: > Last week, Der Spiegel published a new tranche of documents provided to the German weekly magazine by the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden. The documents are the first public confirmation that Chinese hackers have been able to extrapolate top secret data on the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jet. According to sources, the data breach already took place in 2007 at the prime subcontractor Lockheed Martin. A U.S. government official recently claimed that as of now, “classified F-35 information is protected and remains secure.” > ... > The Snowden files outline the scope of Chinese F-35 espionage efforts, which focused on acquiring the radar design (the number and types of modules), detailed engine schematics (methods for cooling gases, leading and trailing edge treatments, and aft deck heating contour maps) among other things. The document claims that many terabytes of data specific to the F-35 joint strike fighter program were stolen. When designing military aircraft, it makes sense to reduce attack surface and avoid implementing exploitable features to address unusual scenarios.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

If it flew until it ran out of fuel and then crashed the amount of fire and smoke would be significantly reduced.

jl6 3y ago

It sounds like they’re looking in lakes. Could have gone splash without leaving much trace on the surface.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]