3 ms·

I have been and remain so very confused about all this. Why did the pilot eject? Why was he flying in the first place? Why wasn't the flight being tracked befor

by bmitc 3y ago

I have been and remain so very confused about all this. Why did the pilot eject? Why was he flying in the first place? Why wasn't the flight being tracked before the ejection? Why wasn't it tracked after? Not a single detection system caught an effectively unknown, after ejection, fighter jet flying at low altitude just blasting through U.S. airspace? This is all weird and there seems to be a lot of excuses like "system behaved as intended" (paraphrase). What U.S. security system behaved as intended that we didn't have a clue about a fighter jet traveling through our air space and couldn't find it until a day later, presumably because someone on the ground saw the crash or wreckage. What if some random person took a bunch of photos of the classified systems and uploaded them somewhere, unaware or not?

inferiorhuman 3y ago
It's a stealth aircraft designed to be difficult-to-impossible to track.
- reisse 3y ago
  It should have a transponder and be identifiable (at least for ATC and TCAS) while flying in domestic airspace and not in a combat mission. What if it accidentally collided with a civil airliner?
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    I couldn't say how common it is, but military aircraft definitely fly in American airspace without transponders. A few months ago I hear/saw some Osprey fly overhead. They were not visible on ADS-B Exchange (which does not block military transponders). What if it accidentally collided with a civil airliner? Not much. I can't think of anything more recent than Hughes Airwest 706 (and that predates mode s transponders by a few decades), and all that came out of that was a promise to communicate with civilian ATC.
  - ibejoeb 3y ago
    Some reports claim that there was more than one aircraft. If they were flying in formation, generally only the lead runs a transponder.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > It should have a transponder Maybe they were sick of being tracked by Google
- bmitc 3y ago
  Yes, I know what the F-35 is. So you feel comfortable now that it's been actively demonstrated that the U.S. can't detect such a jet in its airspace? Even its own jet it knew about?! It sounds like they had to basically wait until some farmer called it in after it crashed in their field. Also, the F-35 is stealth only to some bands of radar (I would assume given certain windows of altitude), is not invisible, and is not silent.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    I mean, your average air traffic control radar won't exactly be on par with that fielded by AWACs, Patriot batteries or Aegis systems.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Can't or won't admit to it? There's plenty of reason to play dumb even if only to sell a few more.
  - jychang 3y ago
    Why is that a problem? Hiding has always been easier than detecting in the real world. People are too used to computers which make detection easy. But before computers, a king would have to physically send tax collectors to gather money and soldiers to guard the borders. Being able to spot all enemies sneaking in was never practical, and still isn’t. The US government wishes it was that effective.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    > So you feel comfortable now that it's been actively demonstrated that the U.S. can't detect such a jet in its airspace? Even its own jet it knew about?! It's a stealth aircraft specifically designed to thwart radar systems. During an ejection, it is specifically designed to zeroize its sensitive data. It only broadcasts limited-range IFF. In an operational environment like hostile airspace, this is the behavior you would want, and our pilots train in battle-like conditions where possible. This is standard, expected behavior. I'm not sure why you wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that we have radar-defeating tech, because pretty much everyone does at this point... ... Okay, I'll be specific. I don't see why you'd be MORE UNCOMFORTABLE than you already are. Stealth tech has outpaced radar tech at range. It sounds like the conditions weren't favorable for detection, either. Edit: Just realized this. Boy if you're worried about us not being able to detect where an aircraft is when the operators have left, I've got some real bad news for you about nuclear submarines...
- dogma1138 3y ago
  There is no way the F-35 was flying without radar reflectors and likely even ADSB on. That said however if there was a major systems failure you loose tracking and even if you have a pretty good idea where the aircraft was it’s still not that easy to find in a wooden area.
__loam 3y ago
> Why did the pilot eject? Probably an equipment failure that put him into an unrecoverable situation. This could be any number of things, many of them not the fault of the pilot, such as engine failure from a bird strike. > Why was he flying in the first place? Pilots need hundreds of hours on their airplanes annually. Air force pilots aren't just flying missions. If you want to get good F-35 pilots you need pilots flying the F-35. > Why wasn't the flight being tracked before the ejection? Why wasn't it tracked after? It likely was. Loss of contact could be related to the equipment failure. The pilot mentioned he abandoned the aircraft at 2000ft. This is a very low altitude, in a mountainous region of the United States. Loss of contact could also be related to that. If the jet was on fire due to equipment failure, avionics could have been damaged to the point of inoperability before the air frame failed, and it could glide for some time possibly. > This is all weird and there seems to be a lot of excuses like "system behaved as intended" (paraphrase). A lot of the F-35 is still classified. If you're expecting a solid answer I think you'll be disappointed. > What if some random person took a bunch of photos of the classified systems and uploaded them somewhere, unaware or not? Oopsie.

by bmitc 3y ago

inferiorhuman 3y ago

It's a stealth aircraft designed to be difficult-to-impossible to track.

reisse 3y ago
It should have a transponder and be identifiable (at least for ATC and TCAS) while flying in domestic airspace and not in a combat mission. What if it accidentally collided with a civil airliner?
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  I couldn't say how common it is, but military aircraft definitely fly in American airspace without transponders. A few months ago I hear/saw some Osprey fly overhead. They were not visible on ADS-B Exchange (which does not block military transponders). What if it accidentally collided with a civil airliner? Not much. I can't think of anything more recent than Hughes Airwest 706 (and that predates mode s transponders by a few decades), and all that came out of that was a promise to communicate with civilian ATC.
- ibejoeb 3y ago
  Some reports claim that there was more than one aircraft. If they were flying in formation, generally only the lead runs a transponder.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > It should have a transponder Maybe they were sick of being tracked by Google
bmitc 3y ago
Yes, I know what the F-35 is. So you feel comfortable now that it's been actively demonstrated that the U.S. can't detect such a jet in its airspace? Even its own jet it knew about?! It sounds like they had to basically wait until some farmer called it in after it crashed in their field. Also, the F-35 is stealth only to some bands of radar (I would assume given certain windows of altitude), is not invisible, and is not silent.
- Arrath 3y ago
  I mean, your average air traffic control radar won't exactly be on par with that fielded by AWACs, Patriot batteries or Aegis systems.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Can't or won't admit to it? There's plenty of reason to play dumb even if only to sell a few more.
- jychang 3y ago
  Why is that a problem? Hiding has always been easier than detecting in the real world. People are too used to computers which make detection easy. But before computers, a king would have to physically send tax collectors to gather money and soldiers to guard the borders. Being able to spot all enemies sneaking in was never practical, and still isn’t. The US government wishes it was that effective.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  > So you feel comfortable now that it's been actively demonstrated that the U.S. can't detect such a jet in its airspace? Even its own jet it knew about?! It's a stealth aircraft specifically designed to thwart radar systems. During an ejection, it is specifically designed to zeroize its sensitive data. It only broadcasts limited-range IFF. In an operational environment like hostile airspace, this is the behavior you would want, and our pilots train in battle-like conditions where possible. This is standard, expected behavior. I'm not sure why you wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that we have radar-defeating tech, because pretty much everyone does at this point... ... Okay, I'll be specific. I don't see why you'd be MORE UNCOMFORTABLE than you already are. Stealth tech has outpaced radar tech at range. It sounds like the conditions weren't favorable for detection, either. Edit: Just realized this. Boy if you're worried about us not being able to detect where an aircraft is when the operators have left, I've got some real bad news for you about nuclear submarines...
dogma1138 3y ago
There is no way the F-35 was flying without radar reflectors and likely even ADSB on. That said however if there was a major systems failure you loose tracking and even if you have a pretty good idea where the aircraft was it’s still not that easy to find in a wooden area.

__loam 3y ago

> Why did the pilot eject? Probably an equipment failure that put him into an unrecoverable situation. This could be any number of things, many of them not the fault of the pilot, such as engine failure from a bird strike. > Why was he flying in the first place? Pilots need hundreds of hours on their airplanes annually. Air force pilots aren't just flying missions. If you want to get good F-35 pilots you need pilots flying the F-35. > Why wasn't the flight being tracked before the ejection? Why wasn't it tracked after? It likely was. Loss of contact could be related to the equipment failure. The pilot mentioned he abandoned the aircraft at 2000ft. This is a very low altitude, in a mountainous region of the United States. Loss of contact could also be related to that. If the jet was on fire due to equipment failure, avionics could have been damaged to the point of inoperability before the air frame failed, and it could glide for some time possibly. > This is all weird and there seems to be a lot of excuses like "system behaved as intended" (paraphrase). A lot of the F-35 is still classified. If you're expecting a solid answer I think you'll be disappointed. > What if some random person took a bunch of photos of the classified systems and uploaded them somewhere, unaware or not? Oopsie.