4 ms·

seems reasonable to me. If someone lost a 110 million dollar asset in a questionable way, I wouldn't have trust and confidence in their ability either. Flying

seems reasonable to me. If someone lost a 110 million dollar asset in a questionable way, I wouldn't have trust and confidence in their ability either. Flying cutting edge military jets isn't exactly a human right.

jameshart 2y ago
On the other hand, the USMC has invested considerable time and effort in training this person to operate the F-35. Replacing him with someone else will take time and money. For the organization that invested all that into him to say ‘nope, we don’t want you to fly these things any more’ is itself a massive waste of resources.
- jki275 2y ago
  He's certainly a highly trained Naval Aviator, but he had very little time in the F35.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Sure, that makes sense as a waste if you are operating under the assumption that they have no questions of ability and are simply being railroaded, and will never fly again. In this case, the pilot is still flying. They are just not leading as prestigious and high risk command, because there are doubts that they suitable. There is no new cost, they are just rotating the roster. he will fly elsewhere and a different pilot will take that role. It is only a loss if you double down thinking that he was the best or only fit for that role.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  He was fired from command, not stripped of his wings.
master_crab 2y ago
Ehh. While I understand your point, I think we should also ask ourselves if it’s reasonable for a fighter to cost $110m a pop.
- lallysingh 2y ago
  A 737-MAX10 costs more, and it's almost all empty space.
  - master_crab 2y ago
    A supertanker costs more and it’s just empty tanks.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is a fair question. Cheaper would obviously be better, but unless or until they are cheap, they are not disposable. I think Ukraine is lots of evidence that of how important it is to have air superiority, even at extreme cost. If Russia had gained air superiority as many expected, the war would have been over shortly. https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Ukraine_Control_of_the_-Air_Policy_Paper_50.pdf https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/0...
- wbl 2y ago
  The customer demands the best, because if they do not have it the adversary will have it, and that is unacceptable. Even given that 110 million (assuming current 2024 dollars) is pretty cheap: the Grippen comes in at around that based on Brazilian purchases and is much less capable, being a 1990's design.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Woah, I could not believe this post, until I looked it up. Wiki says: <<On 24 October 2014, Brazil and Sweden signed a 39.3 billion SEK (US$5.44 bn, R$13 bn) contract for 28 Gripen E (single-seat version) and eight Gripen F (dual-seat version) fighters for delivery from 2019 to 2024 and maintained until 2050>> That is 150M USD per plane. However, this might include maintenance costs, which would make it different from most F35 purchases that I have seen. Does anyone know any more specific details? Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
derekp7 2y ago
That's all well and good, except the next pilot facing a potential loss of aircraft will probably hesitate (worrying about getting shafted), and keep trying to recover the craft until it is too late. Then you have a crashed plane, and a dead pilot. People make better decisions when there is precident for a no-fault management style.
- hindsightbias 2y ago
  Back in the day, a carrier deployment w/o the loss of an aircraft was considered subpar because it was taken as evidence of not pushing the boundaries enough. Or so I was told by a USN pilot.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  No, because he was not fired for ejecting from an unsafe aircraft, which is what you're claiming would be the situation where the pilot would hesitate. He was fired because the General didn't feel he'd shown the judgement and skill commiserate with his station. The cardinal rule for an in-flight emergency is that if the plane is flying, you're OK in that moment, there's no need to panic. He was fired because as a test pilot, he panicked after the HUD malfunctioned, and ejected from an aircraft with an hour's worth of fuel that was not losing altitude or experiencing any mechanical failures, and did not make even an attempt to verify his primary instruments against the backup secondaries, or to use a functioning backup radio. He could have used the backup radio to contact the tower to verify his altitude, speed, heading, rate of climb, etc and then get vectored back to reunite with his wingman ,and followed his wingman in for a landing.
  - Teever 2y ago
    kinda makes you wonder about his opinion on the overall reliability of the F-35 if he made that call.
    - elcritch 2y ago
      From what I read that seems plausible given the pilot was a seasoned test pilot; so it seems odd he was just being panicky. Imagine just being struck by lightning, loosing main displays, and being at 1200 feet. All on top of flying in a plane with a reputation for electronic failures. I'd be concerned too that the plane was about to freak out. 1200 ft isn't far.
NBJack 2y ago
And now you've created yet another layer of FUD for all future pilots. Shit can and will happen. The only real thing questionable is the damn aircraft. Do you know how many things have gone wrong with the F-35? [0] It was a shit situation, the book was (unsurprisingly) crap, and you are potentially in a very expensive death trap. The guy choose to live. Honestly, his real mistake may just to have been willing to fly a F-35 in the first place. [0] https://theweek.com/us-military/1020858/the-f-35-fighter-jets-troubled-history https://theweek.com/us-military/1020858/the-f-35-fighter-jet...

jameshart 2y ago

On the other hand, the USMC has invested considerable time and effort in training this person to operate the F-35. Replacing him with someone else will take time and money. For the organization that invested all that into him to say ‘nope, we don’t want you to fly these things any more’ is itself a massive waste of resources.

jki275 2y ago
He's certainly a highly trained Naval Aviator, but he had very little time in the F35.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Sure, that makes sense as a waste if you are operating under the assumption that they have no questions of ability and are simply being railroaded, and will never fly again. In this case, the pilot is still flying. They are just not leading as prestigious and high risk command, because there are doubts that they suitable. There is no new cost, they are just rotating the roster. he will fly elsewhere and a different pilot will take that role. It is only a loss if you double down thinking that he was the best or only fit for that role.
the__alchemist 2y ago
He was fired from command, not stripped of his wings.

master_crab 2y ago

Ehh. While I understand your point, I think we should also ask ourselves if it’s reasonable for a fighter to cost $110m a pop.

lallysingh 2y ago
A 737-MAX10 costs more, and it's almost all empty space.
- master_crab 2y ago
  A supertanker costs more and it’s just empty tanks.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that is a fair question. Cheaper would obviously be better, but unless or until they are cheap, they are not disposable. I think Ukraine is lots of evidence that of how important it is to have air superiority, even at extreme cost. If Russia had gained air superiority as many expected, the war would have been over shortly. https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Ukraine_Control_of_the_-Air_Policy_Paper_50.pdf https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/0...
wbl 2y ago
The customer demands the best, because if they do not have it the adversary will have it, and that is unacceptable. Even given that 110 million (assuming current 2024 dollars) is pretty cheap: the Grippen comes in at around that based on Brazilian purchases and is much less capable, being a 1990's design.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Woah, I could not believe this post, until I looked it up. Wiki says: <<On 24 October 2014, Brazil and Sweden signed a 39.3 billion SEK (US$5.44 bn, R$13 bn) contract for 28 Gripen E (single-seat version) and eight Gripen F (dual-seat version) fighters for delivery from 2019 to 2024 and maintained until 2050>> That is 150M USD per plane. However, this might include maintenance costs, which would make it different from most F35 purchases that I have seen. Does anyone know any more specific details? Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

derekp7 2y ago

That's all well and good, except the next pilot facing a potential loss of aircraft will probably hesitate (worrying about getting shafted), and keep trying to recover the craft until it is too late. Then you have a crashed plane, and a dead pilot. People make better decisions when there is precident for a no-fault management style.

hindsightbias 2y ago
Back in the day, a carrier deployment w/o the loss of an aircraft was considered subpar because it was taken as evidence of not pushing the boundaries enough. Or so I was told by a USN pilot.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
No, because he was not fired for ejecting from an unsafe aircraft, which is what you're claiming would be the situation where the pilot would hesitate. He was fired because the General didn't feel he'd shown the judgement and skill commiserate with his station. The cardinal rule for an in-flight emergency is that if the plane is flying, you're OK in that moment, there's no need to panic. He was fired because as a test pilot, he panicked after the HUD malfunctioned, and ejected from an aircraft with an hour's worth of fuel that was not losing altitude or experiencing any mechanical failures, and did not make even an attempt to verify his primary instruments against the backup secondaries, or to use a functioning backup radio. He could have used the backup radio to contact the tower to verify his altitude, speed, heading, rate of climb, etc and then get vectored back to reunite with his wingman ,and followed his wingman in for a landing.
- Teever 2y ago
  kinda makes you wonder about his opinion on the overall reliability of the F-35 if he made that call.
  - elcritch 2y ago
    From what I read that seems plausible given the pilot was a seasoned test pilot; so it seems odd he was just being panicky. Imagine just being struck by lightning, loosing main displays, and being at 1200 feet. All on top of flying in a plane with a reputation for electronic failures. I'd be concerned too that the plane was about to freak out. 1200 ft isn't far.

NBJack 2y ago

And now you've created yet another layer of FUD for all future pilots. Shit can and will happen. The only real thing questionable is the damn aircraft. Do you know how many things have gone wrong with the F-35? [0] It was a shit situation, the book was (unsurprisingly) crap, and you are potentially in a very expensive death trap. The guy choose to live. Honestly, his real mistake may just to have been willing to fly a F-35 in the first place. [0] https://theweek.com/us-military/1020858/the-f-35-fighter-jets-troubled-history https://theweek.com/us-military/1020858/the-f-35-fighter-jet...