View Full Version : F35 hard vertical landing Fort Worth
Pilot ejected at ground level
“The aircraft, identified to CBS 11 as an F35 B Model used by the Marine Corps, was in the process of a vertical landing when the nose began to lean forward as the back wheels lifted up.“
https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/f-35-fighter-jet-pilot-ejected-after-landing-at-fort-worth-naval-air-base/
..when the nose began to lean forward as the back wheels lifted up.“
It assumed the taxpayer position when the govt sends more money to Lockheed for this dumpster fire. Hope the pilot is ok.
Coal Dragger
12-15-22, 20:25
What a stupid aircraft.
I’m a former Marine, so it pains me to say it, but the USMC is the #1 reason the F-35 program is the shit show that it is. Vertical takeoff and landing requirements seem to have compromised everything about the whole program.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-22, 21:12
That was a lot of fail.
Looks like a botched landing, tried to over correct, and screwed it harder. Then ejected, but would have fallen into the fireball - which is about the only reason to eject for a plane already on the ground. OR maybe a computer made it unflyable. These things makes helicopters seem stable and will thought out.
Pacific5th
12-15-22, 21:40
What a stupid aircraft.
I’m a former Marine, so it pains me to say it, but the USMC is the #1 reason the F-35 program is the shit show that it is. Vertical takeoff and landing requirements seem to have compromised everything about the whole program.
The Marines did not help for sure. I’m also a former Marine but even I know that the Harrier had to get replaced. I was stuck on mess duty but half the ship watched one crash off the side in the Indian Ocean in 04/05. The AV8’s had or still have the highest accident and crew death rate in the US Military. Hopefully the F35 fiasco turns out in the end but I’m not holding my breath. 1 plane for multiple missions has not worked historically and I don’t think it will this time either.
titsonritz
12-16-22, 00:30
Even Arnie handled a Harrier better.
What a stupid aircraft.
I’m a former Marine, so it pains me to say it, but the USMC is the #1 reason the F-35 program is the shit show that it is. Vertical takeoff and landing requirements seem to have compromised everything about the whole program.
The Marines did not help for sure. I’m also a former Marine but even I know that the Harrier had to get replaced. I was stuck on mess duty but half the ship watched one crash off the side in the Indian Ocean in 04/05. The AV8’s had or still have the highest accident and crew death rate in the US Military. Hopefully the F35 fiasco turns out in the end but I’m not holding my breath. 1 plane for multiple missions has not worked historically and I don’t think it will this time either.
As I understand the Marines were voluntold to take this aircraft; I don't believe they were given much choice.
Those Harriers are ancient now, but over the years they have gotten safer for pilots and the mishap rate went down. That said, eastern NC is littered with frames that have gone down over the years. I remember one at Cherry Point in the 80s that did a big ol' pancake right on the tarmac: went up vertically, flipped over on its back, right back down, CRASH! (with subsequent fireball).
It's true that a one-size-fits-none AC can't get the job done. This one won't, either.
Incidents with a B-2 Stealth Bomber and now an F-35 the same week. Our military is having a bad week.
As I understand the Marines were voluntold to take this aircraft; I don't believe they were given much choice.
Those Harriers are ancient now, but over the years they have gotten safer for pilots and the mishap rate went down. That said, eastern NC is littered with frames that have gone down over the years. I remember one at Cherry Point in the 80s that did a big ol' pancake right on the tarmac: went up vertically, flipped over on its back, right back down, CRASH! (with subsequent fireball).
It's true that a one-size-fits-none AC can't get the job done. This one won't, either.
So I'm a Marine (vet) who spent about 5 years with the 3rd MAW (granted the majority was with helicopters) I have talked to my old boot LCpl who is currently a GySgt in charge of maintenance in Yuma, as as far as I understand it the aviators who don't think this Aircraft is stupid or worthless at all, and that this was a good step forward from the F18 Supers in a lot of respects. I would say that most of the issues with aircraft failures that I have seen or read about in the COMNAVAIR failure reporting came from the operator or unit levels in the Marine Corps, I think that the MAWs and individual squadrons don't do enough redundancy in certain aspects flight checks and combined with a constant funding issue of basic level maintenance and parts, the Marines have had some glaring issues that were not sufficiently addressed the entire time I was in (06-12), and from what I am hearing are still present. That being said, Marines have always had to manage with the short end of the stick, so I don't think that they are necessarily totally unsafe with their aircraft and maintenance, but I think that they really haven't covered as much risk mitigation as well as the other services.
So I'm a Marine (vet) who spent about 5 years with the 3rd MAW (granted the majority was with helicopters) I have talked to my old boot LCpl who is currently a GySgt in charge of maintenance in Yuma, as as far as I understand it the aviators who don't think this Aircraft is stupid or worthless at all, and that this was a good step forward from the F18 Supers in a lot of respects. I would say that most of the issues with aircraft failures that I have seen or read about in the COMNAVAIR failure reporting came from the operator or unit levels in the Marine Corps, I think that the MAWs and individual squadrons don't do enough redundancy in certain aspects flight checks and combined with a constant funding issue of basic level maintenance and parts, the Marines have had some glaring issues that were not sufficiently addressed the entire time I was in (06-12), and from what I am hearing are still present. That being said, Marines have always had to manage with the short end of the stick, so I don't think that they are necessarily totally unsafe with their aircraft and maintenance, but I think that they really haven't covered as much risk mitigation as well as the other services.
The closest I came to being a wingnut was adjunct crew with VMR-1 and enroute care with med battalion. So I spent a bit of time at Cherry Point and New River around the 2nd MAW folks. I remember when Cherry Point had A-4s and A-6s, so I am dating myself.
I have not heard much about what the pilots think of the F-35; just what I know about how the Corps got the plane. No doubt the F-18 is growing some gray whiskers, event the Super Hornet. Definitely need to find a new AC.
I agree about the lack of redundancy and funding issues. That's the Marine Corps way. I remember the end of pumps and deployments where 75% of a squadron was down because the AC were cannibalized to make the other 25% airworthy. Honestly I am a bit surprised we have not seen issues with the CH-53K; maybe they are fielding it "the right way" or maybe there hasn't been enough flight time and operations experience for the gremlins to emerge.
The closest I came to being a wingnut was adjunct crew with VMR-1 and enroute care with med battalion. So I spent a bit of time at Cherry Point and New River around the 2nd MAW folks. I remember when Cherry Point had A-4s and A-6s, so I am dating myself.
I have not heard much about what the pilots think of the F-35; just what I know about how the Corps got the plane. No doubt the F-18 is growing some gray whiskers, event the Super Hornet. Definitely need to find a new AC.
I agree about the lack of redundancy and funding issues. That's the Marine Corps way. I remember the end of pumps and deployments where 75% of a squadron was down because the AC were cannibalized to make the other 25% airworthy. Honestly I am a bit surprised we have not seen issues with the CH-53K; maybe they are fielding it "the right way" or maybe there hasn't been enough flight time and operations experience for the gremlins to emerge.
I would also say that for better or for worse, I have seen the "Greenside" take over the promotion and leadership of the Marine airwing, what I mean is that I have seen better mechanics and Aircrew passed over for promotion and qualifications due to their rifle range scores or their PFT (a few people have accused me of this in my time) however, this did lead to an incident in 2008 timeframe when a electrics equipment from a Ch-46 was installed in a CH-53e leading to a fire in the cockpit, the newly pinned Cpl happened to be selected to be on the cover of a recruiting poster, and was in the 3rd Maws "Ceramonial team" which was often loaned out for officers weddings and change of command ceremonies and yet this individual was given a electrical qualification when he obviously didn't know what the hell he was doing.
I should also mention to others points, that the F35 is very much a highly advanced aircraft and with more and more sophisticated equipment, I would guess that the learning curve is much steeper than other aircraft and I would wonder if enough is being done to properly train personnel coming from Harriers, which are in a lot of ways is a much simpler aircraft.
I'm not even sure what the exact role for the Marines F-35 is. I can see it being a very good air to air fighter. And it could be very good at anti-shipping attacks.
But what about CAS? I don't see it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-16-22, 14:03
I'm not even sure what the exact role for the Marines F-35 is. I can see it being a very good air to air fighter. And it could be very good at anti-shipping attacks.
But what about CAS? I don't see it.
You're not supposed to see it..
It's stealthy...
DUH.
You're not supposed to see it..
It's stealthy...
DUH.
Good one. :cool:
Gabriel556
12-16-22, 16:48
Supposedly this was a just out of production plane that was on a pre-acceptance test flight with a government pilot. So this would likely be in the manufacturers insurance policy responsibility and not self funded by the taxpayers. It’s also possible this pilot got auto-ejected when the plane settled back into the ejection envelope but still wasn’t able to be controlled while on the ground. There are several airframes where if the aircraft departs paved surface the protocol is to eject due to the roll over risk. Either way, Martin Baker better whip up another kit for the tie club.
Supposedly this was a just out of production plane that was on a pre-acceptance test flight with a government pilot. So this would likely be in the manufacturers insurance policy responsibility and not self funded by the taxpayers. It’s also possible this poly got auto-ejected when the plane settled back into the ejection envelope but still wasn’t able to be controlled while on the ground. There are several airframes where if the aircraft departs paved surface the protocol is to eject due to the roll over risk. Either way, Martin Baker better whip up another kit for the tie club.
Thanks for the information
I have not heard much about what the pilots think of the F-35; they like them.
Incidents with a B-2 Stealth Bomber and now an F-35 the same week. Our military is having a bad week.
But everyone’s pronouns training is up to date, so at least the important stuff is covered.
A whole lot of countries are buying the F35 so it must be doing something right, the role for the B is short takeoff, vertical landing so anyone who wants to turn an amphibious assault ship into a mini carrier is gonna want em. I love the fact that Japan will be operating ship borne fighters for the first time since WWII, UK and Italy are getting them for their carrier's and IIRC South Korea has an amphibious assault ship with a flight deck that can support VTOL but not sure if they will buy B's or not.
A little more:
https://www.coffeeordie.com/air-force-major-crash
A little more:
https://www.coffeeordie.com/air-force-major-crash
I wonder at the wisdom of using an Air Force pilot to acceptance test a 35B, seems like a Marine would be a better fit.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-17-22, 13:28
I assume the guy is test pilot rated? Is that a thing?
Glad to hear that he came out of it OK. That chute wasn’t quite right, or is that common for a zero/zero ejection?
So he pulled the ejection handle, but the plane thought that it wasn’t a good time to eject, so it waited until it was in an envelope that it deemed acceptable?
“Hal? Hal!!! I’d like to get out now….”
Lawnchair 04
12-17-22, 18:07
The closest I came to being a wingnut was adjunct crew with VMR-1 and enroute care with med battalion. So I spent a bit of time at Cherry Point and New River around the 2nd MAW folks. I remember when Cherry Point had A-4s and A-6s, so I am dating myself.
I have not heard much about what the pilots think of the F-35; just what I know about how the Corps got the plane. No doubt the F-18 is growing some gray whiskers, event the Super Hornet. Definitely need to find a new AC.
I agree about the lack of redundancy and funding issues. That's the Marine Corps way. I remember the end of pumps and deployments where 75% of a squadron was down because the AC were cannibalized to make the other 25% airworthy. Honestly I am a bit surprised we have not seen issues with the CH-53K; maybe they are fielding it "the right way" or maybe there hasn't been enough flight time and operations experience for the gremlins to emerge.
I’m at the first 53k squadron, things are moving slow but that’s not a knock against the airframe but against the supply system and lack of access to the full spectrum of repair manuals. Therefore any issues that arise require contacting the engineering team through proper channels which takes time. I will say that when we do fly it is an amazing machine. It’s a far step ahead of our old Echoes. For reference I’ve worked on h-3’s/h-60’s/ch-46 as well since 07, still currently serving.
1 plane for multiple missions has not worked historically and I don’t think it will this time either.
F-4 Phantom II did pretty well (dating myself).
F-4 Phantom II did pretty well (dating myself).
You can go back further with the F-4U Corsair. All the fighters-cum-attack AC had teething problems before they ironed out the wrinkles, though. The one that didn't (F-14) got retired far too early.
Maybe since this one is built for a multipurpose role from the beginning it'll have a better track record.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-22, 12:50
F-4 Phantom II did pretty well (dating myself).
Just watched a video of Boyd or one of his guys talking about F4/Mig21 energy/maneuver comparisons. A lot of respect for the Mig21, in capability if not just numbers, but an awesome dog fighter? The F4 was a good interceptor and bomb dropper, but as Boyd’s calculations showed, it had only a slim envelope of advantage. A dog fighter it was not, but it wasn’t designed for that; no shame. The F4U was a good fighter that they could hang bombs on, optimized for lower-level combat in the Pacific, and a big radial to take ground fire.
Again, no disrespect for the F4, I was just reading some article by a British pilot, and he said he wouldn’t want to mess with an F4 pilot that knows his stuff…
One of the things I’m looking to do over the break is spending more time readin Boyd. I’m about half way through his biography now.
The F-111 was originally intended to be a "one size fits all" airframe (the Navy's version was to be the F-111B), but that turned out to be unworkable. And it's combat experience in Vietnam was nothing to write home about. But it did serve the USAF for quite a few years - I supported F-111E's in England during the early 1980's.
Just watched a video of Boyd or one of his guys talking about F4/Mig21 energy/maneuver comparisons. A lot of respect for the Mig21, in capability if not just numbers, but an awesome dog fighter? The F4 was a good interceptor and bomb dropper, but as Boyd’s calculations showed, it had only a slim envelope of advantage. A dog fighter it was not, but it wasn’t designed for that; no shame. The F4U was a good fighter that they could hang bombs on, optimized for lower-level combat in the Pacific, and a big radial to take ground fire.
Again, no disrespect for the F4, I was just reading some article by a British pilot, and he said he wouldn’t want to mess with an F4 pilot that knows his stuff…
One of the things I’m looking to do over the break is spending more time readin Boyd. I’m about half way through his biography now.
Topgun was so successful because they taught (still do) staying in your envelope, and making the other guy fight within your envelope. They developed those tactics during Vietnam, and the Navy's kill ratio went up. The air force was late to the game as a branch, but some pilots (Boyd) were ahead of the ball.
There is a good book about this (Topgun, written by Dan Pederson, former instructor and CO of Topgun).
Take out interceptors and dual role, the Navy's last pure fighter was the F-8.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-22, 18:27
“Not a pound for air-to-ground’ is what Boyd said, but the reality is that you have to have your fighters do something else because of restraints on dollars, it not deck space.
I watch web pages like Growling Sidewinder and wonder when one/two circle fight terminology and tactics became common knowledge? And that is for the ‘ritualistic’ gun only fights or aft shot heat seakers- not for the BVR missile shots and the AMRAMM physics calculations.
It would be interesting to see what a team of ISR/AWACS/F22/F35s could do if they were let of the chain and told to clear airspace unencumbered by rules of engagement that put them at a disadvantage- like destroy everything flying east of 30degrees latitude from the Black to Barent Sea.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epz9j7/watch-a-dollar130-million-f-35-fighter-jet-absolutely-eat-shit
Looks like Fat Amy goes down a lot….
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.