| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Marines under fire for flying $80M F-35 over SC during thunderstorm when report shows jets CAN'T handle storms: Pilot ejected due to 'bad weather' before jet 'flipped', flew 100ft above trees in 'zombie mode' and crashed in field |
| 2023-09-21 |
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news]
Related: F-35: 2023-09-20 US military says it finally found stealth wreckage from a crashed F-35 fighter jet in SouthCarolina F-35: 2023-09-19 Bad Luck: Military Announces Lost F-35 Was Carrying Epstein Client List F-35: 2023-09-18 F-35 jet reported missing by authorities after pilot ejects during 'mishap': Officials |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #13 Speaking of USMC pilots, I'm watching CalFire Air Attack stacking above our burg n there's n Osprey with no USMC markings in the mix. Did CalFire buy themselves an Osprey? Curious. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2023-09-21 19:07 |
| #12 It's not hard to do lightning. |
| Posted by: N. Tesla 2023-09-21 14:52 |
| #11 Ya know, the AF has a large scale hangar at Eglin that can simulate hazardous weather. Hurricane force winds, blowing rain, freezing ice storms, the works. Doubt if it can do lightning, though. Remember reading that the C-17 wouldn't completely fit, they had to make a special door so the tail could stick outside. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2023-09-21 14:36 |
| #10 TIL: $80M Air Force Plane cant fly in rain. |
| Posted by: mossomo 2023-09-21 12:44 |
| #9 I've been wondering how all these digital wonders will deal with being in a real massive electrical storm. I know, hardened systems, but the rule in electrical shielding is 'close is worse'. And they all have radar soaking (and electricaly conductive) carbon fiber skins and frames, with antennae built in. I know, aluminum frames were conductive, but they didn't have the digital flight sensors under the skin all over the airframe. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2023-09-21 09:36 |
| #8 Except, the plane Stewart was on was at cruising altitude, fueled for a cross-country flight and it was a business jet, not a fighter. Otherwise, a good comparison. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2023-09-21 08:30 |
| #7 yep. Ask Payne Stewart |
| Posted by: Frank G 2023-09-21 07:21 |
| #6 I keep seeing the breathless headline that the jet "flew 60 miles" after the pilot ejected. At the F-35's minimum flight speed, that's not actually many minutes of flight. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2023-09-21 07:14 |
| #5 Given its a serious violation of 14 FAA CFR § 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes. PLUS UCMJ violations of Article 108 Military Property of the United States – Loss, Damage, Destruction, or Wrongful Disposition and Article 110 Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft and etc...) resulting in the lost of a $80M jet. I predict, Ft. Leavenworth will need to free up a few south Facing accommodations for 10 years. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2023-09-21 06:43 |
| #4 ...The storm that may have killed that F-35 passed over my home not long before the accident. It was awful, with extremely high wind gusts and rain literally going sideways. If he got caught in a downdraft or microburst, it wouldn't make a difference how much the airframe cost because there was now a very good chance the plane was gone. Mike |
| Posted by: MikeKozlowski 2023-09-21 06:05 |
| #3 Apparently there is a large market for these in arid regions. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2023-09-21 04:10 |
| #2 Our 80 mil platform performs, On calm days, to comfortable norms. We bought it together With one for foul weather, For 40, that handles the storms. "Reform the swarm... both of youse!" |
| Posted by: Whatle Glotch8616 2023-09-21 01:17 |
| #1 Just a sec here: a $80M plane can't handle storms? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-09-21 00:53 |