Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Why is that? Bee's aircraft carrier groups did prove already they were the most compact form of air dominance at sea.
If you read the report, you'd see that the distance from their carrier takeoff that day was already above most what land based fighter jets could hwve achieved...
 
TomcatViP said:
Why is that? Bee's aircraft carrier groups did prove already they were the most compact form of air dominance at sea.
If you read the report, you'd see that the distance from their carrier takeoff that day was already above most what land based fighter jets could hwve achieved...
Click to expand...
I expect it probably has more to do with the number of losses/incidents involving the B compared to the A and C. The way I read it is 7 B incidents, 7 for the A and one for the C. Hence a disproportionate number for the B given the fleet size. Not unsurprising given the STOVL nature of the aircraft and Harrier in USMC service had a correspondingly higher rate than aircraft of similar vintages as well.
 
Ozair said:
I expect it probably has more to do with the number of losses/incidents involving the B compared to the A and C. The way I read it is 7 B incidents, 7 for the A and one for the C. Hence a disproportionate number for the B given the fleet size. Not unsurprising given the STOVL nature of the aircraft and Harrier in USMC service had a correspondingly higher rate than aircraft of similar vintages as well.
Click to expand...
We also aren’t looking at things logically. The following is from Wikipedia:

The F-35 first flew in 2006 and entered service with the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B in July 2015, followed by the U.S. Air Force F-35A in August 2016 and the U.S. Navy F-35C in February 2019.
Click to expand...

The B and A have been in service longer - and the B has had to trailblaze a bit.

The C, whilst having an IOC of 2019, had a lot of issues with carrier qualifications, and is farther behind the curve than it looks.
 
Ozair said:
I expect it probably has more to do with the number of losses/incidents involving the B compared to the A and C. The way I read it is 7 B incidents, 7 for the A and one for the C. Hence a disproportionate number for the B given the fleet size. Not unsurprising given the STOVL nature of the aircraft and Harrier in USMC service had a correspondingly higher rate than aircraft of similar vintages as well.
Click to expand...
And one of those was a USAF pilot ferrying a B from Texas to California who decided to mess around with the VSTOL mode on take-off from Albuquerque. Last I heard was they were looking at pilot error as the most likely cause (the aircraft was far too nose-up at too low an altitude).

Another was another USAF pilot flying a F-35B on an acceptance flight at the factory and descended too fast during a vertical landing.

A third was one that had an equipment failure but which remained controllable - so that when the pilot ejected it flew for several more miles. The established mishap cause was "pilot error" compounded by adverse weather.

That's almost half of the crashes right there.
 
starviking said:
We also aren’t looking at things logically. The following is from Wikipedia:



The B and A have been in service longer - and the B has had to trailblaze a bit.

The C, whilst having an IOC of 2019, had a lot of issues with carrier qualifications, and is farther behind the curve than it looks.
Click to expand...
BlackBat242 said:
And one of those was a USAF pilot ferrying a B from Texas to California who decided to mess around with the VSTOL mode on take-off from Albuquerque. Last I heard was they were looking at pilot error as the most likely cause (the aircraft was far too nose-up at too low an altitude).

Another was another USAF pilot flying a F-35B on an acceptance flight at the factory and descended too fast during a vertical landing.

A third was one that had an equipment failure but which remained controllable - so that when the pilot ejected it flew for several more miles. The established mishap cause was "pilot error" compounded by adverse weather.

That's almost half of the crashes right there.
Click to expand...
Agree with both of you. The B incidents are not all technical issues but it has an added element to its flight profile that has been traditionally difficult, both from a technical and systems perspective and from a user interface perspective.
 
BlackBat242 said:
And one of those was a USAF pilot ferrying a B from Texas to California who decided to mess around with the VSTOL mode on take-off from Albuquerque. Last I heard was they were looking at pilot error as the most likely cause (the aircraft was far too nose-up at too low an altitude).

Another was another USAF pilot flying a F-35B on an acceptance flight at the factory and descended too fast during a vertical landing.

A third was one that had an equipment failure but which remained controllable - so that when the pilot ejected it flew for several more miles. The established mishap cause was "pilot error" compounded by adverse weather.

That's almost half of the crashes right there.
Click to expand...
And we had the UK B that was lost because of an inlet cover being left in place for flight.
 
Let's wait and see what happens when the investigators find out what caused the crash NMaude especially if it turnes out to be basic pilot error and the pilot forgot to set the limit of the amount of fuel left so that the pilot could get to a tanker.
 
NMaude said:
We don't know the circumstances as to why this F-35B's fuel-state got so perilously low.
Click to expand...
"The F-35 currently remains stationed at the airport under enhanced security arrangements. Refuelling operations await approval from Central government authorities, following standard protocols for foreign military aircraft operating within Indian airspace."

Sounds like they're just waiting for approval to refuel.
 
Better get the right fuel for the F-35B, you do not want to put the wrong fuel in just in case it is not compatible.
 
FighterJock said:
Let's wait and see what happens when the investigators find out what caused the crash NMaude especially if it turnes out to be basic pilot error and the pilot forgot to set the limit of the amount of fuel left so that the pilot could get to a tanker.
Click to expand...

What crash?
 
What is going on with the pilots of the F-35Bs these days? They should know that the B has less fuel than the other two variants.
 
perttime said:
There was a case where a B landed at an air base / air port in Finland, because it got too low on fuel to go back to the carrier.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that due to adverse weather conditions IVO the carrier and not low fuel state?
 
Ozair said:
Wasn't that due to adverse weather conditions IVO the carrier and not low fuel state?
Click to expand...
Obviously the F-35B is junk because it isn't impervious to inclement weather like all other aircraft. A competently designed aircraft would NEVER divert for weather.
 
Ozair said:
Wasn't that due to adverse weather conditions IVO the carrier and not low fuel state?
Click to expand...
As reported in Finnish media at the time:
"29 September 2023 at Tampere-Pirkkala airport (EFTP), Finland, during Finnish Defence Forces Ruska 23 exercise. The fighter called "fuel left for 9 minutes" before approaching the airfield
(...)
The British F-35B planes operated from the Norwegian coast, from the Queen Elisabeth carrier, with assistance from tankers. (...) something unexpected had happened during the mission and the fighter preferred diverting to a Finnish Air Force base instead meeting its tanker and return to the carrier."
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...strike-fighter-jsf.17732/page-107#post-625634
 
The British F-35 is still in India, awaiting parts and repairs for a reported hydraulics failure. The pilot and some technicians are believed to still be in India with the jet. The British carrier has already sailed along to the Pacific. It's unclear how much longer it will take to get the aircraft operational, or how it will be ferried back to the UK.
 

Attachments

  • F-35B India.jpg
    F-35B India.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 18
joshjosh said:
The British F-35 is still in India, awaiting parts and repairs for a reported hydraulics failure. The pilot and some technicians are believed to still be in India with the jet. The British carrier has already sailed along to the Pacific. It's unclear how much longer it will take to get the aircraft operational, or how it will be ferried back to the UK.
Click to expand...
It's a plane. If they can get it fixed to "able to fly at high altitudes" it can just get dragged home by a tanker.

If they can only get it fixed to "able to fly at or below 10,000ft" it will probably get the wings taken off and stuffed into a cargo plane or will wait for the UK carrier to swing back by in a few months.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a plane. If they can get it fixed to "able to fly at high altitudes" it can just get dragged home by a tanker.

If they can only get it fixed to "able to fly at or below 10,000ft" it will probably get the wings taken off and stuffed into a cargo plane or will wait for the UK carrier to swing back by in a few months.
Click to expand...

The RAF has C-17s that can certainly do the job.
 
Sandboxx has a video out analysing Iran's claims (IMO bullshit claims) that it has shot down several Israeli F-35Is:


According to reports in Iranian state media, the nation has now shot down at least three, but potentially four F-35I stealth fighters, the most advanced and capable tactical aircraft in Israeli service, while taking at least one female pilot into custody... And at least so far, it appears these claims are entirely fabricated.​
Click to expand...

So far Iran has uploaded several obviously fake AI-generated images purporting to show F-35I wreckages. As for Iran's claims about having captive Israeli pilots from these alleged shot down F-35s if they really had them (Especially a female pilot) they'd be parading them on live TV the way the Iraqis did back in the 1991 Gulf War with shot down allied flight crew.
​
Click to expand...
 
Would the Swiss really buy the F-35? As a weapon system it would just be too advanced for them.
 
I believe they have already done their head to head competition vs F-18E/E and Rafale and have signed a contract for F-35.
 
So out of the F/A-18E/F and the Rafale the Swiss thought that the F-35 was the best. So what variant of the F-35 would the Swiss be getting then A or B F119Doctor?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom