F-35A Crash

[Julien]

Seems Elgin in Florida have now lost their second F-35A. Not a lot of details ATM but thankfully it looks like the pilot ejected and is safe.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33577/f-35-out-of-eglin-air-force-base-has-crashed-just-days-after-f-22-based-there-was-lost

[exdraken]

Night time training upon landing...

Good the pilot is ok!

[NoSG0]

Yes, very good that the pilot is ok.

[Mike]

You only have to look up the attrition rate of the old Scimitar to see that quite a few new (and sometimes less new) aircraft get smooshed even in peacetime.  As everyone has already said, at least the pilot is safe, although having recently watched a documentary about bang seats, it's quite an experience

[Mick4350]

Did the first accident of the F-35 result in a total loss of the airframe ?

[exdraken]

The first accident?

Surely not as minor accidents happen more often.

The first Marine Corps loss was a total one.

The Airforce had at least one with heavy damage due to engine fire on the ground

14 hours ago, Mick4350 said:

Did the first accident of the F-35 result in a total loss of the airframe ?

 

[Mick4350]

3 hours ago, exdraken said:

The first accident?

Surely not as minor accidents happen more often.

The first Marine Corps loss was a total one.

The Airforce had at least one with heavy damage due to engine fire on the ground

 

I was asking about the incident in 2014 where the F-35A's engine caught fire and suffered serious damage as a result. 

[GMK]

The Japanese lost a F-35A last year, the pilot did not survive. 

[Slater]

Considering the number of hours flown, the F-35 seems to be a reasonably safe aircraft.

[dov]

Hallo

 

It is the third crash.

 

F-35 Crash

 

Just to add what has to be done:

 

Present day 873 failures

 

It is in German, maybe one can find a translation. Or use a translator.

 

Happy modelling

[EwenS]

To give a bit more context, the F-35 first flew away back in Dec 2006 and over 520 have rolled off the production line with flight hours over 250k by March this year. IOC was in 2015/16. There were no losses in at least the first 100k flying hours. In that time nearly 1000 pilots have trained to fly it, with one of the test pilots having over 1000 hours on type.

 

I really don’t think the loss rate is that bad.

 

 

[stevej60]

Pilot safe that's the main thing my boss hit the roof once because i smashed the door mirror on a van,i wonder how he'd have reacted if it cost

a billion pounds?

[Alan P]

2 hours ago, stevej60 said:

Pilot safe that's the main thing my boss hit the roof once because i smashed the door mirror on a van,i wonder how he'd have reacted if it cost

a billion pounds?

Unit cost of an F-35A is not a billion pounds 😉👍

 

2 hours ago, EwenS said:

I really don’t think the loss rate is that bad.

Compared to most western combat aircraft it's been exemplary. Long development, phased entry into service and joint training programme means much enhanced safety. 

[dov]

Hallo

 

Just to remind: At no time on earth so much money used for a project. After years this project is far from fulfilling all his goals. This is the situation.

The failure list is still very apprehensiveness.

Take just the oxygen supply system. Failures at the F-22 and F-35 never solved.

Just an example: Drive a sports car, and the steering system goes once in while havoc at high speed! You would return this car, if you are still alive. All governments have to be quiet with flaws on such an expensive system, because the citizens of such a country would criticize the government to the outmost for buying such a rummage.

Happy modelling

[SpeedyGonzales]

I am not the greatest fan of F-35 but in the name of being fair I have to say spending billions of bucks on the development of an aircraft unfortunately does not guarantee that it never crashes, regardless of some of the brilliant brains and engineering experience on the planet. Anything that flies may crash. Technology results in multiple points of failure and sometimes is not your best friend when systems become more and more complicated, or there would be no Space Shuttle accidents, right? Air forces would be willing to fly the F-35 considering the technology and operational advantages it offers, the accidents would be regarded as the "nature" of the project as long as they are about the average levels.  

[Mick4350]

3 hours ago, Alan P said:

Unit cost of an F-35A is not a billion pounds 😉

But they around 80 to 110 million US dollars per aircraft. The incident in 2014 in which the aircrafts engine blew up was said to have caused $50 million damage to the airframe.

[Alan P]

2 minutes ago, Mick4350 said:

But they around 80 to 110 million US dollars per aircraft. The incident in 2014 in which the aircrafts engine blew up was said to have caused $50 million damage to the airframe.

So? They're still cheaper than a Eurofighter Typhoon, for example? I once dropped a tech log and broke ONE screen in a Boeing 737 (accidentally, obviously). It cost $20k to replace. Aviation equipment is expensive. But the F-35 is still good value for money at that price.

[EwenS]

And the price has been coming down as production has ramped up.

[Lewis95]

2 hours ago, Alan P said:

So? They're still cheaper than a Eurofighter Typhoon, for example? I once dropped a tech log and broke ONE screen in a Boeing 737 (accidentally, obviously). It cost $20k to replace. Aviation equipment is expensive. But the F-35 is still good value for money at that price.

That must of been a fun one to explain to the boss.... 

[Alan P]

1 hour ago, Lewis95 said:

That must of been a fun one to explain to the boss.... 

They redesigned the tech log after the incident so it didn't have a hard plastic cover, so it was kind of a safety review thing 😂

[Alan P]

7 hours ago, dov said:

You would return this car, if you are still alive. All governments have to be quiet with flaws on such an expensive system, because the citizens of such a country would criticize the government to the outmost for buying such a rummage.

That's simply not true. Your linked article above exactly illustrates that process. The DOT&E reports are not for public consumption by poorly informed journalists and people on forums, but for the Pentagon to present to the contractor in order to ensure they are getting the equipment the $1.3tn price tag promised.

 

The government (paying the bills) won't keep quiet about this program if it's not working out. On the other hand, the end users are the best qualified to advise the government about the value they're getting from the product, which in the F-35's case is overwhelmingly positive, despite the ongoing headaches. 

[NoSG0]

F-35 supersonic flights can damage stealth coating. 

 

If I am reading this right, it is not reparable/deemed not cost effective to repair.  Answer is to limit time spent at supersonic speeds.

 

Reply from the test pilot:

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/

 

Again, glad the pilot made it out ok.

Edited May 24, 2020 by NoSG0

[JohnT]

On 20/05/2020 at 14:30, Mike said:

 having recently watched a documentary about bang seats, it's quite an experience

Did it mention that everyone who has used one in extremis instead of returning to terra firma in the aeroplane says on interview that (because the adrenaline is in max flow delivery) when they pull the handle, despite the seat operating as advertised, they have a “Oh bother the bloody thing is not working” moment to themselves Just before they are kicked out the aeroplane ?

[Greg B]

7 hours ago, Alan P said:

So? They're still cheaper than a Eurofighter Typhoon, for example? I once dropped a tech log and broke ONE screen in a Boeing 737 (accidentally, obviously). It cost $20k to replace. Aviation equipment is expensive. But the F-35 is still good value for money at that price.

Reading a flight safety report regarding an Airbus and a cup of coffee just before entering the N Atlantic Tracks. Looks like the whole centre console doesn’t like hot coffee. I think $20k didn’t even cover the diversion costs. 
 

accidents happen, things fail and there is always error. 

[exdraken]

23 hours ago, NoSG0 said:

F-35 supersonic flights can damage stealth coating. 

 

If I am reading this right, it is not reparable/deemed not cost effective to repair.  Answer is to limit time spent at supersonic speeds.

 

Reply from the test pilot:

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/

 

Again, glad the pilot made it out ok.

Very intetesting..... so the F-35B/C at least are only marginally superdonic capable it seems... kind of the contrsry we were made believe important with the F-22 's supercruise capability... and the enormous kinetic advantage that give to ordance released at high speed.... a bit against logic, but seems there is no way around it!

 

Is that actually over or underengineering when you only have theoretical capability?

Supersonic speed counted in 10s of seconds.... not VERY convincing!

Is the RAF/Navy also changing tactics?

 

 

Wonder why the A model does not have these problems? Or just not reported?

 

Sorry, a bit of topic but the above link made me wonder..