F-35 fail: The aircraft could kill its pilots during combat

Dec 2013
33,811
19,364
Beware of watermelons
Yet another disturbing revelation about America’s newest fighter jet has been uncovered. The aircraft, which cost taxpayers over $1 trillion to develop, can barely take off, and which the Pentagon admits is a total failure, also has a defect that could easily kill its pilots during combat.

Apparently the Martin-Baker designed ejection seat is flawed. It’s been found that pilots weighing less than 136 lbs are at risk of a potentially fatal neck injury if they try to eject. An “elevated risk” has also been found for pilots weighing between 136 lbs and 165 lbs. In other words, it’s likely that the majority of pilots who use the aircraft are at risk of breaking their necks if they ever have to eject.
The reason why has to do with how the seat is designed, which causes it to rotate slightly upon ejection. The company that designed the seat has so far failed to find a solution to the problem. The Air Force however, has been looking into reducing the weight of the F-35’s designated helmet as a potential solution, each of which cost $400,000, or four times has much as the previous model.
But ultimately the Air Force plans to scrap the ejection seat, and replace it with one designed by a different company. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like they’ll be scrapping the F-35 boondoggle anytime soon.

F-35 Fail: The Aircraft Could Kill Its Pilots During Combat | The Daily Sheeple
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Nov 2012
11,231
9,515
nirvana
The backyard media has been talking this up for quite some time. Actually I think there was a piece on 60 Minutes about it. It's not just dangerous. It's way over budget and about 7 years late. Big screw up.

Military Admits Billion-Dollar War Toy F-35 Is F**ked - The Daily Beast
And at a time when we don't need more air superiority. We have that now, and will for at least the next 20 years.

All current R&D for air platforms should be scrapped immediately, and better training and pay for infantry soldiers which will require higher levels of training for the modern electronic weapons systems they will be using.

We don't need another airplane, and we don't need another carrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,565
29,497
Colorado
Citizens United and lobbying at its finest.
In the Lightweight Fighter Program of the early 70s, General Dynamics was paid less than $38 million, yes, million to develop a YF-16 flying prototype. Northrup also received less than $40 million to produce a YF-17 flying prototype.

Then, the two planes went head-to-head in testing. Every pilot involved in the testing program preferred flying the YF-16.

Arguably, the F-16, is the most successful, most ubiquitous, and one of the least expensive jet fighter aircraft ever produced.

What happened to that process which worked?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
We need more air superiority as they stopped way short in the numbers of the best, the F-22, even though price per unit was coming down nicely. The odds of retooling production to build more F-22's is slim and none.

The answer then is modifying per Boeing the late model F-15's to carry more AMRAAM's, and build the newest generation model F-16's.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,565
29,497
Colorado
And at a time when we don't need more air superiority. We have that now, and will for at least the next 20 years.

All current R&D for air platforms should be scrapped immediately, and better training and pay for infantry soldiers which will require higher levels of training for the modern electronic weapons systems they will be using.

We don't need another airplane, and we don't need another carrier.
You're referring to the F-22, but only 187 of those were built and we have no means to build more.

And the F-35 is in production, crazier than hell that it is, and isn't going out of production.