On a US carrier, multiple people injured unfortunately.
To those in the know, is the F35 having a fairly typical early (bumpy) production life for a new fighter?
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/politics/f-35-pilot-eject-south-china-sea/index.html
It's been in service for 3 years, the bath tub should have bottomed out by now surely?
It’s the carrier variant so not the same as uk one that crashed, this one looks like a failed landing, for whatever reason, if it had issues they tend to ditch rather than risk the ship, hopefully all are safe and they work out the root cause.
There have been fighter aircraft with significantly greater losses while being far less complex; I suggest you start with the F-104 Starfighter, but most of the Century Series jets had major problems. There’s an album made by one of the members of Hawkwind, who went under the name Captain Lockeed and the Starfighters, where the question is posed; “How do you obtain a Starfighter?” “You buy an acre of land, and wait!”
The ones flown by the Luftwaffe had a particularly poor record, IIRC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
The Starfighter eventually flew with fifteen air forces, but its poor safety record, especially in <i>Luftwaffe</i> service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, its high accident rate earning it the nickname "the Widowmaker" from the German public.
As I understand it, the F-35 has only had two major losses, one was one of our jets, after deck crew left the jet intake covers inside the fuselage jet intakes, which rather compromised its take-off performance.
No idea about this latest incident.
Thanks guys.
The Starfighter failures do put things into perspective somewhat!
To also put that into perspective almost ninety English Electric Lightnings crashed during it's RAF career - out of a total of 337 built.
There have been several crashes, but they mostly sound like the routine things you'd expect from a new, complex military aircraft. There are hundreds of them in service so some crashes are inevitable. Really, only the VTOL version should be any worse than a regular aircraft like the F16 - if anything goes wrong during the hovering part of the flight, there's no time to recover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Accidents_and_notable_incidents
The F35C is the latest of the variants and is still relatively new. They’re on their first operation deployment for the type. Accidents were bound to happen.
Landing on a carrier is widely known to be one of the most dangerous activities you can routinely undertake with a fighter jet.
Well, there is no alternative on the table. The MOD locked themselves into using the F-35 for the next 40-50 years because the new carriers have no CATOBAR.
Think of military fighter jets like F1 cars compared to commercial jets and family cars. They are cutting edge and pushed to the limit. Some crashes are an inevitable part of the job (ex military aviator).
is the F35 having a fairly typical early (bumpy) production life for a new fighter?
As above, less bumpy than a great many other types.
The news headlines don't tell you the incident-free hours the type has now logged.
I have to assume that there will be a limited number of the B variant purchassed and those that do will not be used in any serious way. They are a carrier aircraft and a) the UK only has one and b) it is poorly protected and c) a lot of limited wars look like being a long way inland these days.
All good reasons to use something with more range, payload and loiter capability. And performance.
Also, there's a reason that the Germans bought the Widowmaker... a lot of the officials were influenced/bribed to look on it favourably, hence the reason the Foreign Corrupt Business Practices Act exists now for US companies.
There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread. The US one that’s just crashed/ditched was a “C” variant, so cats and controlled crash of a landing. No enough info in that article at all to indicate what happened that saw so many crew injured, yet the pilot managing to eject.
The UK, B variant, issue looks like it was simply an engine cover (eg process issue) being ingested. So not really an issue with the aircraft itself.
There have been various other significant issues though. The article mentions the Japanese pilot that was killed, and also the Korean jet that belly landed - that one will likely get back to flying
The ones flown by the Luftwaffe had a particularly poor record, IIRC.
Not all of which you can lay at the door of the F104 really. Firstly the airplane wasn't really designed with European weather and terrain in mind, and early Luftwaffe pilots had only flown in the blazing sunshine and flat terrain of Arizona it was being serviced by largely conscripted ground personnel and the first generation of post-war German pilots lacked a "corporate history" of flying early jets and then more complex ones (for obvious reasons) Once they got used to it, the accident rate fell away.
While Dantsw13 points out that some accident are inevitable, given the amount of on board redundancies, the extensive flight testing, and pilot training, comparisons with 2nd Gen stuff like the F104 aren't really fair. To carry his F1 analogy further, it's like comparing the crash survivability of a Lotus 78 and Roman's Haas crash in 2020
The B variant is the most gimped and technically compromised because of the shaft driven lift fan.
The MOD locked themselves into using the F-35 for the next 40-50 years because the new carriers have no CATOBAR.
Some too-and -froing at the beginning of the process aside, for the UK; on balance the -B variant makes more sense.
Some too-and -froing at the beginning of the process aside, for the UK; on balance the -B variant makes more sense.
It was short-sighted in my view. The two new carriers can't fly anything else and that includes future weapons systems such as drones. A major case of not future-proofing.
can’t fly anything else and that includes future weapons systems such as drones
@Murray - yeah small drones. Anything that would need a catapult launch is a no no.
It was short-sighted in my view.
Only if you want to use something else on board a carrier, I've yet to see a drone that wouldn't be able to use a ramp and for lighter drones; recovery could be easily done with nets, and if a human can fly a VSTOL aircraft it would be child's play for a computer. I think the days of a large FAA are long gone I'm afraid. The UK isn't the US with endless squadrons of F35s and sufficient pilot training on board deployed carriers to keep up with the demands of taking-off and landing on a carrier. With a V-STOL fleet the RAF and Navy pilots can keep themselves up to scratch The -B model carries a "little less", has a "little less" range and costs a "little bit" more per unit, but in most respects is a similar aircraft Overall the lifetime cost will still be be less than it would of cost to change the carriers to be able to launch and recover conventionally. Much grumbling, but sensible really.
i_scoff_cake
Free MemberIt was short-sighted in my view. The two new carriers can’t fly anything else and that includes future weapons systems such as drones. A major case of not future-proofing.
They're already testing mid-sized drones on the HMS QE...
Anything that would need a catapult launch is a no no.
If we can get a F35 to launch using a ramp and recover vertically , we can (re)design a drone to do the same.
B variant was the right choice, given the UK carrier design.
Whether it was quite right for the carrier to be built without catobar is a different discussion. But that was likely inevitable when the decision to avoid having a nuclear ship was made.
i_scoff_cake
Free Member
The B variant is the most gimped and technically compromised because of the shaft driven lift fan.
The B and A variants of F35 have similar performance characteristics, with the A having slightly more range and the B being more versatile. The both have a very similar operating envelope with the B somewhat G-limited, but not as much as the C. The C variant is quite different and has limited structural capacity due to the larger wing area. Also, despite having more fuel capacity, it's range isn't significantly better due to the additional drag of the large wing needed for carrier landings at low speed.
I'd argue that the most compromised variant is actually the "A" version. Having to take into account all the needs of the other variants into the basic airframe and system design has significantly compromised its capabilities especially in terms of energy, stealth and cooling.
Boblo - I flew Hercs , so more transit van than F1!! Even so, we still lost a few as military operations are inherently risky, even training has to have a certain intensity/risk. I’ve lost too many friends on jets, helicopters and a lot on the multi engine fleet too.
Whether it was quite right for the carrier to be built without catobar is a different discussion
I think the discussion at the time was that it's likely the UK aims only ever have one carrier at sea at any time, but to be effective with a conventional trap and launch you'd have to keep all the pilots current on what's a pretty demanding flying skill. Using v-stol you can practice it anywhere, and so all the pilots can deploy all the time.
CATOBAR wasn't the limiting choice for QE class, it was the propulsion system choice. Running cats and traps incurs a huge weight and cost penalty and uses a huge amount of energy from the steam production plants. On the QEc, this requires fuel, lots of it. On a nuclear carrier, it's practically for free both in terms of its effect on weight and on fuel use.
The QEc should've been nuclear carriers.
Anyway - back on topic. The F35B crash on the QE appears to have been and avoidable accident which had nothing to do with the F35 and its capabilities. The F35C class On the Carl Vincent seems to have been a landing accident...a real crash rather than a controlled one. Though it will be interesting to see what the problem was, such that he knew it was going to happen, managed to eject with the plane pancaking on the deck.
My guess would be that the pilot had too little speed to land, tried to power-up and was expecting to have a faster thrust response from the engine, but the F35s engine (like a commercial aircraft) is a single large higher bypass turbofan and doesn't respond like a pair of low bypass turbofans like on the F18. He realised he couldn't make it and popped the hatch with the plane smashing into the fantail/deck.
No idea about the cause of this, but in terms of being typical for new aircraft, the Harrier had a pretty grim failure rate throughout its life.
A combination of ground attack role (flying close to the ground), a single engine, complex thrust vectoring and low lift wing make for a much higher likelihood of disaster. Throw in carrier operations with the personnel and technical co-ordination required for each take-off and landing, and I'm genuinely amazed that there are not more incidents.
Pub anecdote - treat with caution Apparently the engineers working on Harriers BITD were reluctant to accept free trips in the two seaters because they saw at first hand just how risky Harrier flying was. They were happy to fly in the Tornados and Jaguars instead though. Pub anecdote - treat with caution
The vast majority of Harrier crashes were due to engine failure during transition and landing and loss of control during vertical landing.
The Harrier's engine was on the very limit during landing and could only maintain a controlled hover for a limited period due to overheating (the F35 is similar, but the window is larger). The F35 has both a MUCH more powerful engine and a better thrust distribution for vertical landing. People who I knew that flew the Harrier said it was like trying to balance a spinning plate on a stick that was 10m tall. Too much movement one way or another or any environmental effects which disturbed the thrust column needed lightning reactions to avoid a crash.
The ones flown by the Luftwaffe had a particularly poor record, IIRC.
There’s a lot to unpick there, only some of which was the aircraft’s fault. At least part of it was taking an aircraft designed as an clear-weather interceptor and using it as a low-level strike aircraft in the crowded and cloudy skies of Western Europe. In any case the accident rate was better than the F-84s the Luftwaffe replaced with the F-104.
The QEc should’ve been nuclear carriers.
You'd still have to keep all the pilots current on what is otherwise a redundant skill for half the aircraft at any one time. Flying from and landing on carrier using conventional methods takes huge amounts of skill and practice, and is completely un-necessary for the RAF squadron based pilots, with B version you ca have all the pilots learn to same technique that can practice it all the time and keep currently and deploy to whatever AC is at sea.
Plus they can pop it down in a relatively undeveloped / short landing strip, if needed. Or a big road. Etc.
The F-35B hover control is also light years ahead of what was available for Harriers, compare the stability of F-35 in hover to the Harrier.
It is, but it's still very thermally limited, especially on low fuel. F35Bs returning to HMS QE must have substantially more fuel remaining than if they were performing a conventional landing as the fuel is the heatsink for the engine heat.
The QE carriers seem unnecessarily large then if just to support V/STOL operations. Could probably have built 3 smaller ones.
Daffy
Full MemberIt is, but it’s still very thermally limited, especially on low fuel. F35Bs returning to HMS QE must have substantially more fuel remaining than if they were performing a conventional landing as the fuel is the heatsink for the engine heat.
Mind that they now have 2 different approach techniques they can use
Using v-stol you can practice it anywhere
Exactly
The QE carriers seem unnecessarily large then if just to support V/STOL operations
presumably so that you can carry Chinooks, Apaches, possibly even Ospreys?
Do they? I didn't know that. What's the second? A low speed approach, touchdown and coast using wing lift and the liftfan?
The QE carriers seem unnecessarily large then if just to support V/STOL operations. Could probably have built 3 smaller ones.
Smaller doesn't grant greater flexibility for carriers - the opposite is true. The larger the carrier, the greater the airwing and the more room there is for combined flight operations. Combined and continuous ops was near impossible on the old Invincible Class. The only reason the Falklands air campaign was successful was because we still had HMS Hermes which could carry almost twice the number of aircraft as invincible and could launch and recover sorties simultaneously. This is the case also for HMS QE and PoW. Yes, they're a big target and can only be in one place at once, but they're much more capable of defending themselves and of prosecuting a mission due to their size.
Daffy
Full Member
Do they? I didn’t know that. What’s the second? A low speed approach, touchdown and coast using wing lift and the liftfan?
Had to go and remind myself
UK pilots developed and tested it as it allows you to land without having to dump all your stores in the sea ala Harrier
looks essentially what a helicopter pilot would call a zero zero landing...allowing you to land with no power margin in a small space
looks essentially what a helicopter pilot would call a zero zero landing
Isn't a zero-zero landing when you pull the yellow and black handle and earn yourself a Martin Baker tie?
Bit of speculation but, this could have been a failure of the arrestor gear not the aircraft. If so the fact it's an F35 is pretty irrelevent.
I was thinking that too, especial when you hear that folk on deck were injured. Nothing good comes from a failure of that kit
The US will know the issue already, they have the data from the optical landing system, each landing is graded as well, and video'd, plus the F35 has all the flight data as well.
The UK tend to use carriers similar to USMC, hence why we both have F35B's and have worked together through the programme, think that video previously will be the USS Wasp trials back in the good old trials day.
think that video previously will be the USS Wasp trials back in the good old trials day.
The one with the Fleet Air Arm Merlin and the ship's pennant number starting R0 clearly visible?
My fault, didn't look at the video, just thought it was the first ship landing for F35 which was over a decade ago on USS Wasp.
Are we talking about my video? Yeah, definitely not Wasp
Edit: hadnt seen post above when looking for the onboard video
Isn’t a zero-zero landing when you pull the yellow and black handle and earn yourself a Martin Baker tie?
And a shorter neck to wear it round 😬😬😬
It was only the early seats that did that, I thought?
Your neck might be the same length but it's a bit lower down the mirror than it was before.
Some misconceptions about QEC going around in this thread.
Nuclear propulsion is great for endurance and allowing greater quantities of aviation fuel to be stored onboard, but it's INCREDIBLY expensive to build and maintain, especially in the nuclear infrastructure required to dock the vessel. For a fleet of two it's simply not worth it and the submarine infrastructure is way too small for QEC.
Nuclear ships are also banned from several parts of the world and the royal fleet auxiliary has 4 modern oilers for replenishment at sea operations.
Yes they're large but steel is cheap in relative terms - the cost differences aren't as large as you'd think and the extra space supports rolling landing and future drone ops, as well as growth for the inevitable upgrades over the 50 year lifespan of the platform.
As described above, the F-35B is a incredibly capable aircraft and the accident on QE is attributed to a human factors error so a bit unjust to call the plane unreliable. Of course nothing is known about the US navy crash atm.
That said there the programme isn't perfect, currently there's only 48 F-35B's on order, and at surge capability each carrier can apparently have 40+ onboard. With training, maintenance and attrition (already 47!) the lack of F-35B numbers are apparent, even with the plans to up the order to 70-80 eventually. The slow pace of UK weapons integration also means the UK's F-35B's can't carry many of the weapons used on Typhoons.
Apparently the crash is being described as a ‘ramp strike’, basically the plane seems to have come in a bit too low and impacted the rear flight deck, which is how the other crew members were injured; the jet would have up-ended and slid onto the flight-deck. There’s lots of WW2 footage of fighters coming in and suffering a ramp-strike.
I wondered when the MB Twitter feed was going to catch up:
https://twitter.com/MB_EjectEject/status/1486701838355288065?s=20
Do martin baker also list how many they have killed?
The reason MB went into developing ejection seats was as a response to Baker being killed in a flying accident. There have been deaths directly attributable to seat malfunctions (or ejecting 'out of envelope') but how would you tell which other incidents were unsurvivable even if the seat had worked as planned?
I would prefer to have one of their ejector seats over none for sure.
Infact when i was a little kid dreaming of being a pilot i wanted to be a fighter pilot as i was scared of the idea of flying an airliner due to not having one.
Footage of the recent US incident:
Wow! That footage looks pretty conclusive regarding the actual impact, what it doesn’t explain is; was it an aircraft malf, ie engine losing power on approach, or pilot error, ie coming in too low with too little throttle. Hell of an impact though, and amazing there were relatively few injuries.
What the heck was that unintelligible screaming on the video
That was the air traffic controller seeing he was coming in way too steep and below the horizon, hence screaming wave off and crash a few times, they'll know the reason long ago, they'll have the flight data, ATC data and each landing is graded, so all that will be logged.
was it an aircraft malf, ie engine losing power on approach, or pilot error, ie coming in too low with too little throttle.
Could have been a PLM (precision landing mode) failure and a pilot not reacting to it quickly enough.
Not pleasant to watch that.😟
Does anyone know if the injured crew/pilot are doing ok?
UK pilots developed and tested it as it allows you to land without having to dump all your stores in the sea
Thats probably not the only thing the pilot dumps when the entire operation goes tits up 😆
My guess would be that the pilot had too little speed to land, tried to power-up and was expecting to have a faster thrust response from the engine, but the F35s engine (like a commercial aircraft) is a single large higher bypass turbofan and doesn’t respond like a pair of low bypass turbofans like on the F18. He realised he couldn’t make it and popped the hatch with the plane smashing into the fantail/deck.
Nailed it on page 1! Well, almost. I don’t see a certain ejection…maybe half way down the flight deck? Really late to eject.
Control surfaces can be seen going absolutely bonkers trying to keep that thing in the air there. Almost looks likes its on the verge of stalling, which would kinda tie-in with another analysis video I saw after the first footage (phone footage from the stern) which was pointing out that he had a very short final and the ship was (or just had) changing course so he likely didn't have the latest info about conditions on deck. I could see the pilot getting it in the neck for this one
yeah the ejection happens around halfway down the deck. You can see a small flash and a black thing shoot off up and left
Isn’t a zero-zero landing when you pull the yellow and black handle and earn yourself a Martin Baker tie?
Zero-zero refers to ejection seat capability:
Rated for use on the ground (zero feet) and at zero airspeed. The combination of explosive charge and rocket pack firing allows the seat to be propelled upwards sufficiently to inflate the parachute on descent.
That compares to the last ejection seat I used (Mk8) which was a Zero-70. You needed 70 knots to hope for survival after a ground level ejection. That was because it had 2 explosive cartridges but no rocket packs.
You get the tie after a successful ejection. I'm glad I don't have a tie!
That compares to the last ejection seat I used (Mk8) which was a Zero-70. You needed 70 knots to hope for survival after a ground level ejection.
If you were only doing 65, would flapping your arms help?
I think the quickly wheel out a treadmill in that situation don't they?
Control surfaces can be seen going absolutely bonkers trying to keep that thing in the air there.
Presume that’s the computer too, not the pilot??
scuttler
Full Member
Presume that’s the computer too, not the pilot??
Yeah very much so, looked like they were moving faster (and in a more complex way) than a human ever did. I saw a brilliant Russian demo recent where you could see the same thing. Not sure if I'll be able to find it but I'll have a look
Ward Carroll, ex F14 RIO has been covering this. As he says repeatedly, wait for the inquiry results.
It's a brilliant example of how truly genius the angled flight deck is.
Ward Carroll, ex F14 RIO has been covering this. As he says repeatedly, wait for the inquiry results.
Jesus, that's a 70 minute video. What's the brief summary?
Ward Carroll, ex F14 RIO has been covering this. As he says repeatedly, wait for the inquiry results.
This. There are an incalculable number of things that can go wrong when trying to bring down a twenty-five ton, $100m jet fighter onto the deck of an aircraft carrier.
It’s a brilliant example of how truly genius the angled flight deck is.
Also this.
Have the US Navy managed to retrieve their jet yet?
Murray
Full Member
As he says repeatedly, wait for the inquiry results.
Pass. This isn't the house of commons, nothing wrong with armchair discussion and guesswork
Jesus, that’s a 70 minute video. What’s the brief summary?
ooft, ok maybe it is the house of commons if its 70mins of "wait for the investigation"
This reminds me of one of my most painful bike crashes - walking pace, minor pedal strike, every attempt at recovery just escalated things until I was lying on the ground with my bike on top of me with badly bruised ribs and a hole punched down to my kneecap.
Unfortunately stuff happens. You only have to look at the very long list of Harrier/Sea Harrier/Harrier II crashes to see that complex single-engine aircraft go wrong (and occasionally the pilots do too), but the west kept using the aircraft for 60 years
