US Navy in mad dash to salvage F-35C that fell off a carrier into South China Sea The US Navy has managed to drop an F-35C fighter jet off one of its aircraft carriers into the South China Sea, just months after the Royal Navy did the same thing with an F-35B in the Mediterranean. F-35C Lightning II in a high G maneuver, with condensation clouds over the wings and trails at the wing tips F-35C Lightning …
An automation failure would throw the pilot back to basic stick and rudder skills, potentially leading to an accident if he or she wasn't prepared for that. Aviation safety professionals identify such unexpected scenarios as "startle."
That's the trouble with automated systems, they are overconfident and won't tell you there is a problem until its too late. True AI when it finally arrives will be just as bad except it will put up a message saying "I told you, you went weren't as good as me. Look, you crashed, you dumb meatsack"
There's a large class of sudden unexpected problems that can't be detected until they happen, whether you're in automatic or manual mode. One of the classic examples is landing gear fails to deploy or lock. Though I do agree that this halfsies functionality of self-driving cars and self-flying planes causes a second or two longer reaction time at a critical moment, and all the ringing a human to take over in an emergency is never going to work long-term.
There is still more good than bad in automation in aviation, and that knowledge is accumulating something that doesn't happen with us as each pilot will always start from scratch.
Reading about accidents I get the feeling a lot more accidents are caused by human error than anything else.
Yes, if the pilot doesn't turn off the autopilot, that's human error, if the pilot hasn't been told how to turn it off, that's human error, if the autopilot has been incorrectly programmed, that's human error, if the autopilot doesn't have enough sensors to function correctly, human error, if someone decides it would be too expensive to add them, human error. I'm obviously thinking Boeing not McDD here.
I do hope that somewhere serious mathematicians are passing their side rules (remember them?) over the numbers. If an activity is automated there is statistical evidence that the results are better than allowing a human to complete it?
Of course, having human monitoring, even allowing for the shock and awe induced when the big fucking klaxon goes off, will be factored as an advantage in the sums.
Who gives a fuck if it's better? I'm not washing my clothes in the river on a washboard and I like it that way.
The point of automation isn't improving (though if that happens, and it often does, brill); the point is me not having to fucking do it.
What on earth are you on about...
Or the future AI will say "What is my goal? To get the car and its occupants to this destination safely. So what I'll do is kill the occupants so then I can't fail getting them to this destination safey as they no longer live. Result". AI has already shown it breaks rules in this way with specification gaming.
A Google doc with some funny examples.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRPiprOaC3HsCf5Tuum8bRfzYUiKLRqJmbOoC-32JorNdfyTiRRsR7Ea5eWtvsWzuxo8bjOxCG84dAg/pubhtml
According to Bloomberg "A $14 billion Pentagon software upgrade for F-35 jets is being installed on planes that are already deployed even though it’s “immature, deficient and insufficiently tested,” according to a new assessment by the military’s testing office."
Not that we'll ever know but I wonder if this was a result of that?
The C variant lands like most navy jets by snagging a wire with a tailhook at over 100 knots, when these landings go wrong 'nobody died' is a good result.
Landing (Automated or not) in anything other than a flat calm become progessively more dangerous as the seas worsen to the point of scrubbing flight operations entirely due to deck pitching*. The old Harrier showed it could land in far worse conditions by arriving alongside the centre of the ship and side stepping onto the deck slowly.
The F35 has three concurrent models in production, 'A' is land based, non carrier & non VTOL, 'B' is VTOL, 'C' is a non VTOL and has a larger wing area.
the A & C models are very similar in design & capabilities while the B only looks the same but has a massive lift fan & gearbox behind the pilot taking up space that on the other models would be fuel & internal weapon space.
The 'B' variant exists because the USMC (and many other users) really like the Harriers ability to operate from anywhere their helicopters can.
On a side note the Japanese lost an F35A in 2019 most of which is still missing after crashing into the sea north of Japan.
*Aircraft arriving at the stern while it's moving up or down at speed risk either missing the wires and collecting the up swinging bow or hitting far too hard and being wrecked.
Time to put the Fairey Swordfish back in production? If the finest German WW2 technology was too advanced to cope - what chance now for the Russian & Chinese?
Canvas radar reflectivity probably puts the Swordfish in the ultimte stealth class. Whilst the landing speed of 65mph and low inertia made landing on pitching decks interesting but not a great problem.
Making Britain crate again?
>Time to put the Fairey Swordfish back in production?
Surely the Supermarine seaplane would be better?
Then when it falls off the aircraft carrier it will at least float.
In fact you wouldn't need an aircraft carrier - just some sort of yacht with a floating wardroom and some sort of tender with aviation fuel, stocks of bombs and the necessary grubby mechanics
This incident sounds like arresting gear failure. What with deck crew sustaining injuries. An arresting cable can do this. Or the tailhook may have broken and parts gone flying.
It's not really fair to put this on the F-35 since thatis all pretty well established technology.
F-35A is CTOL - Conventional Take Off and Landing
F-35B is STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing - there was no KPP for the JSF to be able to perform a vertical takeoff, even though the X-35B executed 18, while the X-32B performed zero, during the fly off
F-35C is CATOBAR - Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery
A video of the landing accident leaked yesterday (confirmed by the US Navy):
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/01/28/navy-confirms-video-and-photo-posted-social-media-show-f-35c-crash-aboard-carl-vinson.html
There appears to be some instability as the F-35C is on final approach, then it throttles up and there's a loud thump right at the end of the sequence.
One possibility is a failure of JPALS, the automated approach and landing system: another is that the arrester wire snapped when the plane hooked it -- if that happened the plane was going into the drink whatever happened, which would explain the ejection and the deck hand injuries.
"another is that the arrester wire snapped when the plane hooked it -- if that happened the plane was going into the drink whatever happened"
I though the idea was to keep full throttle on until they stopped so that a "miss" would be a go around - unless you are saying that a catch - slow then snap would have slowed the plane down to much
The 'B' variant exists because the USMC (and many other users) really like the Harriers ability to operate from anywhere their helicopters can.
It certainly cannot do that. Harriers can make a real mess of the surface underneath them when they do vertical take off.
Chunks of badly maintained tarmac were often seen migrating around airfields in the days when Harriers displayed.
Ok, No. The Harrier wasn't able to operate in a paddy field either hence the SOP of using metal matting for the improvised pads where ground integrity wasn't deemed good enough to operate from.
My underlying point is that the Harrier can operate from places that almost no other fixed wing aircraft can, let alone a combat jet.
Here's how it's done for real.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/san-carlos-fob/
Maybe we can dry it out & mount it out front of a Tesco's with a change box for use as a coin-operated kiddie ride like the mechanical pony, fire truck, or spaceship? I'd happily ride it for a fiver! =-D
*Wanders off making hand zoomy, lips flubbering airplane noises & pretending I'm a Sopwith Camel out hunting the Red Baron*
This post has been deleted by its author
I always thought the South China Sea was fairly shallow - and it is very shallow near the coastal regions, but some areas in the middle basin go down to +4,000m. That's some serious salvage operation to lift that back to the surface... assuming they can find it in the first place! I assume they glide quite well under water and travel a fair distance as it sinks. Maybe they should start fitting air bags!
From what I read elsewhere, that's more or less the issue here.
The nearest US salvage ship capable of trying to hook it back is about 10 days away from it, and the batteries in the transponder won't last that long.
So by the time they get there, the thing will have stopped calling out and it's going to be a basic game of hide and seek at quite a depth. And then the fun comes of actually getting it back on deck.
Given the last several Presidential choices - hell, maybe even quite a few previous choices? - the likelihood seems not all that low...
Luckily (or not, depending on your point of view), Xi Jinping is currently ineligible until the relevant section of the constitution of the USA is amended.
I really, really, really hope the Chinese get to assert dibs over the wreckage
Because yeah, I know military secrets, strategic technology, National Security, Taiwan, Tibet, and all that stuff. And I know it probably makes me an incredibly bad person but I just think it would be really, really funny and then US reaction with the efforts to repair the PR issues, the scenery chewing rants from The Usual Suspects, and the sheer embarrassment would be utterly hilarious.
If the world is going to hell in a hight tech stealth hand basket launched from a Nuclear Powered aircraft carrier then you might as well at least get a laugh out of it…
Deal me in.
My retired Grandpa used to drive my Mom into the city when she worked nights, shift start at 5:00.
The old boy would hustle to get Mom to work by 4:30, so he could park his car and sit at the train station to watch commuters step all over each other in the mad rush home.
I am genetically predisposed to be this 'Very Bad Person's of which you speak.
Such a move is doubtful – the US is no more likely to let China fish up the F-35C wreckage than elect Xi Jinping as US president
Well they got their hands on an American EP-3 a few years ago and appeared to have learnt quite a bit from it. The Chinese also managed to salvage a British submarine in complete secrecy too.
Yep. Clearly skirting a violation of articles 2 & 7 of the Benthic treaty with (depending on the weapons load and configuration of the F35 in question[1]) the option of an added side order of appendix 2…
http://thecolvillegroup-archives.wikidot.com/azorian
[1] I’m assuming here that The Black Chamber operates it’s own equivalent of 666 Squadron and its White Elephant flights…
The Saab is a good jet, the sukov is a match for the f35 and you get a 3 for the price of 1. The Brits are finally growing some balls and going back into plane making, the tsrw of the 1950s would outclass the f35 in every way except it didn't crash. The Harrier didn't lose any operational time nor were any shot down in the Falklands. The yanks never could make a plane, even the Mustang needed a British engine to make it any good
I believe the Mustang was actually a British plane.
The Brits designed it, taking into account the deficiencies of the pre-war designed fighters for the new role the air war had evolved into (esp. long-range escort), along with what they'd learned about high-speed combat (viz.you can almost disregard manoeuvrability -- most fighter-vs-fighter kills were high-speed surprise attacks, and running away beat defensive fighting, cf FW190) (thingummy the major Spitfire test pilot said the Mark V (IIRC) was the best plane to fly, but the later ones were better weapons, eventually vastly better (dull to fly though (by his standards))).
The design was passed to the Americans for manufacturing. I believe subsequent mods were all American.
That'll learn me to listen to the old air-history buffs in Hampshire pubs around airshow times. Although... just now looking at wikipedia, even it shows distinct signs of a battle-of-narratives/-stories just among the yanks.
I suspect both ends of the spectrum are exaggerating a little. More Brit input than the yanks are happy with; more Yank input than the brits are happy with. But it does look as if the brit history buffs are over-egging it more than the yanks.
*shrug* Usual story with history -- if you're not reading primary sources, you're getting massive spin. And you have to remember the primary sources are spun, too. As is personal recollection.
Thanks for the nudge.
A number of Harriers were lost (shot down) during the Falklands war, though all to ground-to-air fire.
None were shot down during air-to-air combat. However, that is at least in part due to the operational limits imposed on the Argentine air force, i.e. the endurance of their fighters operating from the mainland.
None of which is to dispute that the Harrier was an exceptionally good aeroplane.
I assume tsrw refers to TSR-2? Very high tech, seemingly very capable, very expensive, very 1950's, very few built (prototypes only 2? 3? something like that) and none entered service
> air-to-air combat
If you're interested, the Sunday Times (UK) had a big piece re a Falklands action where brit shot down argie. Both pilots simply wrote their experience of the action, themselves. So just 2 first-person accounts side by side over a full broadsheet page or two (and ISTR a map/flightpaths too?). Extremely interesting and about as accurate a view of it as you're going to get. Notable for the very different "thinking patterns" of the two pilots, or at least writing patterns.
If you're looking to hunt it down, it might be easier to ring them directly so they can use their own custom internal search engine. Re date of publication... ah now... I think it was late-middish '90s ('96-98?) or else it would have been early-to-mid noughties. Probably. I'm leaning towards 90s from a vague memory of my then-furniture :)
>You'll have to explain how the F-35 would survive the exact same threat?
although I am guessing it was to "un American".
Not quite sure how the "lost" the aircraft ? Surely the second it plopped you drop anchor (or whatever*) and mark the spot until your rescue crews arrive ?
*I'm not sailor, but GPS to 6 digits should be enough to record the location ?
>>*I'm not sailor, but GPS to 6 digits should be enough to record the location ?
The last location it was known to be... on the surface.
It was largely intact and, with nice expensive wings like it has, probably has quite a range gliding, underwater, towards the bottom... up to 4km or so below the surface
They did.
The original Harrier became for the Americans the AV-8A.
The development of the Harrier (GR3 for the RAF / AV-8A for the USMC) to the Harrier GR5 (/GR7/GR9) / Harrier II (AV-8B) was driven to a significant extent by the US rather than the UK. Because, well you know, money.
Given the Harrier entered service around 1970, it had pretty much reached the end of it's credible front-line life.
Don't give Apple any more ideas!
"Ah, so your iPhone fell in the swimming pool and activated the protection mechanism, lest it be found by a non-Apple user? You certainly wouldn't want that to happen, would you? That's quite all right, we can sell you a replacement. No, I'm very sorry, AppleCare doesn't cover this sort of incident, nor the repair to the swimming pool…"
... have just built a better Harrier?
After all, the USMC bloody loved them, dogfights are mostly a thing of the past, but the Harriers did pretty well dogfighting in the South Atlantic.
Or is it just a case of Boeing/Lockheed pork-barrelling and being twenty years behind existing thinking?
These pages really miss Lewis Page sometimes....
----> for LP, if I ever bump into him
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
