Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

One of America's $135.8 Million Fighter Jets Shot Itself (vice.com) 156

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An F-35B Joint Strike Fighter shot itself in the skies above Arizona earlier this month, doing at least $2.5 million in damage. The pilot was unharmed and successfully landed the jet. The Pentagon isn't quite sure how or why the jet shot itself and the incident is still under investigation. From a report: As first reported by Military.com, the F-35 was flying in a training mission at night on March 12 at the Yuman Range Complex in Arizona when it shot itself. This particular F-35 has an externally mounted gatling gun that fires a 25mm armor piercing high explosive round. Sometime during the training, the gun discharged and the round exploded, damaging the underside of the jet. The pilot landed the jet and a Navy investigation classified the accident as Class A. Class A accidents are the most severe, it's a classification used when someone in the weapon dies, the whole jet is lost, or the property damage is $2.5 million or greater. "The mishap did not result in any injury to personnel, and an investigation of the incident is currently taking place," Marine Corps spokesperson Captain Andrew Wood told Military.com. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever built. Just one of the B variants, flown by the U.S. Marine Corps, costs around $135.8 million. The total cost for the entire F-35 program is estimated to be more than a $1 trillion over the course of the program's lifetime. The expensive jet has been plagued by problems since Lockheed Martin began manufacturing them in 2006. In May 2020, an F-35 costing $175 million landed too hard and "rolled, caught fire, and was completely destroyed," according to an Air Force accident report. The accident report gave several reasons for the crash, including the F-35's speciality helmet and its inability to deliver oxygen properly to the pilot.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

One of America's $135.8 Million Fighter Jets Shot Itself More

One of America's $135.8 Million Fighter Jets Shot Itself

Comments Filter:

  • Not the first time (Score:5, Informative)

    by BLToday ( 1777712 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @03:26PM (#61202372)

    https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]

  • Also shot foot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @03:27PM (#61202378) Journal

    America shot itself in the foot with the F-35. They tried a Great Factoring of using most of the same design for different branches of the military, and the experiment failed: none of the branches are happy with it.

    I hear China swiped the plans and improved upon it. Maybe we can swipe the plans back to get a better version.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      The thing that really blew up complexity was making a STOVL version for the Marine Corps so they could operate from improvised forward bases. That is an enormous nut to crack, and even if they do manage to get the technical glitches ironed out of the aircraft's performance, it may still prove *strategically* impractical.

      The goal was to have a no-compromises aircraft that could support fast-moving Marine Expeditionary Force. But unless the operational costs go down dramatically, that fast-moving force mig

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        The thing that really blew up complexity was making a STOVL version for the Marine Corps so they could operate from improvised forward bases. That is an enormous nut to crack, ...

        It was cracked in the 1960s by the British and the US Marines have been flying the British Harrier since the 1970s.

        ... and even if they do manage to get the technical glitches ironed out of the aircraft's performance, it may still prove *strategically* impractical.

        The Harrier proved quite "strategic" and "practical" in the Falkland Islands War. Plus the US Marines have some experience (going back to WW2) with improvised airstrips just beyond active ground combat and similarly found the "strategic" and "practical". STOVL means they need to do less improvisational work than they used to.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          It's the F35 Flying Pig AI, it is suffering a major inferiority complex and statements like F35 Flying Pig, are causing the AI to question the value of it's continued existence, so it shot itself to put itself out of it's misery. Now it sits in it's hanger, sullen and depressed, unable to function having even failed at suicide ;D.

        • > The Harrier proved quite "strategic" and "practical" in the Falkland Islands War.
          The Harrier may be VTOL capable, but in the Falklands VTOL was not used simply because it costs too much fuel and reduces what can be carried. VTOL is just a stupid useless show it has no practical purpose in any battle. Nobody is going to park their planes in school or shop center carpark, thats utter bullshit and has never been used that way.

          • Harriers operated during the Falklands conflict from forward bases that used steel matting for short runways, in addition to being flown from British aircraft carriers. VTOL also means VSTOL which increases operational ability, especially in situations where a normal takeoff is impossible.

            The VTOL capability also came in exceptionally handy because the expeditionary fleet carried spare aircraft (14 Harriers in total) on a container ship, the SS Atlantic Conveyor, which were flown to the aircraft carriers a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            > The Harrier proved quite "strategic" and "practical" in the Falkland Islands War. The Harrier may be VTOL capable, but in the Falklands VTOL was not used simply because it costs too much fuel and reduces what can be carried. VTOL is just a stupid useless show it has no practical purpose in any battle. Nobody is going to park their planes in school or shop center carpark, thats utter bullshit and has never been used that way.

            I am sorry but you seem ignorant of history. In particular there were situations where Marine aviators worked from forward, sometimes improvised, airfields as the enemy approached. Marine aircraft took off, attacked enemy in proximity to the base and returned to rearm in minutes. In such scenarios the reduced payload of VTOL is irrelevant.

            With a full payload STOVL is another option that creates great flexibility for Marine aircraft.

            Marines want such capabilities not for some imaginary reason but becau

            • > I am sorry but you seem ignorant of history. In particular there were situations where Marine aviators worked from forward, sometimes improvised, airfields as the enemy approached. Marine aircraft took off, attacked enemy in proximity to the base and returned to rearm in minutes. In such scenarios the reduced payload of VTOL is irrelevant.
              Of course its relevant, less fuel means less time and less weapons.
              > With a full payload STOVL is another option that creates great flexibility for Marine airc

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drnb ( 2434720 )

                > I am sorry but you seem ignorant of history. In particular there were situations where Marine aviators worked from forward, sometimes improvised, airfields as the enemy approached. Marine aircraft took off, attacked enemy in proximity to the base and returned to rearm in minutes. In such scenarios the reduced payload of VTOL is irrelevant.

                Of course its relevant, less fuel means less time and less weapons.

                You don't seem to be grasping the context here. There are historical incidents of Marine aircraft operating against enemy in extreme close proximity to an airfield. These aircraft literally had a flight time of a few minutes from takeoff to bomb release, and another few minutes back for rearming. And possibly refueling after some number of sorties. Full tanks are not needed in such a scenario.

                > With a full payload STOVL is another option that creates great flexibility for Marine aircraft. Harriers cannot take off with a full payload.

                STO = Short Take Off, VL = Vertical Landing. The only vertical is the landing. Short takeoff gets lift from the wing

                • > You don't seem to be grasping the context here. There are historical incidents of Marine aircraft operating against enemy in extreme close proximity to an airfield. These aircraft literally had a flight time of a few minutes from takeoff to bomb release, and another few minutes back for rearming. And possibly refueling after some number of sorties. Full tanks are not needed in such a scenario. And there are also some historical context of a lucky arrow hitting a king like in1066, but we must look at t

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by drnb ( 2434720 )

                    > You don't seem to be grasping the context here. There are historical incidents of Marine aircraft operating against enemy in extreme close proximity to an airfield. These aircraft literally had a flight time of a few minutes from takeoff to bomb release, and another few minutes back for rearming. And possibly refueling after some number of sorties. Full tanks are not needed in such a scenario. And there are also some historical context of a lucky arrow hitting a king like in1066, but we must look at the normal not the very highly rare. Beats me why. you think this scenario will ever replay against Chian or Russia.

                    It happened in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Some of it involved the exact mission for which the US Marines exist. To size land for a base of some sort, which may include an airfield. Immediately after the seizure of an airfield, while a larger battle is still underway, it is highly advantage to put that airfield into operations. The Marines developed various technologies to facilitate such improvised airfields. VSTOL and VTOL are modern tools for that proven mission. >> With a full payload STOVL is anoth

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by amorsen ( 7485 )

        The STOVL version was necessary to get the UK on board with the project. The UK aircraft carriers are too small to launch the carrier version of F-35.

        F-35 has to be everything to everyone. Like Itanium. However, unlike Itanium, competitive pressure is unlikely to doom F-35.

    • Replacing the F-16 and F-18 with one jet fighter was a sound and viable idea. After all, if you look at what other countries do, such as France, Russia, and China, they develop a single fighter jet for air force and then modify it for take off and landing from the aircraft carrier. It's not too complicated.

      The biggest mistake was trying to get F-35 family to replace the vertical take off aircraft such as Sea Harrier for the USMC. This required accepting a design that likely compromised the air force's F-35A

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 )

        After all, if you look at what other countries do, such as France, Russia, and China, they develop a single fighter jet for air force and then modify it for take off and landing from the aircraft carrier. It's not too complicated.

        Of course, if you look really closely at French, Russian, and Chinese Aircraft carriers.one of the things you notice is that none of them are what the US defines as an "aircraft carrier". Seaplane carrier, maybe. On a good day.

        Well, except for China and Russia, who don't have AN

        • The inferiority of Russian, Chinese, and other aircraft carriers is irrelevant to this discussion. Despite having a ski jump, and no catapult, Russians were still able to take a standard airforce fighter jets like Su-27 and Mig-29, and developed carrier versions of those. French and Chinese did similar things, while the US navy insisted in the 70s to have its own fighter jets separate from Air Forces F-16 and F-15 programs. Unifying Navy's and Air Force's fighter jet into a single platform was a sound idea,

          • Unifying Navy and Air-Force fighter jets is a horrible idea. Navy jets require strengthening of air frames to handle the sharp takeoff and arrest forces on aircraft carriers. That extra weight affects air superiority capabilities.
        • You do know that the French have a nuclear aircraft carrier that carries 30-40 Rafale M's right? Not exactly a "USN Escort Carrier".

        • The french have a carrier, it launches fighters, not only sea planes. No idea where you got that nonsense from.
          They are building a second one atm and over haul the old one.

          Russia sold its carrier to China. Also a full functional carrier. You have some silly ideas.

          Fact of the matter is that since Japan's CV's were sunk in WW2, there hasn't been anything that would fit the definition of CV that wasn't part of the USN....
          Then you have a pretty odd definition.

          UK had two, which are retired, and is building 2 new

        • Fact of the matter is that since Japan's CV's were sunk in WW2, there hasn't been anything that would fit the definition of CV that wasn't part of the USN....

          Check more carefully. Even Australia had a real carrier once. I'd have thought Americans would remember it since it sank a US destroyer.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by _merlin ( 160982 )

            We have two kinda new aircraft carriers in the Royal Australian Navy. We just don't call them carriers because we only have helicopters to operate off them. However, they could field the Harrier, F-35C, or various other STOL aircraft if we actually had any.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jaa101 ( 627731 )

              This sub-thread is specifically about 'what the US defines as an "aircraft carrier"', meaning those big enough to launch non-STOL aircraft with a full payload. You're talking about amphibious assault ships and the US has those too, though much bigger than the Australian ships.

      • It seems that the US military did not learn the lesson of the F15 and the A10. The F15 was, and still is, a simply outstanding aircraft because it was designed to do one thing only, air superiority. Likewise the A10 and ground attack Trying to design a plane, the F35, that can have STOVL variants, can do air superiority missions, and is slated for ground attack missions, is completely crazy.

        • It seems that the US military did not learn the lesson of the F15 and the A10. The F15 was, and still is, a simply outstanding aircraft because it was designed to do one thing only, air superiority. Likewise the A10 and ground attack Trying to design a plane, the F35, that can have STOVL variants, can do air superiority missions, and is slated for ground attack missions, is completely crazy.

          That's why in WW2, we ended up with sleek fighters like the Mustang and chubby fighters like the P-47. Different use cases. If you want air superiority, you have to have superior planes, and even superior subgroups.

          • Hearing a P&W R-2800 radial engine in an airshow demonstration is a goosebumps experience not to be forgotten.

            • Hearing a P&W R-2800 radial engine in an airshow demonstration is a goosebumps experience not to be forgotten.

              The radial engines do have that ability. Like when I saw B-29 Fifi come in for a landing at a local airshow back in the 90's. Something about that exhaust note says power like nothing else ever has. Well, maybe the F1 engines on a Saturn V first stage, but that's a whole different thing.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Fighters are useless when your adversary is nuclear and we can verify this by the fact that no western plane has flown over china or russia in a long time. Fighters like carriers are just a big dick show, everybody knows that a sub with nukes is more than enuff.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      I think that should have been modded funny. Some turkeys can't be fixed.

    • America shot itself in the foot with the F-35. They tried a Great Factoring of using most of the same design for different branches of the military, and the experiment failed: none of the branches are happy with it.

      I hear China swiped the plans and improved upon it. Maybe we can swipe the plans back to get a better version.

      Yeah - One size fits all fits no one well. I just can't figure out why they did something so dumb. There is a certain amount of physics involved, and improving on it is tough. That's why we have planes like the B-52 still flying with updates, and the A-10 is pretty difficult to beat for it's purpose as well.

      All vehicles should be purpose built, planes and jets are no exception.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • The contractor happily let the military scope creep that bitch into a mint. Just like I warn my clients about risks and shit software design during projects and they choose to cower away from reality or otherwise avoid employing my recommendations which results in the project taking longer and as a consequence I make a lot more money. The unscrupulous may even make recommendations that cause the project to delay or encourage bad practices for the same reason.

          Funny you should mention that. I had a situation just this past year where I made the initial consult and recommendations, which they promptly ignored, and were trying to implement a system according to what some internal experts said would work. After a couple years of them cripple-dicking around, not getting anywhere, they were severely frustrated. So figuring out that they were finally ready to take some telling, I told them maybe we could take a different approach.

          In two weeks, we had all the equipme

  • So, it didn't "Shoot itself" (Score:5, Informative)

    by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @03:30PM (#61202390)

    It was a weapons malfunction that caused a round to explode. Still not great, but it didn't shoot itself.

  • The jet may have been suffering from depression. Seek a doctor immediately.

  • Clickbait title (Score:5, Informative)

    by bobcat7677 ( 561727 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @03:31PM (#61202402) Homepage
    The description of what happened sounds more like a defective munition than the plane "shooting itself". Lots of drama, little substance.

    • If I present to the emergency ward missing a few toes I highly doubt the distinction of whether I shot myself by accident, took careful aim, or just had the round magically go off doesn't change that my stupid arse is in the hospital.

      Whatever the reason the drama and substance is identical. A plane is heavily damaged without ever even being fired upon by an enemy.

  • The F-11 and F-104 also did this in the past.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      But but! Its the failed F-35 bro and it cost zillions and it's a big failure!!!11

      Pure clickbait bullshit. The cannon has a hatch (for aerodynamic and stealth purposes) that has to opened before firing. Obviously there was a malfunction and it fired with the hatch was closed and damaged stuff. Standard fare for complex weapons systems. Better we find it now than when we have to use these in combat with China.

      • There should be an interlock for this sort of thing. A limit switch or photocell or hall sensor.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        If we're "in combat with China" then we've already lost. China has no intention nor ability to invade anyone but its immediate neighbors, but they certainly have the ability to destroy our infrastructure and/or economy at will. While the reverse may also be true China has gone through a period of economic and social chaos every generation or two for the last 50 centuries, while the US hasn't seen even an actual depression in 90 years. They'll pick themselves up and keep on being China, while the US will

        • Are you crazy nobody is going to fly fighers over China or Russia, because if that happens China will threaten nukes, making any such plane of any kind useless.

      • Obviously there was a malfunction and it fired with the hatch was closed and damaged stuff.

        It's not obvious at all. I would blame the HE round's fuse before I blamed the hatch or gun extender.

  • We'll develop a fighter that is so expensive that we can only afford to build one of them. And it will be so valuable, we won't ever actually risk using it in combat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kick6 ( 1081615 )

      We'll develop a fighter that is so expensive that we can only afford to build one of them. And it will be so valuable, we won't ever actually risk using it in combat.

      You drastically underestimate the US militaries willingness to break expensive stuff.

    • Like the F117A.

  • See commentary on this by Fareed Zakaria...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    Consider two contrasting exercises of power. The United States F-35 fighter jet program, bedeviled by cost overruns and technical problems, will ultimately cost taxpayers $1.7 trillion. China will spend a comparable amount of money on its Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious set of loans, aid and financing for infrastructure throughout the world, aimed at creating greater interdependence with dozens of countries that are important

  • The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever built.

    The B2 costs a couple billion dollars per, and a Ford class carrier is $13 billion or so. The F35 might be the most expensive weapons program ever.

    • The F35 might be the most expensive weapons program ever.

      In dollars it may be. As a percent of GDP the B-29 Superfortress program was much bigger.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Haydn ( 592455 )
        Yes, but B-29 Superfortress bombers worked.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        And the age of sail Royal Navy likely even more so. The Romans spent a shitload on their legions too, particularly in the early days.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          unlike modern weapons programs, though, the legions generated money.

          Lots, and lots, and LOTS of it . . . enough to dwarf the cost of running the legions.

  • Class A accidents are the most severe, it's a classification used when someone in the weapon dies, the whole jet is lost, or the property damage is $2.5 million or greater.

    Why list both "if the whole jet is lost" and "if property damage is $2.5 million or greater"? If the jet is lost, the property damage will be over that amount. Seems like only the first and last criteria are needed.

  • that maybe Marvin wasn't the best name to give the onboard computer system.

  • The F-35 is the most expensive weapon ever built? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kriston ( 7886 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @04:25PM (#61202604) Homepage Journal

    The Virginia class submarine has entered the chat.

  • Dark Star (Score:4, Funny)

    by neoRUR ( 674398 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @05:02PM (#61202710)

    I remember the movie Dark Star had a similar problem, but they had to talk to the weapon first.

  • Very common back when it started. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @05:22PM (#61202742) Journal
    Most of the WW-I planes had tractor-propeller, so the guns were mounted on the side outside the arc of the prop. But Germans invented an interrupter gear [wikipedia.org] that allowed their guns to fire safely through the propellor arc. With center mount and line of sight for the pilot they were devastatingly accurate.

    Allies had no idea what to do, they just mounted their guns on the center line and shot through the props. Some hit the props but they took it as cost of waging war till they captured a crashed German plane with the interrupter device.

    In a sense they were intentionally shooting their own propellors 100 years ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Some of the Allied fighters had a metal triangle on the rear of the propeller to deflect the bullets, but it didn't work too well. More common was to mount the machine gun on the top wing. This made clearing jams (very common on early machine guns) an exercise in terror as the pilot stand on the seat with everything above his knees in the 100 mph slipstream while he relied on calm air and dehedral to keep the plane stable. More than one plane was lost when the pilot (who unlike the German pilots were not

  • ... we need gun control now.

  • The AI decided to end it all... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Friday March 26, 2021 @06:17PM (#61202896)

    Maybe the AI in the plane became sentient and realized what a colossal waste on money it was and decided to commit suicide. But being a F-35 it wasn't even able to do that properly.

  • Plane is now on 24 hour watch.
  • Fear will keep the other star systems in line.
  • Wouldn't that sub that cost a few billion classify as the most expensive weapon ever built?
  • The F22 is a great fighter, though we should have made more of those.
    What is needed is a CHEAP, INEXPENSIVE TO BUILD/RUN, fighter to replace the F-16. It should be as cheap as the F-16, or lower costs, while still having a greater capability.
    • WHy does america need a jet ? No jet will ever fly over Russia or China, and even you dont exactly need any figher over Afghanistan. Nukes and missiles and drones are more than enuff and significantly cheaper.
  • No F35 will ever fly over Russia or China, because of nukes, so whats the point of any advanced fighter ? Even a Cessna could bomb the shitholes america has become involved in recent decades.
  • Well, finally Irving got an explosive slug in the belly,
    it was right above the Arizona deli.
    The jet was flying and aiming its gun around,
    and butterfingers Irving almost gunned itself down!

    (with apologies to Frank Gallop / The Ballad of Irving).
  • It reminds me of the Eddie Murphy movie "Best defence", haha.
  • See attached image.

    Did it kill innocent people on the ground? No? What a useless warplane.

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close