"XE" on the tail suggests it belongs to these guys:But it's a Navy airframe. And a model C.
Slightly off topic…does anyone have a list weapons are certified for the F-35 block 3F? Or Block 4 when that becomes available?
Slightly off topic…does anyone have a list weapons are certified for the F-35 block 3F? Or Block 4 when that becomes available?
I know this is news only.. but did it fall in the drink or is it still on the deck?
was about to ask this, since the pilot ejected from the plane. Sounds like it went into the sea?Navy is currently NCoDing whether the airframe is on the carrier or not. "The status of the aircraft is currently under investigation as are the factors involved in the mishap," Brenda Way, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet
sounds like it.. reminded me of this F-18 story..The fact that this F-35C landing mishap caused seven injuries is rather bizarre, and I struggle to think of any likely scenarios other than the arresting cable snapping?
in terms of injuring 7 deckcrew, yes, but in terms of losing the aircraft, should not be so, as there are multiple cables, and he should be able to go around, so could be something odd, undercarriage collapse, wheel came off and hit the deckcrew? Have to wait for the report.The fact that this F-35C landing mishap caused seven injuries is rather bizarre, and I struggle to think of any likely scenarios other than the arresting cable snapping?
How so?Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
I think he’s referencing the smaller number of aircraft and decrease in relative range compared to some of the older aircraft types like A-6 and F-14 (as well as the removal of dedicated tanker assets).How so?Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
I thought the name change from CBG to CSG was largely cosmetic.
The capabilities of the current carrier strike group would significantly outstrip that capabilities of its late- Cold War equivalent.I think he’s referencing the smaller number of aircraft and decrease in relative range compared to some of the older aircraft types like A-6 and F-14 (as well as the removal of dedicated tanker assets).How so?Though a Carrier Strike Group's capabilities don't really compare with those of an old Carrier Battle Group, it has to be said.
I thought the name change from CBG to CSG was largely cosmetic.
Not to digress too far from the actual topic but those figures are both unrepresentative of any typical or intended US Navy air wings and appear to contain inaccuracies (effective radius of 1st generation Hornet is not actually nearly that close to the Super Hornet as stated above and both are actually shorter range than the F-35C, no idea of the providence of the figures quoted above).NimitzThe capabilities of the current carrier strike group would significantly outstrip that capability of its late- Cold War equivalent. The cumulative effective weight, range, accuracy and survivability of the carrier task forces tomahawks, F-35Cs and F-18E/Fs would more than compensate for the slightly longer reach (but potentially rather limited survivability at that reach) of the 2 A-6 squadrons.
57 F/A-18C/D in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. A full group of 100 (1,155 tons) of such fighters. In peacetime 80 load 7031 kg, radius 1568 km, efficiency 1.42, refueling 4903 kg + 2 PTB = 7861 kg 11064 t : 7.861 t = 1407 departures
7,031 t * 1568 km * 1.42 = 15655 * 100 pcs . * 1407 departures = 2 202 658 500
Nimitz
42 F/A-18E/F in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Full group of 80 pcs. Normal 62 pcs. In hangar 53 - 68% Load 8051 kg, radius 1582 km, efficiency 2.0, refueling with such a radius 9626 kg (2 PTB)
11064 t : 9.626 t = 1149 sorties
8.051 * 1582 km * 2 * 80 pcs. * 1149 departures = 2 341 478 160 (+6% against group F/A-18C/D)
Gerald Ford
52 F-35C in the hangar of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Full group 73 pcs. Normal 57 pcs. In hangar 71 - 91% The load is 8165 kg. Radius 1241 km, efficiency 2.3 11064 t : 8,959 t = 1235 departures
8,165 t * 1241 km * 2.3 * 73 pcs. * 1235 departures = 2 101 062 275
I'm not sure, but I'd guess such a beacon is equally detectable to all parties, so from the perspective of giving an edge to the US search effort, it doesn't make sense.Shouldn't locating the plane be fairly easy, given how capable underwater beacons are?
If it's anything like the commercial one linked above, the capabilities listed would help out a lot. South China Sea is nowhere near 20 000 ft deep, so it should work perfectly. And even if the signal detection distance is at its worst, at 2000 yards, that should still be plenty for getting a bearing on the wreckage even just by dipping some sensors a bit underwater.
Given how compact those beacons are, it'd seem ludicrous for USN jets not to have them.
Maybe in peacetime they could carry a pod, with inflatable pontoons.The F-35 is going to work out as the most expensive plane ever if the F-35 navies have to factor in the cost of a salvage operation every time one of these things goes splash.