-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
- Thread starter jai5w4
- Start date
The gift that keeps on giving...
"Based on Bunch's comments, it appears Air Force officials are concerned that another problem could occur with the Martin-Baker seat in the future, which raised the question of why the Air Force is only now starting to look at a backup option, eight months after the pilot safety concerns became public knowledge.
Bunch acknowledged that "'We could have done it earlier. I won't disagree with that," but did not offer a specific reason for why the move is happening just now."
"Based on Bunch's comments, it appears Air Force officials are concerned that another problem could occur with the Martin-Baker seat in the future, which raised the question of why the Air Force is only now starting to look at a backup option, eight months after the pilot safety concerns became public knowledge.
Bunch acknowledged that "'We could have done it earlier. I won't disagree with that," but did not offer a specific reason for why the move is happening just now."
It's not the seat..it's the helmet. Current JHMCS weight restrictions are....wait for it....136 pounds.
They've known about the issues, it isn't a surprise.
I think the main issue is that the JSF helmet isn't optional, so now they have to fix the problem.
They've known about the issues, it isn't a surprise.
I think the main issue is that the JSF helmet isn't optional, so now they have to fix the problem.
Last edited:
This sounds like less of a problem and more like a contingency to have in the back pocket for a potential problem. Per the article initial tests have shown some problems so having a backup in case the MB tests have unsolvable problems is just good decision making.
But it's JSF so there must be some malfeasance at work...
But it's JSF so there must be some malfeasance at work...
There is no problem. If you weigh less than 136 lbs, agree to a waiver or fly something else. Even above 136 and <165 or so there is still risk associated with the HMD. The F-35 isn't for everyone. The military is not intended to maximize every single person's chances of every single opportunity, no matter their shape and size. Do no females, or no one <136 fly with JHMCS? I don't think so. In a program like this every single press report gets scrutinized and over-politicized, when 136 lbs is the exact same restriction on more than one 4th gen aircraft operating today. But since it is the F-35, it is now an unacceptable limitation. The ejection seat is not the first problem to start attacking in current jets coming off the line.
Dude, what if the harrier's seat didn't work for lightweights? The three females over the past 30 years might have had their right to fly jets violated. Just kidding, weight may not have been an issue.
Good observation, sir.
WAG:
a) Maybe the article was written incorrectly/misworded
b) Maybe because the USAF has the highest ranking officer in PEO JSF even though there is "no lead service" for PEO JSF
c) Maybe because the Alpha variant will be produced in much higher quantities than the Bravo or Charlie variants
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
danpass
Well-Known Member
f) Both D and E
Little bit off subject but still applicable to the future - for those of you doing the dogfighting, thoughts?
Veteran Pilot Loses Simulated Dogfight to Impressive Artificial Intelligence
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ogfight_to_alpha_artificial_intelligence.html
Veteran Pilot Loses Simulated Dogfight to Impressive Artificial Intelligence
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ogfight_to_alpha_artificial_intelligence.html
My $0.02: Isn't this headline a bit like saying "former SEAL fails Call of Duty mission on Xbox"?
The issue with AI is not that it can't become a proficient killer in 1-on-1, neatly packaged scenarios. It's that, when put out into the real world, with all our human complexities and situational nuances, AI doesn't (yet) possess all the judgment a human does, such as being able to rapidly distinguish between hostile targets and civilians/friendlies. What happens if the enemy wants to surrender - how does a computer know what "surrender" looks like? It could be a ruse. Add the potential for green-on-blue attacks, and it's even tougher for the AI to "read" human intentions as well as other humans do.
Last edited:
The human in this meaningless experiment is an ABM, i.e. an AWACS controller. This article smartly fails to mention that, but another one does. Guy has about as much BFM/"dogfighting" experience as my 11 month old. Not a pilot in any way/shape/form, much less a fighter dude
So the headline is more akin to "Former Subway Sandwich Artisan Who Once Worked at Dam Neck Fails Call of Duty Mission."