• 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

Marine F-35 Down

HuggyU2

Well-Known Member
None
legally, you're not required to fly the vector unless you roger up to the heading.
I'm sure you are correct.

I suppose I was actually "over" the Edwards Complex, rather than "in" it. I was above FL600 and was under the control of LA Center, not Joshua Control like you are when "in" The Complex. We have an LOA with the Centers on how we conduct operations above FL 600. Yes, we are technically VFR and out of the Class A. In reality, they continue to try to vector us around if there someone else above 600... which is common in San Fran Center airspace.

On this day, I was testing a sensor on an exercise. The other pilot was Bert Garrison, in what would be one of the last flights of the SR-71. Bert, Ocho (his RSO) and I were deconflicting on UHF, and it was no factor. I told LA Center that but he insisted I turn. My lack of willingness to follow instructions resulted in the ensuing violation. It's been a long time, but I recall it didn't get put to bed for quite a number of weeks... not that they were really bothering me about it. It just took a while.

Anyways, after speaking to the mililtary liaison, I never heard another peep.

Side note: Bert was the last AF pilot to qualify in the Sled. I think he only got about 50 hours when they retired it in '97.
He subsequently came to the U-2.
 
Last edited:

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
As a retiree with zero inside knowledge, I wonder why the plane was anywhere near those engines.

If it was near them, it was hella-close to the wing, which is definitely needed for flight. Engines were luckily optional.

whew
Air Refueling is dangerous shit. Getting underrun by a receiver is always a possibility. Combine that with an aircraft that's at max oomph (C-130) and an aircraft that's uncomfortably slow (F-35) and now your breakaway procedure is less than ideal. The breakaway has the tanker stand on the gas as the receiver does the opposite. The KC-135 has 4 x 737 engines and more thrust than I know what to do with -- that allows us to carry super heavy loads and get away from the guy in the contact position when he's squirrelly. When your excess power margin is slim, your ability to execute the breakaway is diminished. Illustrating the point, I have to drop flaps to give a C-130 gas. How, exactly, the F-35 came into contact with the Herc is something it's pointless to speculate on, but I think we've all flown enough formation to see how easy it is for things to get weird.
 

zippy

Freedom!
pilot
Contributor
How, exactly, the F-35 came into contact with the Herc is something it's pointless to speculate on, but I think we've all flown enough formation to see how easy it is for things to get weird.

Things have gotten weird at an alarming rate.

Marine Corps aviation mishap rate is up by a significant amount (2018-2019 #s show a 30% increase in class A-C mishaps). Three class As involving VMFA tanking in the last three years involving different platform combinations. Two mid airs between VMFA and Herks within the last 24 month losing 4 aircraft. It’s some fucking miracle that this second Herk crew didn’t perish as a result.

In the Japan the chain of command threw their weight around to obfuscate the mishap investigation to cover their asses and ignore T&R issues. They tried to lay blame solely on an affair in the command, a substandard FRS graduate and a bad WTI who flew a unbriefed non standard maneuver that kicked off the accident chain of events. They wanted it to be written off as a one time event that happened in a vacuum. Two years later and it’s seemed that nothings changed. This accident investigation has been pre-empted by threats of NJPs and courts martial to those who shine negative light on MAWTS-1 and it’s instructors. It’s going to be tough to have an un-biased mishap investigation (again).

Marine Corps Aviations biggest problem is it’s leadership trying to ignore and hide it’s issues. Can’t fix issues if you don’t want to acknowledge they exist...
 

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Agree with Zippy. Respect to the Marines in the room, but in my observaction of USMC aviation, the mindset has always been "make it happen" over safety and training standards. With all the hits training and readiness have taken in the services over the past 10 years, I'm not surprised the USMC is showing a string like this. The respective flight envelopes of the aircraft involved doesn't help, either. No idea how the F-35 handles on a tanker, but I always found the KC-130 to be slightly uncomfortable to tank on in an F-18 due to the slow speed putting you on the left side of the power curve. Easy to get way too much closure in a turning join too. I usually asked them to roll out and just ran them down.

...still way easier than the KC-135 though. :D
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
I agree with much of the last two posts but I’d say it’s a little early to start drawing parallels between the F-18/C-130 Japan mishap and the F-35/C-130 mishap. As much as was wrong with the culture, risk management, and investigation of the Japan mishap, it wouldn’t have happened if they stuck to normal procedures. Having tanked off C-130’s many times in a harrier, I agree it’s harder than a strat tanker but something has to go really sideways to hit one in daylight.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This accident investigation has been pre-empted by threats of NJPs and courts martial to those who shine negative light on MAWTS-1 and it’s instructors. It’s going to be tough to have an un-biased mishap investigation (again).
If you have faith that this allegation is credible, would it not be time to reach out to an IG or your Congressman as opposed to posting about it on the Internet? I'm not going to say who's right or wrong, because I have no idea, but that's a pretty heavy accusation.
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
General question from a guy whose only FW experience is the T-34. What are flight characteristics of a C-130 that loses 2 engines on one side? (lots of variables prob that impact performance). Just curious if it's similar to, say, a C-12 losing a motor, or if it's different.
 

heynowlookout

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
General question from a guy whose only FW experience is the T-34. What are flight characteristics of a C-130 that loses 2 engines on one side? (lots of variables prob that impact performance). Just curious if it's similar to, say, a C-12 losing a motor, or if it's different.
In general, with sufficient airspeed and thus rudder authority it's manageable. With unknown structural damage and potential fuel leaks causing weight imbalances and other unknown issues I don't hazard a guess. Absolutely no room to second guess the guys who put it down in a field if that's what you're asking.
 

Col Angus

Well-Known Member
pilot
We’re edging toward speculation, which will result in thread closure. Please be mindful, whether you’re still on AD or otherwise.

Great and powerful brett- close this thread homie before someone other than zippy says something dumb
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
In general, with sufficient airspeed and thus rudder authority it's manageable. With unknown structural damage and potential fuel leaks causing weight imbalances and other unknown issues I don't hazard a guess. Absolutely no room to second guess the guys who put it down in a field if that's what you're asking.

Thanks. No, it was just a general question about 4 engine props losing 2 engines on one side. Sounds like they did an amazing job, if everyone was able to walk away.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Great and powerful brett- close this thread homie before someone other than zippy says something dumb
No, it's been site policy for as long as it's existed that we (mods and owners) don't allow speculation on military mishaps. That's not Brett's rule; that's @webmaster's rule. You know, the guy who gives you a forum to comment on for free . . .
 

Col Angus

Well-Known Member
pilot
Exactly. Close the thread. Please stop me from being able to say “close the thread” and stop you from saying whatever it is you just said.
 
Top