From the chans via X. Dont know if it is true..but SOMETHING happened.
(media.greatawakening.win)
✈️ Planefags ✈️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (194)
sorted by:
It's poppycock... Didn't happen.
PSY-FUCKING-OPS
It's a "stealth" craft. The pilot heard "pings". Probably Red October comms.
Video has emerged showing the pilot just before he ejected.
u/#hardlanding
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
ACKshully, that's got to be the command centers freaking out after a hack, panicking and shutting down all military flights for two days. That's what tells you nothing was shot down or runaway lost. Difference between mobilizing everything they have to hunt or search versus crawling up into a corner with a blanket and crying for mommy.
I’ll never be over Macho Grande.
Concentrate Striker !
Ralphie and that damn Red Rider BB gun again.
"Pranging F35's on the wings and getting off spectacular hip shots."
This stooory is 100% 5G warfare propaganda.
u/#5genwarfare
Just like the story that popped up yesterday, video of a random pilot ejecting from a random F35 somewhere in Texas. "See guise? It CaN tOtAlLy HaPpEn".
Correct
One ping only = yes Multiple 'pings' = nyet
multiple shooters?
100%. "Small arms fire" is not going to hit an F35 at 2500 feet in the air with enough accuracy to not have collateral damage.
.50 BMG may pack a punch, but is it enough to go through titanium plating at 760 meters, upward while competing against gravity and drag? Obviously it would be enough if it were straight on (depending on the thickness of the titanium, but I would imagine the titanium around an F35 would not be very thick for aerodynamic reasons) but there are a lot of factors that would slow a large round like that down, and when speed goes down, penetrative force goes down.
I guess in theory it's possible, but while I don't have personal knowledge about being on the receiving end of that type of fire in an F-35, I would expect it to be noticeable if you were taking .50 BMG fire. Not just small "pings".
Small arms fire absolutely can hit a hovering F35 at 2500. Lots of shooters regularly practice 3000' shots with smaller caliber rounds like .308. Their targets are much smaller than an F35. Completely reasonable. Not necessarily easy at all but totally within the realm of very possible that someone with hobby experience in firearms could hit something as large as a hovering f35 at 2500 feet.
What is your point about collateral damage? A hit is a hit. A .50 bullet hitting an aircraft can absolutely still have enough kinetic force to cause some serious damage to an aircraft. Aircraft are not tanks, this is not an A-10. They are susceptible to damage from small arms fire. They are a multi role jet including close air support but are not built like an A-10 and might be susceptible to small arms especially something as large as .50 cal. If you're referring to the pings, watch some videos with cameras around targets getting hit like car frames or washing machines. Hits are like pings. An airfarme is very rigid design with a connected structure. Although im sure the cockpit is loud, you likely have a known "normal" noise signature and when something smacks the frame of your aircraft at 2500 feet per second at 650grains your going to hear that ping resonate through the frame. Ping is probably exactly how it would be described. At 2500 feet, .50 velocity should still be around 1500fps (based on some quick research). If you mean it should results in parts flying off, well that completely depends on what gets hit, I'm sure there are spots that will just cause fly through impacts. The post says alerts starting showing up. If your expectation is hollywood fireball and flames, it's not always like that.
Great analysis. And you invoking the a-10 only just goes to show how ludicrously stupid it is anyone thinking the f-35 could just casually step into the CAS role
I agree, and the repeated attempts to get rid of the A-10 make no sense other than as an effort to weaken protection for our ground troops. I don't know of anything more effective in this role than the A-10, and the troops clearly love them. A-10s do the job.
EDIT: Below, an A-10 pilot making a case for moving the F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets into the role now occupied by the A-10. He makes a good case, and his major concern in getting rid of the A-10 is a loss of the knowledge base required to use air power (piloting and support) to properly supply support to ground troops:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-10-pilots-compelling-case-for-replacing-warthogs-with-super-hornets
I think collateral damage meant the rounds that missed had to land somewhere. Another question in my head, the official accounts talk about the transponder being off and then pretend that makes it invisible. Stealth tech has to be turned on, it's not automatically always on, so that plane was not invisible. If it disappeared from radar without the tech being activated, does that not mean it had to have dropped out/down? If the tech was activated, why, and why not say so? Why pretend that the transponder is what makes aircraft visible to radar?
Radar stealth is essentially a passive affair, established by the shaping of the fuselage and wings, and by special absorptive coatings. Active systems light you up, but may be necessary to dodge an air-to-air missile by using ECM. Transponders make the airplane "visible" to the transponder tracking system, which is not a radar.
Stealth has a bunch of things working together, like the paint and the angles and shape of the plane. You can't "turn on or for that matter turn off" the paint or the shape.
In addition to your comment, there is also .50 BMG API ammo floating around in civvy hands.
API = Armor Piercing Incendiary
Velocity chart for anyone who cares
https://www.snipercountry.com/wp-content/uploads/swggun/2017/09/Graph-3-1.png
After 1000 yards (3000 feet) the 750 grain bullet still has 2000fps velocity.
It will kill, and shred anything less than 1.5 inches of titanium, wing skin is definitely not that thick
https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/08/04/video-50-cal-vs-titanium-90-degrees/
Very good account. The only thing I might add is that the F-35 undoubtedly has some protection against (or resistance to) warhead fragments from air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. Modern composite structure has much in common with Kevlar construction.
How much did it cost? 80 million to end up with pings. Does the technology F35 have is useless? I don’t buy it. Something is wrong here.
How would you actually "hear" a small ping with the engine running and helmut, ear phones and such?
Vibrations through a titanium airframe, and do you think 650grains at 1500+ feet per second smacking into your plane is going to be a quiet thing?
Kek !!
Pilot said "ping". Pings are quiet sounds.
I found a great article that actually gives a good explanation on this.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35281371/f-35-history/
Thank you.
So that's not the weird part to me, because skeletal vibrations can still be heard. So if you are feeling a fairly consistent vibration and something suddenly changes in that vibration, it makes sense. It's also possible the above statement that they didn't know how to describe what they heard/felt other than "pings" makes some amount of sense too.
But why would you assume you were being fired upon within your own country and immediately eject from your very expensive craft?
Also, why would any militias be choosing that to be their fight? One F-35? That makes no sense. They would be better suited to taking on the White House or something if they really wanted to show their strength. Tactically, even that doesn't even make sense.
I dunno, the whole thing just smells like a hopium merchant trying to show that "see! If we fight them head on, we can win!" Facts not required.
I concur, but it's important to note that very little of the exposed surfaces of the f-35 are made of titanium. The skin is made mostly of military grade aluminum and composite materials, and you'd find titanium in the deepest parts of the plane, making up a large portion of the engine and its rotating parts
I thought it was more or less plated in titanium, my bad. That was an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions. They make an ass of me. Thanks for the correction!
Just some back of the envelope physics - Gravity would only slow the bullet slightly. Wind resistance makes more of an impact, but the bullet is still potentially traveling over 2000 ft/s if the shot was relatively direct (2500 feet straight up).
Specs
Fastest .50 BMG: 647 [grain] or 42 [grams], 3044 [ft/s] (928 [m/s]) out of a 45 [inch] (1.1 [m]) barrel. Acceleration due to gravity: -9.81 [m/s/s] 2500 [feet] = 762 [m]
Gravity
Position given original position, initial velocity, time, and acceleration (so we don't need to do calculus right now).
Assuming it goes straight up at the plane, which would give the highest possible velocity and energy.
x = x0 + v0 * t + 0.5 * a * t^2 x = 762[m] x0 = 0 v0 = 928 [m/s] a = -9.81 [m/s/s] (solve for t)
(Use Wolfram Alpha to solve the polynomial formula: 762 [meters] = 928 [meters per second] * t + 0.5 * -9.81 [meters per second per second] * t * t) (text input: 762 = 928 * t + 0.5 * -9.81 * Power[t,2]) t = 0.824716.
Velocity given initial velocity, acceleration, and time: v = v0 + a * t v = 928 [m/s] + -9.81 [m/s/s] * 0.824716 The bullet is still going 919 m/s without wind resistance at 2500 feet up assuming there's no air, but it goes fast, so there is quite a lot of air.
Wind resistance
Hornady estimates a .50 BMG that starts at 2950 [ft/s] will be going 2085 [ft/s] at 2500 [ft]. (https://riflebarrels.com/barrel-lengths-velocities-for-the-50-bmg/) This would be at standard temperature and pressure. In real life, there would be less wind resistance as the wind resistance decresases with altitude due to lower pressure.
It goes about 70% of the original speed assuming constant pressure.
Since gravity only slowed the bullet an inconsequential amount, we can work with a number that has a little bit less energy than this (round down for ease of math).
We can reasonably determine the bullet to be traveling more than 2000 [ft/s], or about 600 [meters/s].
Collision energy
E = 0.5 * m * v * v m = 0.042 [kg] v = 600 [meters / second] E = 7,560 [joules], or 5500 [ft*lbs].
That's still quite a lot of energy, and an ideal shot could have been more than that.
For comparison, per a quick Wikipedia check, a 45-70 at the muzzle puts out 3,449 [ftlbs] (4676 [J]). A 30-06 puts out 3036 [ftlbs] (4116 [J]).
The .50 BMG put more energy out at 2500 feet in the air, and makes a bigger hole. It would likely damage any aircraft. It may not immediately make the airframe unairworthy, but definitely damage would occur, especially if multiple shots hit.
I dunno but SOMETHING did.
Makes a great case against the the 2A , if your a guvmint commie pushing muh right WiNg extremist FF garbage.
Nothing would surprise me though. Look at the Whitmer debacle. No one believes they'd junk a f - 35 for the cause? We leave shit everywhere we go. What's an f-35 worth?70 m or 700m? Chump change. Printer go brrrr
They don't have to actually down or lose one. They just have to tell us they did
Imagine building and charging for an 80+ million dollar airplane that doesn’t exist, then crashing it at a fake crash sight. 80+ million put in your pockets.
Toss bits and pieces from previously damaged F35's and then add a wee bit of Avgas, you've got the setting for some nicely doctored pics.
That shouldn't be the real question. They say an F-355 costs between 75 and 80M. The real question should be - what would an F-35 be worth to our adversaries. I bet China or even possibly Russia would pay into the low billions for an intact F-35 so they could reverse-engineer it and catch up on the technology. Hell - they gave Hunter 1.5B for whatever corruption they were purchasing. An F-35 would have to be higher than that.
These planes cost nothing close to what they report they do.
They cost what they are quoted to cost. You may say that's too much, and it would probably be true, but that is what they cost regardless. It is tough to meet requirements. Especially when the customer wants to change them partway through the program. And also especially when the vendor didn't have a complete grasp of their problems. (Lots of time and expense went into perfecting the clutch for the vertical fan on the -B model.) My perspective? I only worked for the military side of the Boeing Company for 40 years.
There may have been a lot of military toothbrushes on that plane.
Seems to me like a case for 1) showing that military might against citizenry may have some serious limits, 2) that the F-35 really is nothing but a big money pit (the F-22 was a big money pit, but it did eventually do its job as promised), and 3) if they can't secure the ground at home, what hope do they have when every foreign brown 12-50 year old might be willing to die to take one of these babies out? If they try to make this a 2A killer, it will backfire hilariously (even before evidence comes out about what actually happened).
Yeah, something did happen, but the typical sequence of events did not.
I mentioned this in another post:
Strange that with the entire world "spontaneously" bursting into flames due to mUh CliMaTe ChAngE, a fighter jet with a crap load of JP-8 jet fuel doesn't ignite several hundred of acres on fire. 😒 Absolutely NO video of the ensuing fireball or thick black cloud from the burning petroleum?
Were both Antifa & BLM unavailable, or was it because they couldn't afford the higher gas prices? Tough times ya know, everyone has to cut back nowadays. 😉
Yeah, have you seen the price of fuel lately? Kek
We don't know how much fuel was on the plane. There should be only enough for their mission plus some extra amount in case of emergencies.
A jet leaving LA going to Hong Kong is going to have a lot more fuel than the same jet leaving LA going to Texas. Besides the obvious reason that extra fuel is needed for distance, they don't want too much fuel onboard in case of an emergency where they may have to make an emergency landing. That could require either burning off extra fuel before the landing or even dumping it. The military would avoid wasting the money on fuel if at all possible.
I doubt the plane was empty so there still should've been some fire but possibly not a gigantic fireball.
A typical reason that an unguided aircraft flies into the ground is that it runs out of fuel. You seem to think that the crash happened in view of anyone.
No. What I'm saying is, typically when someone see something out of the ordinary, the phone camera pops out and they start recording. Giant fireballs, thick black smoke, planes flying erratically. etc. I find it very unlikely that the fighter jet ran out of fuel and crashed only a couple hundred miles away from where the pilot supposedly ejected.
Payne Stewart's jet flew from Florida to South Dakota before it ran out of fuel. Unless the F-35 was on full afterburner (doubtful since reports are saying autopilot was engaged) it wouldn't go quite as far.
I posted this exact thing yesterday...did more digging and deleted it because it's bullshit - as others pointed out.
Yes, something for sure happened.
A better story would be an electronic hack, this is to stupid to be stupid.
That's where I lean, and I wonder if the twitter "hack" of Don Jr. today was actually comms to get people thinking about a hack...
I do think it is possible that it was hit by small arms fire though.
There's no pasture in the heartland as full of bullshit as this little fairy story about the scary "backwoods militia" that can down fighter jets with handguns and slingshots.
They are working so hard to paint the picture of "freedom-loving American gun owners as the spooky monsters" in this country. And NOBODY is buying it.
SHOULD there be armed militias taking back our country one city at a time? Different topic. But there sure AF isn't any now.
I'd be on the backwoods gunner's side, were it true. WTF are they doing having around your low altitude airspace?
National Emergency! Ban and confiscate All 50 Cals !!
Watch AOC comment that taking some poor farmer's 50 cows is just wrong.
Total agreement and, even if it did, the military would never admit their $100 million dollar fighter jet could be downed by small arms fire. How freaking embarrassing would that be? Furthermore the pilot should have been able to land it if that was the case.
I’m way more inclined to believe the plane had software issues. It explains the pilot punching out and the plane continuing to fly much better than random small arms fire from a range that would challenge a trained sniper.
As c5 and others have alluded to - the F35 isn't on par with the A-10 as far as having the "bathtub" underneath protecting it. A-10s have landed with missing wing parts, rudders, tails - there is nothing like them. The F-35 wasn't designed like that, especially because it can fly MUCH faster.
We also (assuming it was shot) don't know what was hit. Maybe the shot(s) hit something that damaged all pilot control. Actually if that happened and the military can find out what part was hit it would be almost a "good thing" so they could fix it before the planes get hit in battle.
This observation about the F35 and if it is suited for close air support roles like the A-10 would do is something already in question. Relying on better sensors and longer distance away from target engagement in a CAS role is one of the ideas floated around regarding the F-35 and small arms fire.
Yup...bingo.
The Chinese aren't the only ones paranoid about saving face... despite clown world theatrics right now.