Pilot ejected, is stable, but the plane has not crashed. It was put on autopilot before ejection. Not sure what to make of this. Not a cheap plane, not to mention danger on the ground if/when it goes down.
it’s starting people! Sky Net is real! Seriously, very scary and hopefully was sent out to the ocean.
I can't imagine that these planes don't have remote controls, esp. those with single button ejects. It's likely that this plane is in the drink and they don't publish that fact because the sticker price is a tad more than a box of animal crackers.
Meh. I don't think it matters that much. Our enemies know better than to use Goliath strategies against Goliath. They are 24/7 using David strategies against us with great effect. Hell, even when they go old school, they David us with box cutters & our own commercial airlines. &, yet we keep building tanks & so on. If only we had 1 more aircraft carrier.......
I can't imagine that these things don't have an air tag on board! (Have they checked the lost luggage areas at local airports for the plane?)
We might want that tech to fall into enemy hands, the F35 is an expensive piece of shit, we could probably bankrupt all our enemies.
You raise a point I have wondered about, but I’ve seen nothing inclusive. During the developmental phase, the plane was considered to be the nightmare you describe. But tons of allies have coveted purchasing it. Though they have some investment and helping our defense industry, I don’t think they would have incurred that expense if those problems had not been worked out. But I’ve never seen anything definitive on it. That said, I am presuming. It is an effective weapon, based upon the fact that so many countries are dying to purchase it, even if we try to say no.
It may be effective now and have a lot of bells and whistles, but like all the products we sell, it seems to rely on proprietary software and parts, which essentially involve a life time service agreement with the US defense industry operating on no-bid contracts if you want to keep them airborne. I do think weapon deals are a bizarro form of diplomacy in some ways. Being a paying customer might get you perks and all.
Well now you’re talking about economic exploitation, not combat ineffectiveness. I was only talking about the latter. As to the former, matter of alternatives. Being our ally has its issues, but the alternatives are far less appetizing
No blow balls. I know what I have. EDIT: meant to say low ball. Weird autocorrect. Nothing to do with previous comments made on my phone. Nothing at all.
This ain't NOTHIN, they STILL looking for that USAF bomber that crashed into the Savannah River WITH A NUKE on board. In the 60's. They still have not recovered it.
Off Spain, South Carolina, Greenland. All covered in Command and Control Command and Control (book) - Wikipedia
F35 or the "unifying" all in one aircraft for all the services. Purported to cost upwards of 2 trillion with maintenance and yet, an airframe that is slower than most of our enemies top level fighters and still what, half the avionics still don't work? . Oh and that "combined service" selling point - LOLOLOLOLOLOL That fairy tale ain't true either. But if you think the USAF is bad just check out the Navy, they keep rolling out one "FIASCO" concept after another. The destroyers, coastal patrol crafts and other ship designs of the last 20 years have just about sunk the US Navy wiithout hostile shots even being fired. At this rate we will have to recommission WW2 ships, which perform better than the junk rolling out of US shipyards. Just wait when a $10,000 drone sinks a 14 Billion dollar US carrier. Somebody might want to send the War Department a memo about the realities of the Russian / Ukraine war. Giant ships and tanks won't be worth a damn in the very near future. Sombody in Gov't OUGHT to be passing legislation to build Wartime DRONE Mfg. technology in a bigtime way, rather than fight about what sex orientation book is available in the 10th grade.
