Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   US Navy scrambling to pick up F-35 from the bottom of the ocean before China can get to it - but wouldn't it have been easier to just leave it on the ship?   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, F-35 Lightning II, United States Navy, Navy, US Navy, Aircraft carrier, South China Sea, aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, Mediterranean Sea  
•       •       •

2389 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2022 at 11:31 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



81 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-26 10:28:38 AM  
I would still like a little more information on the mishap itself. From the fragments of information coming out it sounds like an arrestor cable issue.

Wonder how deep the water is there...
 
2022-01-26 10:29:45 AM  
Where is Howard Hughes when you need him?
 
2022-01-26 10:33:43 AM  
First rule of scrap collecting is if it's in your bin you win.

...and I got all that copper from fark you. Don't ask questions, do you want it or not?
 
2022-01-26 10:35:05 AM  
It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.
 
2022-01-26 10:55:08 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Where is Howard Hughes when you need him?


Ha! Came for this reference.
/satisfied.
 
2022-01-26 11:04:19 AM  
US Navy scrambling to pick up F-35 from the bottom of the ocean before China can get to it


Let's just give them a new one, then they can ruin their economy trying to get it to work correctly.
 
2022-01-26 11:17:04 AM  
I think we've all seen this movie before...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 11:34:59 AM  
Don't they have some war graves to plunder for low-radiation metal first?
 
2022-01-26 11:35:25 AM  
Wouldn't a bunch of depth charges be more efficient?
 
2022-01-26 11:36:07 AM  
Manned fighter jets are just ridiculous in this day and age. We really should have an army of drones with lasers.

Send 100 of them our there to any threat with only half of them actually controlled. The other 50 just maintain a holding pattern until one of the first 50 get destroyed and then takes it's place. Fighting a force that never diminishes would be near impossible.
 
2022-01-26 11:38:09 AM  
strap a bunch of explosives to it and destroy it in place.  Thermite works underwater
 
2022-01-26 11:38:10 AM  
I recommend a big magnet on a chain

/am well aware the jet unlikely to be magnetic
 
2022-01-26 11:41:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 11:43:01 AM  
Chinese already got their hands on the F-35 data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31
 
2022-01-26 11:46:56 AM  
Can't they just asplode it?
 
2022-01-26 11:47:28 AM  
Mark 48ADCAP might be best solution. Generally designed to detonate beneath a ship and break it, but could be used to destroy that jet.
 
2022-01-26 11:47:59 AM  

sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.


Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?
 
2022-01-26 11:48:44 AM  

cowsaregoodeating: Manned fighter jets are just ridiculous in this day and age. We really should have an army of drones with lasers.

Send 100 of them our there to any threat with only half of them actually controlled. The other 50 just maintain a holding pattern until one of the first 50 get destroyed and then takes it's place. Fighting a force that never diminishes would be near impossible.


Maybe if we had the intellectual capital to deploy 100 Autonomous aircraft we have the ability to sit down with another country and agree to spend money on people, not wars.

...Call for you from the Military-Industrial complex on line 2, Sir.
 
2022-01-26 11:49:14 AM  

New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?


More likely embedded machine - or even binary.
 
2022-01-26 11:51:38 AM  
All we need are trained dolphins with explosives strapped to them. They can be trained to follow the unique sound signature of Chinese subs and ships. I'd like sharks with laser beams but let's be realistic.
 
2022-01-26 11:51:59 AM  

FlashHarry: I think we've all seen this movie before...


SEAN CONNERY as AQUAMAN as JAMES BOND 007

Fark user imageView Full Size

 
2022-01-26 11:53:19 AM  

I'm an excellent driver: cowsaregoodeating: Manned fighter jets are just ridiculous in this day and age. We really should have an army of drones with lasers.

Send 100 of them our there to any threat with only half of them actually controlled. The other 50 just maintain a holding pattern until one of the first 50 get destroyed and then takes it's place. Fighting a force that never diminishes would be near impossible.

Maybe if we had the intellectual capital to deploy 100 Autonomous aircraft we have the ability to sit down with another country and agree to spend money on people, not wars.

...Call for you from the Military-Industrial complex on line 2, Sir.


I'd love that but I'm realistic. There's always the a**hole no matter how nice you are.
 
2022-01-26 11:55:20 AM  

cowsaregoodeating: Manned fighter jets are just ridiculous in this day and age. We really should have an army of drones with lasers.

Send 100 of them our there to any threat with only half of them actually controlled. The other 50 just maintain a holding pattern until one of the first 50 get destroyed and then takes it's place. Fighting a force that never diminishes would be near impossible.


There's stuff like that in the works, but there's gonna be a lot of testing and training before that actually gets deployed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Airpower_Teaming_System

There are drone bombers already in use, like the ones that the Azerbaijanis used a couple years ago, but it's going to be a stretch to get them to take out enemy bombers or airborne early warning from hundreds of miles away. Plus, these drones are still mostly remotely operated, sometimes requiring multiple operators per drone, so you're not getting that much savings.
 
2022-01-26 11:56:06 AM  

MBFGeek: New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

More likely embedded machine - or even binary.


Nah, it was mostly C++. And Ada.

The stuff they were trying to accomplish with software was simply to complex to do it in assembly or even C. At least, it's was too complex to do in any kind of realistic time-frame.

The problem, of course, is that C++ is the absolute KING of "shoot yourself in the foot" languages. I can't imagine how messed-up that code is.

But...that's software development. If you want "perfect" code, it's going to cost a lot of money and take a LONG time.
 
2022-01-26 11:56:27 AM  
New Rising Sun: Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

Nope - Logo.

/turtles all the way down
 
Juc [TotalFark]
2022-01-26 11:57:15 AM  

sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.


think that's what you can say about the whole package really.
just manufacturing the thing is nuts.
Makes me think of the tiger tanks in ww2. great tanks but prone to failure and making them was nuts.
in the end the logistics of making and maintaining those tanks screwed the germans massively.
 
2022-01-26 11:57:51 AM  

Arkanaut: Plus, these drones are still mostly remotely operated, sometimes requiring multiple operators per drone, so you're not getting that much savings


I don't think the idea was supposed to be savings.  It just means you don't have a pilot life at risk in case of crash, etc.  Also, then the craft's physical constraints are based on its airframe/engines and not its delicate meat contents.
 
2022-01-26 11:57:55 AM  
The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure
 
2022-01-26 11:58:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Still dry.
 
2022-01-26 11:59:09 AM  

Jesterling: New Rising Sun: Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

Nope - Logo.

/turtles all the way down


I was going to go with FORTRAN
 
2022-01-26 11:59:48 AM  

ObscureNameHere: The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure


No it isn't.

media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 12:00:17 PM  

ObscureNameHere: The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure


And do they have a sub they can place at the North Pole to land it near?
 
2022-01-26 12:00:34 PM  

SirGunslinger: Wouldn't a bunch of depth charges be more efficient?


PTP_Professor: Mark 48ADCAP might be best solution. Generally designed to detonate beneath a ship and break it, but could be used to destroy that jet.


These things are almost certainly not designed to work at the depth the plane is sitting, depending on where exactly in the SCS it is. Most submarines aren't designed to go down more than a couple thousand feet, so unless the carrier was operating on the continental shelf (unlikely IMO) that plane is way too deep to easily access that way.
 
2022-01-26 12:01:01 PM  

ObscureNameHere: The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 12:01:18 PM  
Why don't they just make the plane out of the same thing they make the flotation devices out of?
 
2022-01-26 12:01:21 PM  

farkitallletitend: All we need are trained dolphins with explosives strapped to them. They can be trained to follow the unique sound signature of Chinese subs and ships. I'd like sharks with laser beams but let's be realistic.


No.

CIA: Flipper, did you set the charges all over the aircraft?
Flipper: Squeeee-ooop*
CIA: good job! Here is a fish treat!

*This was a lie.
 
2022-01-26 12:02:36 PM  

New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?


Is Ada still a thing?  I remember a looong time ago the DoD was wanting to move everything to Ada.
 
2022-01-26 12:02:59 PM  
Apparently China was able to recover a Mark 48 torpedo from a US firing range in the Pacific... so there's that.

Why's the USN need to recover it?  Seems a large demolition charge could make it unrecoverable.  Or maybe boobytrap with a large demolition charge.

(BOOM! bubble bubble bubble bubble). Sounds like China found the F-35
 
2022-01-26 12:03:51 PM  

oldweasel: ObscureNameHere: The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure

And do they have a sub they can place at the North Pole to land it near?


*Russian helicopters flying in*
Captain: "We're friendly! Wave, Stewart!"
Stewart: *in heavy southern accent* "Wave!?"
 
2022-01-26 12:04:07 PM  

oldweasel: ObscureNameHere: The problem is that if the Chinese got it, they wouldn't be to fly it unless they think in American English.

/ obscure reference is obscure

And do they have a sub they can place at the North Pole to land it near?


"Weather Station!!!!"
 
2022-01-26 12:07:59 PM  

MBFGeek: New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

More likely embedded machine - or even binary.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 12:08:01 PM  

realmolo: MBFGeek: New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

More likely embedded machine - or even binary.

Nah, it was mostly C++. And Ada.

The stuff they were trying to accomplish with software was simply to complex to do it in assembly or even C. At least, it's was too complex to do in any kind of realistic time-frame.

The problem, of course, is that C++ is the absolute KING of "shoot yourself in the foot" languages. I can't imagine how messed-up that code is.

But...that's software development. If you want "perfect" code, it's going to cost a lot of money and take a LONG time.


C++ is the absolute king of not holding your hand.  I like that for me and I hate it for incompetent engineers.  I spend a lot of time going through others' code and fixing their bad shiat.  My job is to make clean code that runs very fast.

I know the point of every subsequent language is to try and hold your hand better and better to the point where you can't make stupid mistakes, but so far their efficiency is still lacking.  I don't doubt that we'll someday reach the point of natural-language-to-efficient-code so any dummy with one idea can get it to work, but we're nowhere near there now.
 
2022-01-26 12:09:41 PM  

wxboy: SirGunslinger: Wouldn't a bunch of depth charges be more efficient?

PTP_Professor: Mark 48ADCAP might be best solution. Generally designed to detonate beneath a ship and break it, but could be used to destroy that jet.

These things are almost certainly not designed to work at the depth the plane is sitting, depending on where exactly in the SCS it is. Most submarines aren't designed to go down more than a couple thousand feet, so unless the carrier was operating on the continental shelf (unlikely IMO) that plane is way too deep to easily access that way.


At that depth, I would think a bunch of C4 + detonator in mineral oil encased in steel the pressure shift alone would shatter the aircraft and make the electronics useless. Hell, a Hydrogen Peroxide reaction at that depth would do it.
 
2022-01-26 12:11:03 PM  
China- Time to use the Bond Villain sub cave!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-26 12:12:00 PM  

scanman61: New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

Is Ada still a thing?  I remember a looong time ago the DoD was wanting to move everything to Ada.


I have no idea.  My last programming work was academic. It was, indirectly, related to defense and everything was in C.  It wasn't a hard requirement, but part of the restrictions imposed on us was speed of execution (real time operating on huge chunks of in-memory sensor data).  Some other people were demo-ing their ideas with python and, for the truly cultured, MATLAB , but those of us who went straight to C blew them out of the water on the practical side.  Totally satisfying to report to your funders that your whole program executes in a few seconds while the losers from the other university come dragging a minute or two behind you.
 
2022-01-26 12:12:20 PM  

realmolo: MBFGeek: New Rising Sun: sorceror: It'd probably do more damage to China's fighter program if they did try to learn from it. I briefly worked on just the logistics support system for the F-35; nothing classified, nothing inside the plane itself. All I can say about the code... well, bless those Lockheed Martin engineers, they tried.

It did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the onboard stuff. Maybe they put better engineers on it, but based on all the problems... maybe not.

Do things like that run on C? Some sort of proprietary extension thereof?

More likely embedded machine - or even binary.

Nah, it was mostly C++. And Ada.

The stuff they were trying to accomplish with software was simply to complex to do it in assembly or even C. At least, it's was too complex to do in any kind of realistic time-frame.

The problem, of course, is that C++ is the absolute KING of "shoot yourself in the foot" languages. I can't imagine how messed-up that code is.

But...that's software development. If you want "perfect" code, it's going to cost a lot of money and take a LONG time.


While leaving open the possibility that you may be right - I doubt it. The computer that runs the plane is a specially built machine using US sourced chips - it wouldn't be likely to have a C++ (or C) compiler - and building one would be a large job.
Ada would be more likely as it is a much simpler language.
 
2022-01-26 12:28:17 PM  
What I want to know is why exactly we're putting this plane on international deployment if they're apparently still so super secret that we can't afford to write them off and we have to do deep sea expeditions every time one might crash.

I get it if it's a ballistic missile submarine or a stealth bomber, but one fighter?
 
2022-01-26 12:28:33 PM  

SirGunslinger: Wouldn't a bunch of depth charges be more efficient?


csb/
I was on the Carl Vinson during Westpac 1990 when an F14 had to be ditched.  The pilot and RIO had ejected which necessitated the ship steam at flank speed to pick them up (I think they were about 40 miles away).  Anyway, we had UDT on board and those guys went down with explosives to finish off the plane.
/csb
 
2022-01-26 12:31:15 PM  

SirGunslinger: wxboy: SirGunslinger: Wouldn't a bunch of depth charges be more efficient?

PTP_Professor: Mark 48ADCAP might be best solution. Generally designed to detonate beneath a ship and break it, but could be used to destroy that jet.

These things are almost certainly not designed to work at the depth the plane is sitting, depending on where exactly in the SCS it is. Most submarines aren't designed to go down more than a couple thousand feet, so unless the carrier was operating on the continental shelf (unlikely IMO) that plane is way too deep to easily access that way.

At that depth, I would think a bunch of C4 + detonator in mineral oil encased in steel the pressure shift alone would shatter the aircraft and make the electronics useless. Hell, a Hydrogen Peroxide reaction at that depth would do it.


Maybe, but the thought also occurred to me just now that the plane itself might not be much use having been at the depth it is, seeing how it's rated to operate at a depth of 0 or less.

But China would be going after small components of the electronics and weapons systems; even circuit boards could be useful. They don't need a whole system in working order to reverse-engineer it, or even use it to learn about classified capabilities. Blowing up the plane at depth would just scatter the components around a bit, and they'd still be there to pick up from the sea floor. So the U.S. would prefer to recover as much as possible in order to deny anything at all to China.

There is always value in recovery of an adversary's tech, no matter how damaged. We've done it before too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
 
2022-01-26 12:37:12 PM  

RolandTGunner: NewportBarGuy: Where is Howard Hughes when you need him?

Ha! Came for this reference.
/satisfied.


Fun Fact:  The Glomar Explorer was mothballed in Suisun Bay very close to whereI grew up.  We used to see it when we travelled to Tahoe.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.