Tragedy aboard USS America narrowly averted

And that's why the Navy is smart about ditching that blue camo working uniform pattern, and switching to something better. Like bright yellow.

File: 457d1535b36fc8fd479386bbbe1aa9a1.jpg (38KB, 630x355px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 630x355px

>mfw when someones going to blame this on the F-35

>>31867242

The water wasn't cold. The sailor was in little danger.

>>31867636
It can be very dangerous if you get injured during the fall. But it sounds like he was okay.

>>31867242
>that feel when you get blown overboard by a malfunctioning F-35

>>31867606
see >>31867729

>>31867321
as if the navy didn't have a blue work uniform for the last 100+ years

wtf i h8 the f35 now

cancel it

>>31867636
Water temp is currently about 66 degrees where they were. Sounds warm, right? Almost room temperature, right?

Well, as it happens, that's actually in the medium risk band on the hypothermia index, and is definitely medium-thickness wetsuit water. According to the hypothermia chart, it's 2-7 hours until complete exhaustion with 2 to 40 hours survival rating depending on gear.

Not such a huge deal when you're spotted going in and they sound an immediate man overboard drill. But if you go in and it takes them an hour to sound the drill, it might already be too late even at 66 degrees, even if you're a solid swimmer; it'd take at least an hour at that point for them to find you, and you're already fighting 4-6 foot swells without a life jacket. No good at all.

Even if they do spot you going in, if you knock yourself out going over the rail or hit the water funny dropping from the flight deck and injure yourself or knock yourself out, even the 5-15 minutes it takes to get a diver in the water may be too long.

Man overboard on a carrier ain't nothing to fuck with. Just way too many ways to have a really bad time. There's a reason it's so heavily drilled.

this is one of the problems with the Osprey

You can't fish people out of the water with it
A CH-46 would have had no issue, but the downwash from Ospreys would have drowned him.

>>31867887
Why doesn't every sailor have a water proof cellphone

>>31867242
what does this has to do either with the ship or the plane or the chopper ?

If anything as anon >>31867321 mentionned, it's a good argument to have a camo change for something with bright colors.

What is the critic here ? "If you're on a boat you can fall into water" ? well thank you captain obvious, I could not figure that out myself.

>>31867729
Where do they say that ??? I'm not a fan of the F-35 but where is it said it's the fault of the plane ?

>>31869230
This is a valid point though.

>>31867887
>the downwash from Ospreys would have drowned him.
At first I thought you were just bashing the Osprey for no reason, but damn, the Osprey has 5x the disk loading of the CH-46; that means that it'd put roughly 5x the force on whoevers under it than the CH-46.

I'm skeptical that it'd drown a person, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it continually made them drift away from the Osprey.

Inb4 SAILOR OVERBOARD PROOFS F35 A SHIT!!!!

File: ch-53e-super-stallion-paratrooper-arabian-sea.jpg (546KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 950x633px

>>31869312
What, like because the CH-46 weighs 1/3 as much and carries 1/4 the payload?

A CH-53E Super Stallion has almost four times the disc loading of a CH-46. Are you going to tell me it drowns sailors left and right, too? Pic related.

Why is there so much retarded fuddlore RE: the Osprey?

>>31869831
Because its a new class of aircraft and the one thing its been really good at is killing planeloads of marines

I can understand why people would be skeptical of it

>>31869831
looks pretty rough actually

>some dumb enlistedfag did something stupid again as usual

Is this even worth acknowledging?

>>31869855
>Because its a new class of aircraft and the one thing its been really good at is killing planeloads of marines
>I can understand why people would be skeptical of it
It has a better safety record in both Class A incident rate and fatality rate since service introduction than any rotary wing aircraft in USMC or USN service (and possibly USArmy, though I'm not positive those numbers have been compared).

The "killing planeloads of Marines" meme is from prototyping and working up to IOC, and even then airframe loss rate was actually less than CH-46 or CH-53 testing, prototyping and introduction.

You ate the whole meme, and you're still puking it back out everywhere you go. Time to shit it out.

>oveeboard for between 7 and 8 minutes
that's pretty damn quick

>>31867242
LAST NAIL IN F35 COFFIN??????

>>31867606
Ready for the Vatniks and Sprey-ites

>>31869936
Damn straight. This shit is drilled constantly. However, in the north North Atlantic or Bering Sea in February there's a good chance that's already too long. In 32.5 degree water, you've got no more than 15 minutes before you're unconscious and drowning, generally a good bit less for people without a lot of body mass/fat. You loose optimal limb function and the ability to efficiently swim or tread water within 120 seconds, so if you go in without a lifejacket your chances just got much, much lower.

File: 1477460376599.jpg (79KB, 715x444px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 715x444px

>>31869935

Whatever, maaaan.

>>31870165
>new data scares and confuses me
>better stick with the meme I know than try to understand the reality I don't

Good luck in life, son.

>>31870197
>why does a plane doing all non-combat stuff have better incident rate than choppers

i dnno

>>31870222
>>why does a plane doing all non-combat stuff have better incident rate than choppers
Oh, look. Someone's trying to completely change the assumptive basis of the discussion and imply the V-22 never did combat ops, or that CH-53s (which have a far worse accident/Class A incident rate) see much more combat over the same timeframe.

Yawn.

>>31870222
this has to be bait. no one is this removed from reality

>>31870165
>>31870197
KEK

opsec OP