https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/ 09/mysterious-crash-of-a

>>35115541
Most likely not, due to the simple fact that the f-35 is not a classified airframe.

>>35115541
Man that sucks if it is an F-35, it had a perfect record.
Sucks even more that he died too.
Despite the 35 having a great track record ppl are going to be shouting to the moon and back about the new "widow maker".

>>35115547
Nobody said the F-35 is still classified. USAF is only saying the information about which aircraft crashed is classified.

>>35115550
>it had a perfect record.
One did catch fire on the tarmac.

I wouldn't be surprised. Every plane has teething issues, and the F-35 is no exception.

>>35115568
I mean crashes, I should have clarified. Even so, it's been loads safer than any of the aircraft it's replacing.

Su-57 = 0
F-35 = 1

Slavs BTFO

>>35115541
Yeah it was an F-35. Most are saying the F-35A.

File: lockheed_have_blue_7.jpg (114KB, 750x335px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 750x335px

>>35115675

The USAF chief of staff said it was not an F-35.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/08/airman-dies-another-plane-crash-nevada-training-range.html

So we might be dealing with a black project here.

File: the air force.png (98KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 249x249px

Meanwhile in the Air Force

>>35115541
How many threads are you going to make claiming it was an F-35.

>>35116544
>black project.
Wow sounds so cool. Just like in my B action movies.

File: air force and military civilian.jpg (424KB, 1800x1194px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1800x1194px

>>35116684
No Air Force calls everything a black project to fill diversity quotas.

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/960480/af-leaders-announce-latest-diversity-inclusion-initiatives/

>>35116763
>shill gets BTFO
>tries to change the subject

>>35115541
why would one cut a canopy?

File: B-21-Artist-Rendering.jpg (1MB, 6000x2621px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6000x2621px

>pilot while testing black project
The F-35 is supposed to be the last manned fighter aircraft.

What could this black project be?

It's not a recon plane. SR-72 is unmanned.

B-21 Raider?

>>35115649
It's also been in service for a fraction of the time of any of those other aircraft.

File: 1504442703932.jpg (33KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x540px

I bet you it's an F-22, it's just that they are ashamed of saying it crashed with those two A-10

>>35116887

In case of emergency, like a fire or crash and the canopy malfunctions and does not open normally. The pilot could be injured or unconscious and unable to eject or open the canopy and the ground/rescue crew need to get them out.

>>35117373
in that case why does it matter how close to the frame you are if you're furiously bashing at it trying to save his life?

>>35117332
>It's also been in service for a fraction of the time of any of those other aircraft.
>Muh not in service long enough
Metrics for crash rates are not based on service length.
If you want a better comparison, this is the first crash out of the thousands of flight hours on over 150 air frames. The F-16 had already had multiple crashes by the time there were 150 air frames made.

>>35117467
Because the frame usually has explosive materials in it to separate it from the rest of the plane when the ejection sequence is started.

>>35117541
thanks

>>35117524
It wasn't an F-35.

>>35117541
In the case of the F-35, it's because it might be electrified at 240V.

>>35117587
True. Doesn't change how retarded the service length argument is.

File: it was a different time.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>35117524
>this is the first crash out of the thousands of flight hours on over 150 air frames
Except it's not, because this wasn't an F-35
>The F-16 had already had multiple crashes by the time there were 150 air frames made.
To be specific, in it's first year of operational use, the F-16 had 2 total write off crashes out of 96
aircraft; in 1980 there were 6, with one fatality.
As for class A mishaps, the second prototype crash landed in 1975.
As for the First prototype, here is the story of it's first flight:
>During the first high-speed taxi test, a violent lateral oscillation had set in as a direct result of pilot-commanded oscillations (several maximum left/right commands) as the airplane reached rotation speed (~120 kt).
>Remember, this was the first airplane to have a fixed stick, and there was no opportunity for Phil to gain any feel for the airplane, until that high-speed taxi test.
>As the nose of the aircraft rose, the tailplane inadvertently scraped on the runway.
>The left wingtip missile and the right tail static probe also lightly contacted the runway.
>Phil chose to take off because the bird had begun to veer off to the left side of the runway, and he was faced with plowing through the desert or flying.
>Thankfully he chose to fly and possibly saved the entire program.
>After take off, Phil regained control and stayed up for six minutes, and landed uneventfully.
>Prior to the next flight, the stick sensitivity was reduced by 50% with gear down.
>Later, after complaints of not enough sensitivity, it was returned to the original."

File: Light-attack.jpg (68KB, 1330x839px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1330x839px

>>35117312
B-21 is still a ways off
If I had to guess, it was probably one of the OA-X contenders that have been testing there lately

>>35115541
Got to lower those standards so Tyrone & Juan can fly also.

>>35118602
this

>>35118602
>B-21 is still a ways off
as far as you know

>>35115541
so what would the current black project aircraft meme be. considering that past projects like the f-117 were based off of previous bad experience and attempts to nullify those bad things.

>>35115541
ppl are saying it might have been an A-10

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/air-force-pilot-fatally-injured-in-crash-on-nevada-range/2017/09/09/5fd5d952-9598-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_story.html?utm_term=.a670be1dff0d

http://mynews4.com/news/local/us-air-force-2-a-10-planes-crash-in-nevada-pilots-eject

>>35116569
t h i c c

>>35118833
This is a crash in addition to the two A-10s. Another A-10 crash that resulted in a fatality would not result in the Air Force keeping the aircraft a secret.

>>35118602
Sounds like a good call. On the other hand, the pilot's F-35 qualifications suggests the possibility that the undisclosed aircraft utilizes the F-35's avionics.

>>35118602
A third possibility is a pilot evaluation of a foreign aircraft that the US managed to procure in secret.

File: source.gif (1MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x2048px

>>35118967
hmm...

Probably a plane full of swamp gas.

>>35115655
spbp

>>35118933
He's started flying the F-35 in 2011, so he could have easily been put on another project since then

File: 7-Su-27-turning-left-towards-the-camera-706x472.jpg (42KB, 706x472px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 706x472px

>>35118967
>>35119001
They do have a Flanker at Nellis
https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/06/these-crazy-photos-show-a-russian-su-27-flanker-dogfighting-with-a-u-s-air-force-f-16-inside-area-51/

>>35115541
Pretty sure F-35 wouldn't be as hush hush as this.

Could be a B-21?

Aurora or SR-72? TR-3B?

>>35117312
I'm doubtful on F-35 the last manned fighter. Maybe last manned fighter as we currently think of them. Trend has been for bigger and heavier for a long time, next generation could end up with something like B-1R.

>>35118602
OA-X is a definite possibility, but the planes themselves are all already fairly well proven. Then again, they could have been trying some crazy shit with them.

>>35118967
Does USAF even need to do that secretly anymore? Back during the Cold War, yeah that kind of stuff was super secret. But now there are all sorts of exchange programs and the like.

>>35119274
Maybe the CIA stole a Su-57 or one of those chink stealth fighters.

>>35119274
>Does USAF even need to do that secretly anymore? Back during the Cold War, yeah that kind of stuff was super secret. But now there are all sorts of exchange programs and the like.

If we make the presumption that the US got parts, or the design and manufacturing process information for something like the Chengdu J-20 and managed to clone it for testing and evaluation, they would not want people to know that we have one (or more).

>>35117312
>The F-35 is supposed to be the last manned fighter aircraft.
Dumb fucking dronefag

>>35119488
The Air Force itself has said as much.

File: 1504965285494.jpg (35KB, 300x328px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x328px

>>35115541

why cant we just use the a10 and the f14

remember the gold old days

File: 3 inches.jpg (9KB, 127x161px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 127x161px

>>35119642

>>35115541
Why can't you cut the canopy within three inches of the canopy frame? Asking for a friend.

>>35119769
Because explosives.

>>35119769
>Why can't you cut the canopy within three inches of the canopy frame? Asking for a friend.

The canopy frame is rigged with detonation cord to make sure it's gone in the event the pilot needs to eject from the aircraft.

>>35115655
Sure would be nice if the su-57 had actual flight time

>>35116887
In case the pilot/maintainer passes out and the canopy malfunctions. Some aircraft have/had the ability for ground crew to jettison the canopy but this a last resort due to the danger involved and obviously can't be used if the jets under cover. The reason for the 3" warning is so rescue teams don't accidentally put circular saw through the explosive charge that runs the length of the canopy.

File: reformers01.jpg (76KB, 368x257px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 368x257px

>>35115541

>tfw you tried to warn them but they wouldn't listen

>>35119274
>Does USAF even need to do that secretly anymore? Back during the Cold War, yeah that kind of stuff was super secret. But now there are all sorts of exchange programs and the like.

If it's a foreign jet as part of an exchange program they'd have to it cleared by the originating country before releasing details.

>>35120156
>If it's a foreign jet as part of an exchange program they'd have to it cleared by the originating country before releasing details.

Why would they need to test it in America if they wanted to keep it a secret?

>>35120198
They might not be testing it, could just be being flown by a yank pilot as part of a normal exercise and they're waiting for what ever country it came from to clear the details for release.