Fighter Jets

[f4phantomii]

Originally Posted by Ken-Ohki

There's been talk in recent memory of f35s not being safe to fly around lightening. This seems to have happened in stormy weather.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinio...ivable-5411404

That's really bizarre if true.

On the commercial side, suppliers are required to qualify each component by blasting it with a range of frequencies and power levels to ensure it remains functional.

Then one everything is installed on the aircraft, they set up massive antennas and huge capacitor banks to blast the whole aircraft over a huge range of frequencies & power levels.

That testing is specifically for Electro-Magnetic Interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) and their effects on the aircraft. If it impacts any critical systems in an adverse way, you get to go back to the drawing board and redesign to better protect the aircraft and systems.

The few military programs I've worked always have an EMP hardening requirement on top of all that.

I remember one R&D project with NASA on an F-18. They had installed some commercial amplifier up in the nose and their EMI sniffers were going nuts over it. For safety reasons they had to stop and find the source and fix it.

One of the NASA test pilots rolled his eyes and told me "If it were that easy to cause a problem you'd have terrorists all over the place pointing EM guns at us."

Originally Posted by Thumper23

The JSF helmet is a problem in that case. If you’re not in the proper body position that thing is going to snap your neck.

Yeah, I've had a couple of the traditional ones on and wondered how you were supposed to not yank your head off pulling 9g because the helmet practically doubles the weight of your head.

I've flown a Pitts a few times wearing a helmet and got up to 6g. And that was quite unpleasant.

I can't imagine how bad the ejection would be.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[19std]

Originally Posted by Thumper23

The JSF helmet is a problem in that case. If you’re not in the proper body position that thing is going to snap your neck.

Yeah just read up on that really nifty 400k helmet.

@retsyn, yeah thanks for pointing out embedded system, obviously need different attack vectors, certificates probably don't matter here ala stuxnet...i actually chuckled when i thought about booting up windows 2000 and then running f35 lightning.exe, download some cool skins, lol.

[NutBucket]

I (finally) bring to OT an actual jet fighter:

North American F-86F 'Sabre' Startup & Taxi @planesoffame - YouTube

North American F-86F 'Sabre' Startup & Taxi @planesoffame - YouTube

[NutBucket]

12345

[f4phantomii]

And here it is "naked".

If an enemy landed a round anywhere, it was almost guaranteed to damage multiple things.

Absolutely amazing how packed it was with systems.

[NutBucket]

I mean it is literally a pilot strapped to a jet engine

Are the yellow cylinders oxygen? Something for the guns?

Also it was hot yesterday. Pilot said he was glad it has AC.

[NutBucket]

12345

[Ken-Ohki]

Yeah, there's no empty space under the skin. Either equipment or fuel.

[340Duster]

Not jets, but I got to see a P-47, T-6, and a B-17 today at an exhibit. It was cool to watch the B-17 start sequence and take off. The only thing that was unusual, the engines seemed quieter than I have seen in the past. I wonder if some modern exhaust modifications have been made in the name of reduced noise. The T-6 seemed noticeably louder when it took off.

[RonnieSoxs]

Originally Posted by NutBucket

I mean it is literally a pilot strapped to a jet engine

Are the yellow cylinders oxygen? Something for the guns?

Also it was hot yesterday. Pilot said he was glad it has AC.

My bet is they are LOX tanks.

Secsee looking fighter! Cool to see it naked too.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by NutBucket

I (finally) bring to OT an actual jet fighter:

This was always a favorite of mine.
Just a sportscar with cannons and sometimes rockets to shoot other planes down with.

[NutBucket]

12345

[NutBucket]

The internets says the the yellow bottles are indeed LOX.

During the post-flight Q&A, the pilot said the Taiwanese installed Sidewinders on their F-86s.

[samb]

Originally Posted by 340Duster

Not jets, but I got to see a P-47, T-6, and a B-17 today at an exhibit. It was cool to watch the B-17 start sequence and take off. The only thing that was unusual, the engines seemed quieter than I have seen in the past. I wonder if some modern exhaust modifications have been made in the name of reduced noise. The T-6 seemed noticeably louder when it took off.

T-6s have big direct drive propellers. The tips approach the speed of sound which makes them loud as ****.

[f4phantomii]

Originally Posted by 340Duster

The only thing that was unusual, the engines seemed quieter than I have seen in the past. I wonder if some modern exhaust modifications have been made in the name of reduced noise.

It would be a crime if they did. Much like many of the old warbirds, it's a unique sound that nothing else in the world sounds like.

[orndog]

I don't want to venture into the PP pool, and there's lots of experience in this thread.

Who thought sending POTUS to Israel was a sane idea? Landing Air Force one in a tiny land during a war with non-state terrorists armed with god-knows-what missiles was crazy. Taking off from there in a 747, no matter how modified, has got to be the riskiest thing an American president has ever done. Will they strap him into the back seat of an F16 and risk killing him ourselves to extract him? Are we just double-dog-daring the people over there? Are we actually going to lumber AF1 back into the air with him on board?

[f4phantomii]

Originally Posted by orndog

I don't want to venture into the PP pool, and there's lots of experience in this thread.

Who thought sending POTUS to Israel was a sane idea? Landing Air Force one in a tiny land during a war with non-state terrorists armed with god-knows-what missiles was crazy. Taking off from there in a 747, no matter how modified, has got to be the riskiest thing an American president has ever done. Will they strap him into the back seat of an F16 and risk killing him ourselves to extract him? Are we just double-dog-daring the people over there? Are we actually going to lumber AF1 back into the air with him on board?

I had all of those same thoughts.

Having said that, the security around Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv is heavy even when they aren't at war.

Nonetheless, it still seemed like a large risk.

Also makes me wonder if that wasn't the primary motivation behind moving the USS Ford's carrier group closer just to have their umbrella over the region before AF1 arrived. Provided an entirely new (and much broader) layer of protection in addition to what Israel already had in place.

Officially it was to provide immediate resupply to Israel, but frankly just about any ship could have made that delivery. You don't need an entire carrier strike group for that in this situation.

[shiplemw]

Originally Posted by orndog

I don't want to venture into the PP pool, and there's lots of experience in this thread.

Who thought sending POTUS to Israel was a sane idea? Landing Air Force one in a tiny land during a war with non-state terrorists armed with god-knows-what missiles was crazy. Taking off from there in a 747, no matter how modified, has got to be the riskiest thing an American president has ever done. Will they strap him into the back seat of an F16 and risk killing him ourselves to extract him? Are we just double-dog-daring the people over there? Are we actually going to lumber AF1 back into the air with him on board?

Echoing F4's comments above.
- It does seem oddly risky just to show an ally that you are there for them. Plus it sets a precedent for future conflicts. Look at it from Ukraine's shoes, what does that tell them?
- There are a bunch of counter measures in place on AF1 but why risk it?
- And the comment on the carrier battle group - the question I have there is once US and Israeli planes are overhead...once the bombs drop will anyone take time to notice if it is US or Israel doing the bombing?

[haa-yup!]

seems like the biggest risk is unguided rockets...there's no countermeasure on AF1 for that (that I'm aware of)

[Thumper23]

AF1 probably has a better chance of being hit by something while on the ground than in the air.

Hamas and their ilk are low tech.

Like was said before, that airport is well protected.

[Ken-Ohki]

Originally Posted by haa-yup!

seems like the biggest risk is unguided rockets...there's no countermeasure on AF1 for that (that I'm aware of)

I suppose you could get lucky and accidentally hit a target with indiscriminate weapons. They're made to hit the general area of neighborhoods...

With 2 carrier strike groups in the region, potus has lots of options/contingencies.

[f4phantomii]

Originally Posted by Thumper23

Like was said before, that airport is well protected.

When I was there last year, I was waiting in the lobby of a building. I'd already been thru multiple security checkpoints by that time, all with armed IDF or police.

I walked about 10ft away to read a sign on the wall. I turn around and all my coworkers with me are just shaking their head disapprovingly at me.

I walk back over to them like "What?"

Apparently as soon as I walked away from the desk, "all the red dots swarmed to you".

[FaastLegacy]

Civilian flights have continued to go in and out of Ben Gurion since this crisis started. My guess is their assessment is that the danger is minimal.

[haa-yup!]

the majority of non-Israeli airlines believe otherwise

[Thumper23]

Yep, I know Delta has cancelled all TLV flights through Oct 31 and are still assessing November.