Back to Squawk list
  • 29

F-35C Ramp Strike Video Leaked Online

Soumis
 
The video shows the F-35C suffering a ramp strike before bursting in flames and skidding off the deck. Video footage from the USS Carl Vinson’s Pilot’s Landing Aid Television (PLAT) camera has just been leaked online, showing what happened to the F-35C of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147 that crashed on January 24, 2022 (theaviationist.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


n101wb
Charles Baker 11
I must say, the response time of the fire crews is quite impressive.
g8rben
Ben Eige 16
Not to downplay the cost issues with the F-35, but ramp strikes, unfortunately, have been a part of carrier operations since the beginning. Don't know that this incident should equal "see I told you the F-35 sucks." Maybe it does, but not just because of a ramp strike.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 12
Nice opsec
SmokedChops
SmokedChops 8
my thoughts as well. Leak? Here is your Article 32 and all-expenses paid stay at Naval Correctional Brig Miramar.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 -1
tell me what crucial info was given away herE?
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 5
If anyone here could identify what info was crucial, it wouldn't be crucial info now would it?

A leak is a leak.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 0
in other words, bullshit. There is nothing to see of any importance.
user3956
user3956 4
The point isn't whether this particular video revealed sensitive information, it's that someone made a judgement to leak it and that person is most likely not only not allowed to leak ANY information at all, but certainly isn't licensed to decide what qualifies as sensitive and what doesn't. If you had everyone in the military making their own decisions on what should or shouldn't be leaked it would be quite a mess, wouldn't you agree? Opsec procedures have been violated here, regardless of whether any impact resulted from this or not.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 -3
How do you even know they didn't have approval ? There are MANY videos out there about on board carrier operations. There is NOTHING to see on this vid. unclassified.
user3956
user3956 0
Things don't have to be "classified" for it to be a violation of opsec, there are many levels of designation including some as low as "confidential", but regardless, a video of carrier operations - including especially accidents - is something that needs some official approval before it can be released. The fact that other videos of carrier operations and accidents are public doesn't negate this fact, those have been vetted and approved almost certainly or otherwise also leaked as a violation of opsec. Surely you can understand how a foreign adversary might gain some sort of beneficial knowledge based around carrier landing failures and the rescue response as well as the speed of the response by rescue crews. I don't "know" that the leaker didn't have approval, however this is something that's been revealed via social media with anonymity around its source. When things are officially released by approved methods the mechanism is almost never through an unstated anonymous source through social media. You are grasping for straws at this point because you realize that this video should not have been leaked because of the general rules governing military operations and you also realize that it most likely WAS leaked and not released via official and approved channels. Why you continue to try and argue your lack of a point is curious. Why can't you just admit that opsec has been violated almost certainly at a 99% probability and move on? Instead you have resulted to "you can't prove it wasn't officially leaked" lmao, please.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 -2
Your reasoning is useless since there is zero material released that would indicate anything that would anyone give a benefit. The video is crappy quality in the first place, there is NO explanation as to why it happened and there is NO indication on the plane anything is even remotely wrong. It means nothing.
user3956
user3956 2
You are implying that no enemy could possibly gain anything of use from viewing this accident footage, you have also implied that this leak could've potentially been officially approved for release - as if a smart phone filming the display of it on a monitor is the mechanism in which the footage would be officially released. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous those things sound? You are just as bad as the person who violated opsec in that you are using your own personal judgment on whether this was something sensitive to release or not. The entire point is that it's not the person's right who leaked this to make that decision, and by doing that, they violated opsec. The initial point here wasn't whether this data is useful, it's whether opsec was violated - which it was.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 -2
opsec was not violated.
user3956
user3956 2
Go read the definition of opsec - and before you respond back with some bs like you already know it, it is painfully obvious that you do not. Opsec is the process at which there is an attempt tp prevent the acquisition of multiple different data sources that may appear benign individually but when are assembled together can provide intelligence. I shouldn't need to get this much into detail but apparently it's necessary. If an enemy acquires a series of multiple different recent air carrier operations failures by video and they all show that operations are down for an average of 15 minutes on the flight deck before another plane can be launched they can use that understanding to their benefit during a conflict. That is just one single use case, and as I've already said, violating the process of containing those different and separate data points is a violation of opsec. Apparently we've descended to playground "is not", "is so" levels of communication here. Opsec was violated, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. Also, here's another hint, when a grown adult cannot admit when they're wrong, it's a sign of weakness, so you are either not an adult or you are, and you are acting juvenile. Opsec was violated.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 0
opsec was definitely not violated by no means.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
definitely was.
dalej2
Dale Johnson 0
If it's a classified environment around these monitors then smart phones would not be allowed. Just as they are banned I believe on U.S. Submarines
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
You should give the pentagon press secretary a call since he has it all wrong:

"The Navy is not only investigating, of course, the cause of the mishap itself, but they are investigating the release of this deck video that you saw -- flight deck video that you saw."

"And I won't get ahead of their investigation, but I know they're looking into what appears to be an unauthorized leak of video."
dalej2
Dale Johnson 0
Then they better make sure no sailor has a smart phone with them in classified areas. I assume the entire ship is classified including vultures row, therefore zero smart phones allowed.
user3956
user3956 1
It does not have to be "classified", read the definition of opsec, part of it is specifically around securing multiple sources of seemingly non-sensitive data that can be assembled together to provide valuable intelligence.
user3956
user3956 1
Opsec was violated."Four enlisted sailors and one junior officer are now facing charges in connection to the unauthorized release of footage from last month’s crash of an F-35C Lightning II jet on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson while the ship was operating in the South China Sea." https://taskandpurpose.com/news/sailors-charged-f-35-crash-video-leak/
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 1
They should focus on recovering the plane, not this bs.
dalej2
Dale Johnson 0
None. I've seen many videos just like this one.
user3956
user3956 1
Opsec was violated. "Four enlisted sailors and one junior officer are now facing charges in connection to the unauthorized release of footage from last month’s crash of an F-35C Lightning II jet on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson while the ship was operating in the South China Sea." https://taskandpurpose.com/news/sailors-charged-f-35-crash-video-leak/
chris13
Chris Bryant 2
I'd really like to see the deck PLAT view. This video was from the PLAT above PriFly. Wondering if he was below glidepath all the way or if it suddenly lost power.
I watched a ramp strike of an F/A-18 when I was on the Coral Sea, and he was below glidepath the whole time.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 1
Looks like suddenly he is too low but should have had time to power up and out. Seems like it had an engine issue.
skylane777
John Nichols 3
Considering the previous vids,a/c was idling, and power up was late; sink got to high and throttle up too late.
ed7778
Dennis Stockton 3
Did China recover the aircraft, or did they not bother because they already have the blueprints?
ShirBlackspots
Charles Ball 1
China already built an F-35 copy and even fixed its issues.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
Is that what they said?
waypoint66
David Rice 0
Again, someone who loves to read, commenting on something they apparently did not read!
ed7778
Dennis Stockton 2
Again, someone who doesn't recognize sarcasm when he reads it.
bpeitz
WilliM Peitz 1
We y ij
skylane777
John Nichols 1
LandShortOmigod. Does the single engine F35 have enough thrust to stop that kind of sink rate in time to make the wire?

Single engine aircraft on the carrier?

In this day and age?
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
thrust to weight is pretty close
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 1
WOW....what a pitching deck..Where was the nearest refueler or land base?
tnbriggs
Terry Briggs -1
One would think a $100 million fighter would be able to land itself.
waypoint66
David Rice 2
“One” would have ridiculous expectations.
user3956
user3956 1
Supposedly the costs have come down through economies of scale - excluding operational costs - to less than 100M, but sadly other planes are now becoming at least as expensive. The new F-15EX sticker price per plane is currently more than the F35.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 0
the bigger concern is: was the plane recovered ?
waypoint66
David Rice 3
I’m sure you actually read the story, but wasn’t your concern addressed in the story’s last sentence? I know, actual reading has fallen victim to “TLDR”, but reading is good for your intellect.
KineticRider
Randy Marco -5
Just more wasted money for the Industrial Military Complex; which is socialism at its FINEST!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tzoia1
Franco Prizzi 5
F-18 i suppose......
waypoint66
David Rice 0
Has an F-16 ever been made with a tail hook? I think not.
skylane777
John Nichols 1
I think yes.... dry trap.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter