Military Review

Very expensive refueling. F-35 "refueled" on 2 million dollars

39
The command of the United States Naval Forces has finally calculated the damage from the unsuccessful air refueling of the F-35C fighter, which occurred even on August 23 2018. According to published data, the aircraft itself was damaged in the amount of at least two million dollars, and the tanker ranged from 50 to 500 thousand, writes “RG” with reference to Military.com.


Very expensive refueling. F-35 "refueled" on 2 million dollars


According to a report by the US Navy, the incident with the fifth-generation fighter F-35C occurred on August 23 during a training flight off the coast of Virginia. Then, during refueling, the fighter jet damaged the fuel hose basket, after which small fragments of the structure together with the fuel got into the F-35 tank, further damaging the engine. The plane was able to make a safe landing on board the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln", while landing no one was hurt. Also damaged received acting as a tanker deck attack aircraft F / A-18 Super Hornet.

Despite a safe landing, the incident with the F-35 is estimated by the US Navy command as a "first class accident" - this means damage over 2 million dollars. Damage to the F / A-18 Super Hornet was rated as a “class C accident” - the damage ranges from 50 to 500 thousand dollars.

The main cause of the incident is the location of the fuel receiver boom on the F-35. It is installed so that the pilot simply does not see it.
Photos used:
US.Navy
39 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Faceless
    Faceless 11 September 2018 15: 47
    +11
    I never tire of admiring the design features of this wonderful aircraft! That's for sure: "unparalleled in the world"!
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 11 September 2018 16: 10
      +5
      Probably everything is designed for automation and electronics, which sometimes fails. What gives an additional chance to our aircraft in the use of electronic warfare
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 11 September 2018 21: 01
        +6
        I can’t imagine HOW it is possible to damage the fuel supply basket using a fuel rod.
        After all, this basket is simply a cone on a long hose that hangs freely. As you don’t poke it with a barbell, you won’t break it in any way.
        Most likely, having missed, the pilot ran over the basket with an air intake. Here, yes, if such a thing is pulled into the turbine, there will be those very "fragments that damaged the engine."
    2. BRJ
      BRJ 11 September 2018 22: 20
      -12
      Quote: Faceless
      I never tire of admiring the design features of this wonderful aircraft! That's for sure: "unparalleled in the world"!

      You should understand with your "lack of analogies in the world" lol
      How's the Su-57 doing?))
      1. Faceless
        Faceless 12 September 2018 09: 13
        +1
        Sir from the edge of maple and two oceans, you do not translate the topic. Firstly, in the article not a word about the Su-57, secondly, he is doing fine, and thirdly, how beautifully this is not the topic of this publication, nor is the rest of our weapons.

        And fourthly, no matter how the Su-57 lives, this will not stop me, nor will anyone admire the original design solutions implemented on the f-35. Such a constructive solution as installing the fuel receiver rods out of the pilot's visibility range cannot leave indifferent and without vivid emotions. especially since the result of this is obvious))

        Finally. The logic "any failure they have is not a failure, because ours (according to the commentator) is even worse", of course, has the right to exist, like any other. Here are just the conclusions based on the results of using such logic are completely devoid of criteria and reliability and, sometimes (as in this case) of relevance to the immediate subject of research, respectively, do not represent any, even popular science value, in relation to the issue under study.
        A moan, of course, is possible. No one forbids.
  2. Thrall
    Thrall 11 September 2018 15: 48
    +10
    Decker tanker attack aircraft?
    1. Letun
      Letun 11 September 2018 20: 55
      +4
      Quote: Thrall
      Decker tanker attack aircraft?

      "The Su-24M is equipped with an in-air refueling system with a retractable rod and a fuel receiver in the nose of the fuselage. It can itself act as a refueller when equipped with an UPAZ-A unit suspended under the fuselage, which allows it to transfer in flight (including at night) to a refueled aircraft up to 9000 kg fuel. "
      And F / A-18 will be more modern than Su-24.
  3. Yrec
    Yrec 11 September 2018 15: 49
    +7
    "It's set up so the pilot just can't see it." - cool! The pilot must open a special hatch and feel and insert the refueling hose. At the same time, he is strictly forbidden to play "pocket billiards" with his remaining hand. (From the manual for refueling in the air F-35) wassat
    1. Black sniper
      Black sniper 11 September 2018 17: 45
      0
      The plane managed to make a safe landing on board the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln"
      ----------------------------
      Although Amer, but the pilot is excellent, and maybe just lucky ...
    2. helmi8
      helmi8 11 September 2018 19: 39
      +2
      Quote: Yrec
      +4
      "It's set up so the pilot just can't see it." - cool!

      This is stealth technology! laughing If the pilot doesn’t see his own refueling bar, why talk about some radars? wassat
    3. Alex_You
      Alex_You 11 September 2018 20: 46
      0
      How can you not see her? Another thing is the pilots of the Air Force who refuel with the help of a rod.
      1. Alex_You
        Alex_You 11 September 2018 20: 47
        +1
        https://img01.rl0.ru/57b134dcd892d4bc29894494cb71244d/c615x400/news.rambler.ru/img/2018/08/04222759.212239.8873.jpeg
  4. bald
    bald 11 September 2018 15: 52
    +9
    And the pilot did well (let not ours) - he landed, did not catapult.
    1. Black_Vatnik
      Black_Vatnik 11 September 2018 15: 56
      +11
      Try to catapult here when around you iron for $ 100 million)
      1. bald
        bald 11 September 2018 16: 00
        +2
        In such seconds, few people think about other people's money, maybe the situation was not critical, as landing on an aircraft carrier was allowed.
    2. maykl8
      maykl8 11 September 2018 16: 38
      -1
      And the pilot did well (let not ours) - he landed, did not catapult.

      More precisely, an autopilot and an on-board computer. Both well done. And the pilot was discharged from the Air Force due to chronic diarrhea.
      1. bald
        bald 11 September 2018 18: 36
        +1
        If the engine is damaged (as indicated in the satya), the on-board computer would give information to the aircraft carrier and it would be unlikely that the Americans would risk an aircraft carrier.
      2. Alex_You
        Alex_You 11 September 2018 20: 51
        0
        And he does not serve in the Air Force.
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak 11 September 2018 15: 54
    +9
    feature of an arrangement of a bar of a fuel receiver on F-35. It is set so that the pilot simply does not see it.

    How does it not see? She is under his nose!
    1. Bull Terrier
      Bull Terrier 11 September 2018 16: 03
      +2
      Does it have all the modifications in one place?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 11 September 2018 16: 08
        +7
        And they have two options, as I understand it. Either such a rod, or a fuel receiver behind the cab (in this case, a rigid rod at the tanker). The article talks about the boom on an airplane receiver. So ... it is not clear how he could have missed so much and why this barbell suddenly became invisible.
        And then ... why would you suddenly transfer it, in the same place the place is not used by anyone else.
        1. NN52
          NN52 11 September 2018 16: 29
          +13
          Well here maybe a little so wrote in the article ..
          Perhaps after docking the tanker hose to the basket, one of the pilots (F 35 or F 18) made a significant deviation in speed and the hose was torn off with fur damage to the basket.
          After that, part of the hose could get into the engine air intake (it is doubtful whether it is in the fuel system with kerosene, there are filters there ..)
          This version of mine also supports the fact that the damage was also received by F 18 (acting as a decker tanker), with the remainder of the hose with a sharp blow to the fuselage (as if carrying a car in tow, and the cable breaks, like ...)
          Definitely the fault of the pilot, without options ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 11 September 2018 16: 35
            +1
            Yes, this is a more realistic option to damage the car on 2 lyama ...)))
          2. another RUSICH
            another RUSICH 11 September 2018 16: 49
            +5
            Yes, it certainly was.
            And then some sort of nonsense: the wreckage fell into the tank, and then into the engine. How?!?...
          3. Shahno
            Shahno 11 September 2018 17: 59
            0
            Did a part of the hose enter the air intake? Yes, and as if without an engine, he made a landing .... most likely the engine was not damaged at all, but added so, to be convincing.
            1. NN52
              NN52 11 September 2018 19: 01
              +1
              Shahno

              And who said that the engine failed?
              "Nicks" on the shoulder blades, increased vibration, etc., etc. ... (there are a lot of options), but in the end it doesn't matter, the engines are being repaired ... We got off with a "minor" fright ...
              On the computer, they will find out who has missed the point at a speed (well, or they will blame it on "turbulence").))))

              Well, or if another basket went through the fuselage of F 35, then you can also imagine the damage, ala stealth-invisible ....
    2. Shahno
      Shahno 11 September 2018 16: 09
      0
      The next article will seem to be that pilots not only have breathing problems, but also vision problems ... laughing
    3. thinker
      thinker 11 September 2018 17: 41
      +9
      The video is more interesting
  6. Bull Terrier
    Bull Terrier 11 September 2018 16: 02
    +2
    I always thought that this basket was unkillable, you never know what could be, and that foreign objects could not get into the fuel. And then it’s like ...
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 11 September 2018 16: 29
      +3
      I also can’t understand how it can be damaged in the air? She is not fixed rigidly!
      1. Black sniper
        Black sniper 11 September 2018 17: 52
        +1
        Above NN52 described in detail. hi
  7. Jerk
    Jerk 11 September 2018 16: 19
    0
    Made at random (s) - U.S. Air Force trademark
  8. Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 11 September 2018 16: 19
    +2
    Well, the official reason for the next revision is the transfer of the bar! Drank is coming?
  9. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 11 September 2018 16: 27
    +2
    Quote: Bull Terrier
    ... and that foreign objects cannot get into the fuel. And then it’s like ...

    And these foreign objects, nevertheless got into the fuel, passing through pumps and filters also damaged the engine. Here it is ... laughing
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 11 September 2018 16: 31
      -1
      Well, it’s impossible to damage the turbojet engine like that ... it’s not for you to get the nozzle on the engine, there the electronics will not.
      1. Shahno
        Shahno 11 September 2018 17: 46
        0
        Colleagues, I understand, of course ... the opinion is good. If you do not agree with the comments on those. issue, argue. And it looks a little strange (probably, you have experience working in the design of aircraft units and vehicles, or an excellent education, maybe a fax, or maybe a ddr, then it’s definitely not difficult for you to answer).
      2. helmi8
        helmi8 11 September 2018 19: 53
        +2
        Quote: Shahno
        Well, it’s impossible to damage the turbojet engine like that ... it’s not for you to get the nozzle on the engine, there the electronics will not

        Indeed, extraneous fur. impurities in the fuel (not to mention particles) cannot get into the engine. The maximum is clogged filters and engine shutdown.
        If the debris of the basket and pieces of hose fell into the air intake, then only the nicks on the compressor blades are just luck. Usually this leads to the destruction of the VNA blades and the 1st stage of the compressor turbine ... (Again, it depends on the size and material of the debris)
        In vain minus Shahno... IMHO
  10. Metallurg_2
    Metallurg_2 11 September 2018 20: 02
    0
    Trivia, for the Yankees these 2,5 lard are a couple of minutes of the printing press)
  11. aszzz888
    aszzz888 12 September 2018 01: 38
    0
    News-Front | Yandex Zen
    The F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, taking off from the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier (CVN-72), was damaged during the air-fueling exercise, which was the first major flight failure of the F-35 modification intended for aircraft-carrying ships.
    During the intake of fuel from the FH-18F Super Hornet, the F-35C engine from the VFA 125 squadron was damaged. Debris from the rod fell into the power plant, which led to its damage, a spokesman for the naval aviation said.

    ... mother said - sit at home ... laughing