F-35 scared of Sparrows

F35 scared of Sparrows
Sunday Express .:. March 27 2005

"The Latest jet fighter aircraft supposed to make the RAF and Royal Navy Pilots the kings of the sky could be blown out of the sky by a humble sparrow!"

The MOD will admit this week that the JCA, being developed in the US, could crash if it was based at RAF airfields where there are a lot of birds.

Insiders say that the aircraft, which is costing £9 Billion, is so high-tech it uses just one engine to take off and land vertically but makes it particularly vulnerable to even a sparrow.

Geoff Hoon has already had to admit that britains new aircraft carriers will be without new aircraft for two years, as the JSF will not be ready for 2012.

British Defence chiefs are locked in a battle of wills with the Americans over the new planes because the pentagon is refusing to release the electronic codes without which the jsf will be unable to fly, forcing the MOD to consider other options.

------

I have just posted the main points but I will post the rest if I get a chance tonight.

One point, what other aircraft do you think they could be considering?

- Philip

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Seekerof]

The thing that strikes me about the piece is that its another typical example of lazy gutter journalism such as we have come to expect from the UK press.

So, its reliance on just one engine will make it hazardous to operate from UK airfields will it? What do they think we've been doing with the Harrier since 1969?

They seem blissfully unaware that it does not take off vertically anyway, this is odd as it isn't that long ago that this 'fact' was cited as an example of where the programme was failing, despite the fact that it was never supposed to take off vertically, the acronym STOVL is obviously one they cannot grasp the meaning of.

[edit on 27-3-2005 by waynos]

Hey,

I agree waynos, the harrier has the same problem, if not worse due to the the sheer size of the harriers intakes, but the thing that interests me, is the fact that they MOD are considering other options, due to the delays and then the fact that the Yanks aren't giving us the software codes to beable to fix them ourselves.

I Wonder if they run on windows 98! lol Hopefully they will finally look at the SU 27s!

- Philip

Funny that F-16, Gripen, etc. have one engine too and are very reliable aircraft (although the UK is not using it). Since when 1 engine=crash?
And is the UK the only country with high birds concentration?


Geoff Hoon has already had to admit that britains new aircraft carriers will be without new aircraft for two years, as the JSF will not be ready for 2012.

What's the problem? Simply fly Harriers for two more years.

Hopefully they will finally look at the SU 27s

Look at Su-27 and then what? Is the Su-27 able to take off from the future British carriers?

If the US will not hand over the codes then we should just pull out right away its supposed to be a joint project for gods sake.

Last time I checked any plane could have severe engine damage from a bird... So what's the difference about this? I don't get it...

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Last time I checked any plane could have severe engine damage from a bird... So what's the difference about this? I don't get it...

That's because it' has one engine. Two engine planes can still fly after one is damaged. When the F-16 program started, the same people said it will never work because the inlet is too close to the ground and it will suck trash&dust. Of course F-16 is flying now...

[edit on 27-3-2005 by longbow]

The MOD has always made a point of maintaining aircraft with more than one engine, just in case one fails. Having said that, I don't really see the birds being a major problem on takeoff, as the little buggers will be scared off by the noise. Most bird hits happen in the air when the birds can't get away.

Secondly, the Yanks should give the codes, or forget our involvment. Why are they not releasing them? Is it not our plane as well? Grrrrrr

Next time we should have equal development in both countries that way it will be to costly to withhold anything

Originally posted by gooseuk
I agree waynos, the harrier has the same problem, if not worse due to the the sheer size of the harriers intakes,

- ....and yet the Harrier - in contrast to almost every other V/STOL design but it's own later developmental 'off-shoots' - has nothing but a well deserved reputation as the world's first practical, reliable, affordable and above all effective V/STOL fighter/bomber.

The one thing it most certainly does not have is a reputation as an accident prone pilot-killer (except amongst Americans at the very begining of it's 'career' there where they totally underestimated the training requirements for it's new pilots; ie the organisation's fault not the pilots or the planes).

the Yanks aren't giving us the software codes to beable to fix them ourselves.

- If they are really going to start pulling that kind of cr*p then the answer is perfectly simple, we'll never buy a thing from the USA in future ever again.

(Just wait and see this become public knowledge and see the British public's reaction.......and it's not as if current US politics are looked upon 'warmly' here at the minute, is it?)

Hopefully they will finally look at the SU 27s!

- Well I'd be the first to admit the Sukoi Su 27 - 35's are nice looking and impressive looking machines but face it man, they're ancient.

The first of the Su 27's (the T10 demonstrator) flew way back in may 1977; the Su 30 (the T-10-05) way back in dec 1989; the Su27IB/Su34 april 1990 and the Su35 june 1988 (all data from Osprey/Bill Gunston).

In short the Su27 - 35 is pretty enough but based on a design nearly 30yrs old.

We (in the UK) are never going "to finally look at Su27's.

What on earth for?

Get over it.



[edit on 27-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by longbow
That's because it' has one engine. Two engine planes can still fly after one is damaged.

Yeah, but the problem is basically on take off and landing... and in ANY plane you never want to lose an engine, no matter how many you have, in either process.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

The one thing it most certainly does not have is a reputation as an accident prone pilot-killer (except amongst Americans at the very begining of it's 'career' there where they totally underestimated the training requirements for it's new pilots; ie the organisation's fault not the pilots or the planes).

Admitably I havent researched this thoroughly, but there was a higher than normal loss rate in the RAFs initial training on the Harrier too. The US put their top pilots including test pilots in the first lot, and then rolled the training out to normal pilots when they got good reports back, which caused a huge jump in the casualty rate because tehy had used pilots used to wierd handling characteristics, but hadnt asked for that sort of specific feedback with which to train other new pilots.

The Harrier had an issue with 'popping' - the air intakes ingesting already warm air from the downdraft while in hover mode, causing the engine to 'hiccup' and loose power for a moment - enough to crash the aircraft if enough hot air was ingested. An experienced pilot could tell from the sound of the engine if this was about to happen and take action against it.


Also interesting (and back on point) is this BBC article about three recent RAF aircraft crashes being attributable to birds, including one Harrier and two Hawks (aircraft not birds ) - the Harrier crash being that one off the beach which is doing the rounds in a movie file on the internet.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
there was a higher than normal loss rate in the RAFs initial training on the Harrier too.

- I'm not denying for a moment that the Harrier required a high level of skill and training even in RAF circles.

I have no doubt (as with many innovative designs) that in RAF service there was initially a 'blip' in the accident stats.

I just recall it all being so much more of a deal in USA service.

Also interesting (and back on point) is this BBC article about three recent RAF aircraft crashes being attributable to birds, including one Harrier and two Hawks (aircraft not birds

) - the Harrier crash being that one off the beach which is doing the rounds in a movie file on the internet.

- I had read of this being designated as pilot error.

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 27-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

British Defence chiefs are locked in a battle of wills with the Americans over the new planes because the pentagon is refusing to release the electronic codes without which the jsf will be unable to fly, forcing the MOD to consider other options. CAN anyone say crap!

The plane ISn't ready and the UK hasn't got any, the RAF fly them in the US, this is a none issue when it's ready the software codes and every thing will be given to the UK.

RAB

I'm a bit confused here...codes for what? the plane is still in testing, why are they worring about a plane that they wont even own for another 7 years?

and birds...please. thats rediculous, I think there running out of reasons to not like that plane, so now there blamming it on the birds. Bird strikes are rare, and even if an F-35 is landing (vertically) and its 20 feet from the ground and it sucks in a bird you can still eject.

So does anyone know what the codes controll/prevent.

I think the type of birds nesting at the base is important. If its a flock of Geese that your jet blunders into, well you can kiss that engine goodbye and the pilot is going to ride his ejection seat, but if their small birds, well the damage would be pretty minor.

No way we should hand over any codes until the project is complete and what other "options" are there? Most Russian jets can't even stay airborne for much more than an hour, because of the poor fuel efficiency of the Lyulka engines.


Maximu§

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- I had read of this being designated as pilot error.

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 27-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Yes, sorry I misunderstood the BBC article (it said 'two other crashes were recently attributed to birds' and had links to two other aircraft crashes in the See Also links, which I assumed were the two other crashes. Little bit misleading I think...)

Originally posted by Murcielago
I'm a bit confused here...codes for what? the plane is still in testing, why are they worring about a plane that they wont even own for another 7 years?

So does anyone know what the codes controll/prevent.

Pretty sure they are talking about source code for the engine management systems and flight control systems - the F-35 is heavily based on computer control because its flybywire and this will require a lot of computer code to manage, especially since they have shifted a lot of the hovering capability into the computer realm to produce a care free handling situation.

Without the source code to these systems, the British Ministry of Defence cannot tailor the systems to their own end, they will have to rely on what Lockheed create and give them. This basically means the MoD will have to pay Lockheed for specific amendments to the codebase for handling changes that may be required for RAF or RN operations - we do things differently to the USAF etc.

It is entirely possible for Rolls Royce or BAe to produce a repalcement software suite but at a cost, but it would mean that we wouldnt be at the mercy of Lockheed each time we needed a change done - its good not to rely on a foreign corporation when dealing with war machines.

The source code could also bring to light 'easter eggs' that the US might not want us to know about - for example a way to shut down the aircraft using just a 'kill signal', incase the US might want to do that, or if the F-35 is sold on to a third party that comes up against the US etc.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The source code could also bring to light 'easter eggs' that the US might not want us to know about - for example a way to shut down the aircraft using just a 'kill signal', incase the US might want to do that, or if the F-35 is sold on to a third party that comes up against the US etc.

I highly doubt US govt/Lockheed would put code like this into the UK aircrafts.

Originally posted by longbow

I highly doubt US govt/Lockheed would put code like this into the UK aircrafts.

Trust Noone. I dont see why they wouldnt at least consider something like this.