16 ms·

The implications, if that is the cause, are shocking. Forget about the deck crew and the pilot being blind morons. It means the flight computer for a plane that

The implications, if that is the cause, are shocking. Forget about the deck crew and the pilot being blind morons. It means the flight computer for a plane that took twenty years and a trillion dollars to develop can't detect that there's a fucking cover blocking the engine. How does a twenty thousand dollar sedan have a more robust readiness-detection system than a hundred million dollar airplane?

elif 5y ago
It's possible (I would say likely) that there was a warning light. During normal aviation takeoffs, there are procedures that govern when it is too late to abort, and procedure dictates that it is safer to attempt flight. For a carrier, I imagine that point-of-no-return is about a few feet from stationary.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
The NEXT version of the software will surely add this check!
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  Wait for the subscription-ware version where you need to pay 2 Billion per year to the defense contractor for the feature.
  - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
    That sounds like what we have now. We just haven’t formalized it. :-(
- m0zg 5y ago
  That'll be another hundred billion dollars and five years tho. Maybe by then they'll install some functioning cannons on these.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Forget about the deck crew and the pilot being blind morons. I thought aviation is THE industry that runs on procedures and checklists you need to tick before and after each flight to make sure the even if you're a complete klutz, nothing like this can ever happen. Did that go out the window? >It means the flight computer for a plane that took twenty years and a trillion dollars to develop can't detect that there's a fucking cover blocking the engine. This is pure gold. Even my robovac can detect when something is chocking the suction intake and shut down and send me a notification on my phone. The fact that a trillion dollar weapon missed this feature is hilarious.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  The article says that this was a checklist item for both the ground crew and the pilot, and yet it wasn't spotted/fixed (did they even conduct the checks?). Multiple heads are definitely going to roll on this one. But two things can be true: - Procedures/checklists should have stopped this (and should be the primary way). - The flight computer should know that air flowing into the engine is unusual when a cover is blocking it. Also keep in mind that if both are fixed, this would be fixes from two different organizations (the British Navy and Lockheed Martin/F-35B's manufacturing chain). This happened at peace time. I can imagine during a stressful wartime situation human error is more likely to occur, which is even more reason why computer sanity checks can be advantageous.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >The article says that this was a checklist item for both the ground crew and the pilot, and yet it wasn't spotted/fixed (did they even conduct the checks?). Multiple heads are definitely going to roll on this one. As it should be. If you're just ticking boxes on a checklist of a weapons system responsible for life and death situations, without actually performing said checks, you shouldn't be entrusted with this job. This is beyond incompetence.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      It depends on how the checklist was structured/phrased though doesn’t it? “Check for rain cover” isn’t as clear as “Remove rain cover from engine and stow in compartment labeled ‘Rain Cover’.”
mrep 5y ago
It didn't cost a trillion dollars to development. The trillion dollar number everyone always loves to throw around is for the total lifetime cost (i.e., to 2070) to $1.5 trillion in then-year dollars which also includes operations and maintenance.
- swarnie 5y ago
  I personally love that number. That number has kept me employed for 7 years so far and will continue paying my rent cheques long after its necessarily. Long live the global murder complex.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  The F-35B costs (currently- it's growing by the day) roughly a third of a billion dollars each in acquisition cost alone. That's over a quarter billion pounds. To put that in perspective: the pre-primary and primary education budget for the entire country, in 2016, was 800 million pounds. Do you think MPs will hand-wring about this plane being flushed down the drain as much as they do about fiscal prudence in early education expenses? I wonder if UK teachers spend their personal funds on school supplies like teachers in the US do.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    I don't think your spending figures are right. An up to date F-35 does not cost anywhere near 330 million.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    > To put that in perspective: the pre-primary and primary education budget for the entire country, in 2016, was 800 million pounds. That doesn't sound right. This page says the UK spent 31 billion on pre-primary and primary education in 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-education/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk... (If that has a paywall, try googling for the info, which is how I was able to view the page.) Please help me understand the discrepancy or edit your comment.
ren_engineer 5y ago
>How does a twenty thousand dollar sedan have a more robust readiness-detection system than a hundred million dollar airplane? because the car industry is driven by market forces, not government corruption driven monopolies. I'm not sure why anybody thinks the US military is anything more than a paper tiger after the last few decades of failure, highlighted by the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. I feel bad for the countries that got pressured into buying the F-35
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >I'm not sure why anybody thinks the US military is anything more than a paper tiger after the last few decades of failure, highlighted by the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. I dunno about that, but the military industrial complex made absolute bank though, for which the taxpayers generously picked up the tab.
- Causality1 5y ago
  I think the absolute incompetence the Navy has exhibited in failures to move their ships around the Pacific without running into things is a better example.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Ship collisions have always been a problem; the USN happens to operate many large ships.
credit_guy 5y ago
> a plane that took [...] a trillion dollars to develop It didn't take a trillion dollar to develop. The trillion dollar figure includes acquisition costs (going to 2070) as well as operations and maintenance over the same period. By the way, the F-35 isn't any more expensive than other aircraft. For example for the latest budget proposal (2022), the DoD plans to acquire 85 F-35s [1] for a total price of $85 BN, or about $150 MM per plane. At the same time, it plans to acquire 14 tanker aircraft KC-46 for a unit price of about $180 MM, and 9 cargo helicopters CH-53K for a unit price of $190 MM. Yes, you read that right, those are helicopters, they are not attack, but cargo helicopters, and cost almost $200 MM apiece. [1] https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/263871...
- djsbs 5y ago
  Now add the expected maintenance costs over the life of the aircraft. - How many hours of flight can the F-35 do before it needs to be hangered? - How long does it take in the hanger? - Can the F-35 even go supersonic without ripping off its anti-radar coat (thus becoming more visible as soon as it decelerates?) - given the cramped space, how capable are aircraft carriers at F-35 repair? How many can they do at a time? What is the duty cycle of the F-35 on a carrier? - Is the plane even finished the design phase? The US should have bought 500 F-22 and given the Navy its own carte blanc design skipping the F-35 altogether.
  - jonnybgood 5y ago
    > The US should have bought 500 F-22 and given the Navy its own carte blanc design skipping the F-35 altogether. Why? The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter. They're built for different purposes. It's crucial to understand the difference.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      That's the issue, trying to make one airframe fill three drastically different roles and hence failing at all of them. Every time the F-35 turns in a miserable performance report its mission profile is changed to make it look like less of an embarrassment.
elliekelly 5y ago
As someone who knows nothing about aviation or engineering I’m a little surprised that a “rain cover” for a fighter jet engine is even a thing. Does that mean these jets can’t fly in the rain?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yostrovs 5y ago
  Any openings on planes are usually closed when parked in order to prevent birds and other critters from getting inside and causing random damage.
  - rwmj 5y ago
    They lost a B-2 bomber because of moisture in a sensor. ($1.4 billion - oops). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B-2_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B...
    - throwanem 5y ago
      And a 757 that was thought to have crashed due to pilot confusion, caused by instrument error, ultimately because the pitot tube covers were left off and the hole is just about the size a mud dauber likes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301
jjk166 5y ago
Nothing says the plane couldn't detect the lack of airflow, but when you take off from a ship and your engines don't work there's not a lot your flight computer can do for you. Specifically, according to the press release, the pilot tried to abort takeoff while still on the deck but ran out of runway, meaning the plane was moving for at most a few seconds before the issue was noticed.
- gregschlom 5y ago
  Well then maybe it's worth investing in a cover detector switch, just like my car can tell me I forgot to close the gas tank cap.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    You car probably doesn't have a switch for this. It detects that there is a leak in the tank when running an emission compression/vacuum test on the tank. And if this is the case, you can pull over safely and put it on. Your car doesn't crash.
    - gregschlom 5y ago
      I said gas tank cap, but I actually meant the cover. Sorry not sure what the right word is. The little door that you open to access the gas tank cap. And yes there is a physical switch that is depressed when that door is properly closed.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, but there wasn't time to do anything with that information besides eject. Of course instead of relying upon the pilot seeing that error message you could instead disable the plane so it can't even start trying to take off. But then you run the risk that your $200 Million dollar plane will be rendered inoperable by the failure of a $20 sensor which is obviously undesirable in a war environment.
jollybean 5y ago
They are not morons. These things happen all the time. The issue is the fact that whereas in 1945 fighters cost about as much as a few 'fancy cars', fighters are now 200 homes. Of course, they should be thought of as 'flying weapons platforms' ... but still. $16M F16 would be one thing, but a $120M piece of kit ... that hurts. I'm wondering how well the 'downgraded' variations of F18++ or 'some new fighter' will fill the gap or if Boeing can make a 'cheap F35'.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  The US did make over 15,000 P-51 mustangs, so there were some economies of scale playing in their favor. Not that an F-35 could ever cost $600,000 like a P-51 but it is worth noting I think.
- nradov 5y ago
  The F-18 is totally incapable of operating from UK Royal Navy carriers. There are no serious plans to build some new manned fixed wing VSTOL fighter. The F-35B will be the only available option for the next 20+ years.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    If they had to build Harriers, they could. I wonder what 1970s Harriers, with upgraded comms, radar and weapons would be like? Maybe 'good enough' in a lot of situations. If they didn't spend 20 years integrating some overly complicated 'Meatverse Helmet' etc. i.e. they took a 'build it now' wartime footing ... I wonder what they could build ...
    - nradov 5y ago
      No they couldn't build new Harriers. The production line was shut down years ago. The supply chain for many critical components no longer even exists. The production workers with essential knowledge have mostly retired. It would take many years to try to recreate, and at this point it would actually be more expensive than just buying more F-35B's.
  - deleted 5y ago
kube-system 5y ago
> It means the flight computer for a plane that took twenty years and a trillion dollars to develop can't detect that there's a fucking cover blocking the engine. Of course the computer "could" do it. And maybe it did. That doesn't mean that precautions were followed, or that some sort of lock out feature for this would even be desirable design feature for a war machine to begin with.
Terry_Roll 5y ago
So why dont they release the flight deck cctv to prove this or is it more likely a crap coverup? So the engine a joint effort between Lockheed (designer) and Rolls Royce (builder), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... makes me wonder if Rolls Royce used their turbine blades on this aircrafts engine? https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-single-crystal-turbine-blade/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-single-crystal-tur... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705814038065 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581... You see the US Lockheed C-130 Hercules has a different flight computer compared to the British version namely because of the use of different engines, the US engines are not as powerful and the USAF fly within the parameters of the flight computer, but the British Lockheed C-130 has a cut down flight computer which allows more risky manoeuvres because the Rolls Royce engines are more powerful, so they can land and take off on shorter jungle runways, stepper climbs things like that, ideal for security services operations. The Apache Helicopter is the same, the US engine is not as powerful as the Rolls Royce engine so you can do more in the UK version of the Apache. So I wonder with this one if it really is a crap coverup or not? There's a lot of technology built into these things and as we become more reliant on technology to help fly these things instead of the more natural mechanical elements of control from years gone by, there's more vulnerability being introduced alongside the de rigueur complexity.
- mlindner 5y ago
  This sounds like British propaganda to me. When you have multiple engine choices for an aircraft from multiple manufacturers they all build the engines to the same specification so the power levels are identical. The UK engines are no more powerful than the US engines in the same vehicles.
  - rpeden 5y ago
    It depends. The UK Apache is license built by AgustaWestland instead of Boeing and does indeed have a more powerful engine. It was the same for the UK's F-4s, which had a Rolls Royce Spey that put out significantly more thrust than the GE J79s in US F-4s.
kitd 5y ago
Note that the article only states that the ground crew found the cover floating in the water. It didn't actually say the aircraft took off with it on. It may be, eg, that it had been taken off properly but got (or was left) loose on the flight deck and blew up into the intake of the jet as it was taking off. Something for the ground crew to fix, for sure, but not necessarily a catastrophic failure of standard checking procedures.
aerosmile 5y ago
Mate Rimac from Rimac Automobili claims [0] that engineering a car is far more complex than engineering an aircraft, because: 1. the expectations the manufacturer places on the operators are wildly different (eg: car drivers won't deal with checklists, type ratings, etc.) 2. the expectations the operators have from the manufacturers are wildly different (eg: car drivers care about their UX and the perceived value, whereas pilots mostly care about their job security) [0] In German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALxDIxRrns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALxDIxRrns
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Planes like this are built on the edge of what is possible. They might be over priced and have huge budgets, but that doesn't mean you can just throw more money at it to add more "stuff" and come up with a better plane at the end. They are an optimization problem. Anything you can get done on the ground is a gold mine if that means you do not have to cart more sensors and wiring and computation and potential information and procedures that the pilot has to deal with in the cockpit.

elif 5y ago

It's possible (I would say likely) that there was a warning light. During normal aviation takeoffs, there are procedures that govern when it is too late to abort, and procedure dictates that it is safer to attempt flight. For a carrier, I imagine that point-of-no-return is about a few feet from stationary.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

The NEXT version of the software will surely add this check!

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Wait for the subscription-ware version where you need to pay 2 Billion per year to the defense contractor for the feature.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  That sounds like what we have now. We just haven’t formalized it. :-(
m0zg 5y ago
That'll be another hundred billion dollars and five years tho. Maybe by then they'll install some functioning cannons on these.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

>Forget about the deck crew and the pilot being blind morons. I thought aviation is THE industry that runs on procedures and checklists you need to tick before and after each flight to make sure the even if you're a complete klutz, nothing like this can ever happen. Did that go out the window? >It means the flight computer for a plane that took twenty years and a trillion dollars to develop can't detect that there's a fucking cover blocking the engine. This is pure gold. Even my robovac can detect when something is chocking the suction intake and shut down and send me a notification on my phone. The fact that a trillion dollar weapon missed this feature is hilarious.

Someone1234 5y ago
The article says that this was a checklist item for both the ground crew and the pilot, and yet it wasn't spotted/fixed (did they even conduct the checks?). Multiple heads are definitely going to roll on this one. But two things can be true: - Procedures/checklists should have stopped this (and should be the primary way). - The flight computer should know that air flowing into the engine is unusual when a cover is blocking it. Also keep in mind that if both are fixed, this would be fixes from two different organizations (the British Navy and Lockheed Martin/F-35B's manufacturing chain). This happened at peace time. I can imagine during a stressful wartime situation human error is more likely to occur, which is even more reason why computer sanity checks can be advantageous.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >The article says that this was a checklist item for both the ground crew and the pilot, and yet it wasn't spotted/fixed (did they even conduct the checks?). Multiple heads are definitely going to roll on this one. As it should be. If you're just ticking boxes on a checklist of a weapons system responsible for life and death situations, without actually performing said checks, you shouldn't be entrusted with this job. This is beyond incompetence.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    It depends on how the checklist was structured/phrased though doesn’t it? “Check for rain cover” isn’t as clear as “Remove rain cover from engine and stow in compartment labeled ‘Rain Cover’.”

mrep 5y ago

It didn't cost a trillion dollars to development. The trillion dollar number everyone always loves to throw around is for the total lifetime cost (i.e., to 2070) to $1.5 trillion in then-year dollars which also includes operations and maintenance.

swarnie 5y ago
I personally love that number. That number has kept me employed for 7 years so far and will continue paying my rent cheques long after its necessarily. Long live the global murder complex.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
The F-35B costs (currently- it's growing by the day) roughly a third of a billion dollars each in acquisition cost alone. That's over a quarter billion pounds. To put that in perspective: the pre-primary and primary education budget for the entire country, in 2016, was 800 million pounds. Do you think MPs will hand-wring about this plane being flushed down the drain as much as they do about fiscal prudence in early education expenses? I wonder if UK teachers spend their personal funds on school supplies like teachers in the US do.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  I don't think your spending figures are right. An up to date F-35 does not cost anywhere near 330 million.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  > To put that in perspective: the pre-primary and primary education budget for the entire country, in 2016, was 800 million pounds. That doesn't sound right. This page says the UK spent 31 billion on pre-primary and primary education in 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-education/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk... (If that has a paywall, try googling for the info, which is how I was able to view the page.) Please help me understand the discrepancy or edit your comment.

ren_engineer 5y ago

>How does a twenty thousand dollar sedan have a more robust readiness-detection system than a hundred million dollar airplane? because the car industry is driven by market forces, not government corruption driven monopolies. I'm not sure why anybody thinks the US military is anything more than a paper tiger after the last few decades of failure, highlighted by the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. I feel bad for the countries that got pressured into buying the F-35

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>I'm not sure why anybody thinks the US military is anything more than a paper tiger after the last few decades of failure, highlighted by the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. I dunno about that, but the military industrial complex made absolute bank though, for which the taxpayers generously picked up the tab.
Causality1 5y ago
I think the absolute incompetence the Navy has exhibited in failures to move their ships around the Pacific without running into things is a better example.
- nickff 5y ago
  Ship collisions have always been a problem; the USN happens to operate many large ships.

credit_guy 5y ago

> a plane that took [...] a trillion dollars to develop It didn't take a trillion dollar to develop. The trillion dollar figure includes acquisition costs (going to 2070) as well as operations and maintenance over the same period. By the way, the F-35 isn't any more expensive than other aircraft. For example for the latest budget proposal (2022), the DoD plans to acquire 85 F-35s [1] for a total price of $85 BN, or about $150 MM per plane. At the same time, it plans to acquire 14 tanker aircraft KC-46 for a unit price of about $180 MM, and 9 cargo helicopters CH-53K for a unit price of $190 MM. Yes, you read that right, those are helicopters, they are not attack, but cargo helicopters, and cost almost $200 MM apiece. [1] https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/263871...

djsbs 5y ago
Now add the expected maintenance costs over the life of the aircraft. - How many hours of flight can the F-35 do before it needs to be hangered? - How long does it take in the hanger? - Can the F-35 even go supersonic without ripping off its anti-radar coat (thus becoming more visible as soon as it decelerates?) - given the cramped space, how capable are aircraft carriers at F-35 repair? How many can they do at a time? What is the duty cycle of the F-35 on a carrier? - Is the plane even finished the design phase? The US should have bought 500 F-22 and given the Navy its own carte blanc design skipping the F-35 altogether.
- jonnybgood 5y ago
  > The US should have bought 500 F-22 and given the Navy its own carte blanc design skipping the F-35 altogether. Why? The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter. They're built for different purposes. It's crucial to understand the difference.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    That's the issue, trying to make one airframe fill three drastically different roles and hence failing at all of them. Every time the F-35 turns in a miserable performance report its mission profile is changed to make it look like less of an embarrassment.

elliekelly 5y ago

As someone who knows nothing about aviation or engineering I’m a little surprised that a “rain cover” for a fighter jet engine is even a thing. Does that mean these jets can’t fly in the rain?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yostrovs 5y ago
Any openings on planes are usually closed when parked in order to prevent birds and other critters from getting inside and causing random damage.
- rwmj 5y ago
  They lost a B-2 bomber because of moisture in a sensor. ($1.4 billion - oops). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B-2_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B...
  - throwanem 5y ago
    And a 757 that was thought to have crashed due to pilot confusion, caused by instrument error, ultimately because the pitot tube covers were left off and the hole is just about the size a mud dauber likes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301

jjk166 5y ago

Nothing says the plane couldn't detect the lack of airflow, but when you take off from a ship and your engines don't work there's not a lot your flight computer can do for you. Specifically, according to the press release, the pilot tried to abort takeoff while still on the deck but ran out of runway, meaning the plane was moving for at most a few seconds before the issue was noticed.

gregschlom 5y ago
Well then maybe it's worth investing in a cover detector switch, just like my car can tell me I forgot to close the gas tank cap.
- kube-system 5y ago
  You car probably doesn't have a switch for this. It detects that there is a leak in the tank when running an emission compression/vacuum test on the tank. And if this is the case, you can pull over safely and put it on. Your car doesn't crash.
  - gregschlom 5y ago
    I said gas tank cap, but I actually meant the cover. Sorry not sure what the right word is. The little door that you open to access the gas tank cap. And yes there is a physical switch that is depressed when that door is properly closed.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, but there wasn't time to do anything with that information besides eject. Of course instead of relying upon the pilot seeing that error message you could instead disable the plane so it can't even start trying to take off. But then you run the risk that your $200 Million dollar plane will be rendered inoperable by the failure of a $20 sensor which is obviously undesirable in a war environment.

jollybean 5y ago

They are not morons. These things happen all the time. The issue is the fact that whereas in 1945 fighters cost about as much as a few 'fancy cars', fighters are now 200 homes. Of course, they should be thought of as 'flying weapons platforms' ... but still. $16M F16 would be one thing, but a $120M piece of kit ... that hurts. I'm wondering how well the 'downgraded' variations of F18++ or 'some new fighter' will fill the gap or if Boeing can make a 'cheap F35'.

missedthecue 5y ago
The US did make over 15,000 P-51 mustangs, so there were some economies of scale playing in their favor. Not that an F-35 could ever cost $600,000 like a P-51 but it is worth noting I think.
nradov 5y ago
The F-18 is totally incapable of operating from UK Royal Navy carriers. There are no serious plans to build some new manned fixed wing VSTOL fighter. The F-35B will be the only available option for the next 20+ years.
- jollybean 5y ago
  If they had to build Harriers, they could. I wonder what 1970s Harriers, with upgraded comms, radar and weapons would be like? Maybe 'good enough' in a lot of situations. If they didn't spend 20 years integrating some overly complicated 'Meatverse Helmet' etc. i.e. they took a 'build it now' wartime footing ... I wonder what they could build ...
  - nradov 5y ago
    No they couldn't build new Harriers. The production line was shut down years ago. The supply chain for many critical components no longer even exists. The production workers with essential knowledge have mostly retired. It would take many years to try to recreate, and at this point it would actually be more expensive than just buying more F-35B's.
- deleted 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago

> It means the flight computer for a plane that took twenty years and a trillion dollars to develop can't detect that there's a fucking cover blocking the engine. Of course the computer "could" do it. And maybe it did. That doesn't mean that precautions were followed, or that some sort of lock out feature for this would even be desirable design feature for a war machine to begin with.

Terry_Roll 5y ago

So why dont they release the flight deck cctv to prove this or is it more likely a crap coverup? So the engine a joint effort between Lockheed (designer) and Rolls Royce (builder), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... makes me wonder if Rolls Royce used their turbine blades on this aircrafts engine? https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-single-crystal-turbine-blade/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-single-crystal-tur... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705814038065 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581... You see the US Lockheed C-130 Hercules has a different flight computer compared to the British version namely because of the use of different engines, the US engines are not as powerful and the USAF fly within the parameters of the flight computer, but the British Lockheed C-130 has a cut down flight computer which allows more risky manoeuvres because the Rolls Royce engines are more powerful, so they can land and take off on shorter jungle runways, stepper climbs things like that, ideal for security services operations. The Apache Helicopter is the same, the US engine is not as powerful as the Rolls Royce engine so you can do more in the UK version of the Apache. So I wonder with this one if it really is a crap coverup or not? There's a lot of technology built into these things and as we become more reliant on technology to help fly these things instead of the more natural mechanical elements of control from years gone by, there's more vulnerability being introduced alongside the de rigueur complexity.

mlindner 5y ago
This sounds like British propaganda to me. When you have multiple engine choices for an aircraft from multiple manufacturers they all build the engines to the same specification so the power levels are identical. The UK engines are no more powerful than the US engines in the same vehicles.
- rpeden 5y ago
  It depends. The UK Apache is license built by AgustaWestland instead of Boeing and does indeed have a more powerful engine. It was the same for the UK's F-4s, which had a Rolls Royce Spey that put out significantly more thrust than the GE J79s in US F-4s.

kitd 5y ago

Note that the article only states that the ground crew found the cover floating in the water. It didn't actually say the aircraft took off with it on. It may be, eg, that it had been taken off properly but got (or was left) loose on the flight deck and blew up into the intake of the jet as it was taking off. Something for the ground crew to fix, for sure, but not necessarily a catastrophic failure of standard checking procedures.

aerosmile 5y ago

Mate Rimac from Rimac Automobili claims [0] that engineering a car is far more complex than engineering an aircraft, because: 1. the expectations the manufacturer places on the operators are wildly different (eg: car drivers won't deal with checklists, type ratings, etc.) 2. the expectations the operators have from the manufacturers are wildly different (eg: car drivers care about their UX and the perceived value, whereas pilots mostly care about their job security) [0] In German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALxDIxRrns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALxDIxRrns

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Planes like this are built on the edge of what is possible. They might be over priced and have huge budgets, but that doesn't mean you can just throw more money at it to add more "stuff" and come up with a better plane at the end. They are an optimization problem. Anything you can get done on the ground is a gold mine if that means you do not have to cart more sensors and wiring and computation and potential information and procedures that the pilot has to deal with in the cockpit.