Air Force Uses Falcons To Protect Falcons

coondoggie writes "Birds and high-performance jet aircraft don't mix. So at a base in Germany, the Air Force is fighting birds with birds — specifically trained falcons that patrol the base and help eliminate at least some of the feathered threat to the F-16 Fighting Falcons and other aircraft."

Comments

Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Stop That Stupid Habbit Of Writing Everything In Capitals...

"Air Force uses falcons to protect Falcons" is a lot clearer!

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Stop That Stupid Habbit Of Writing Everything In Capitals...

Maybe You Mean Hobbits? :-P

Besides. It's a title, so convention is to capitalize all except the articles (like 'the'). Have you noticed that all Slashdot headings look like that?

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?

Re:Falcons & falcons

[PitaBred]

So why was "to" capitalized in the title?

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

OCD, I can tell ya'!

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in point of fact, they are wrong. It's used because of newspaper precedents.

Cue "language is what we make of it" posts.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

"Air Force uses falcons to protect Falcons" is a lot clearer!

Agree. Sadly, we need to convince millions of idiots to change their idea of what "professional" is in regards to this convention. With so many more ways to mark up a title with html/css, it really doesn't need All Capitals to stand out.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[sco08y]

You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?

Sure, why not?

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."

--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933

"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."

--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."

--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Hylandr]

Just goes to prove how pro-communism the press was even then.

- Dan.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Hylandr]

Check your history,

Before I get modded troll or flamebait please.

- Dan.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's a preposition and not an article?

Re:Falcons & falcons

[SammyIAm]

I think generally for titles: "important" words are capitalized by convention, and non-important words are optionally capitalized. For Slashdot, it looks like the 'a' does not get capitalized, but 'To' does. Which is a little weird looking in stories like: Fun To Be Had With a 10 Foot Satellite Dish

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. It's not like New York Times were capitalizing each words there...

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

1. This semi-standard convention (called title case) is American. You don't see it elsewhere in the English world generally. 2. Conjunctions ("and"), prepositions ("to"), and articles ("a") are not capitalized under title case rules. 3. It was contrived for black&white paper newspapers of old. It's redundant nowadays, where emphasis is better marked by color, formatting, graphics, and font choice. It's 100% useless (and extra confusing) on Slashdot, whereby headlines are clearly marked by a flat green background.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[commodoresloat]

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

They actually got that one right; though they probably shouldve mentioned the salmonella risks...

Re:Falcons & falcons

[jgtg32a]

--Duranty was involved in sado-masochistic activities, and files show that the threat of an unspecified sex scandal was being used by Soviet authorities to blackmail him. This may explain the strong support he gave for the Soviet Union in his journalism.

From the wiki page, not that I'm disagreeing with you, but there may be a few extra factors in this particular case.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[dgatwood]

Conjunctions and prepositions are capitalized if they are 5 letters or more, usually, IIRC. For example, "under" (preposition) and "after" (conjunction) are usually capitalized in a title.

BTW, newspapers have printed things like headlines in larger print or with other obvious typesetting differences for hundreds of years. If we didn't get rid of title case in all that time, we probably won't do it now just because of the web.

Besides, the purpose of title case has nothing to do with setting it off from the rest of the document and everything to do with making it easier to skim. If the less important words are in lowercase letters, you can visually see what you can skip without losing much meaning. Thus, it's just as useful (if done correctly) today on Slashdot as it was in the 1800s.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like title case because it adds extra complexity for the author and the reader. The author must be more selective of his title, lest confusion present itself in cases like the /. summary. A writer for a professional publisher would prefer a title such as 'USAF Establishes Falconry to Protect Falcon Wildlife.' It avoids connotation with the USAF 'Falcon' jet aircraft. But a normal sentence is not affected because of the allowable nuance. It's acceptable to write 'USAF establishes falconry to protect falcons.'

I don't agree wrt skimming. That was not the basic intent behind it to my limited understanding.

Try comparing websites to see which you prefer. Scientific American v. New Scientist is the first example that I could think of. I can barely read SA, and I AM an American.

Re:Falcons & falcons

[Anonymous Coward]

except that the USAF uses falcons to protect F-16s, not wildlife.

Misleading title

[UninformedCoward]

Yea...not about the Air Force using F-16s to attack poachers...

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea...not about the Air Force using F-16s to attack poachers...

And also, falcons never had a war -- who's the real animal?

Re:Misleading title

[jellomizer]

What you never watch Flocks News?

Or just watch birds where when they invade an other birds area and they are attacked by a swarm of smaller birds.

Re:Misleading title

[Spy Handler]

besides, nobody even calls F-16s "Falcons" except the media. To the people that matter (the drivers), the planes have always been "Viper".

Re:Misleading title

[Briden]

i think they are called "pilots" actually.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving a plane is so much more unimpressive than flying a plane.

Re:Misleading title

[idontgno]

The drivers call the airplanes "pilots?"

Now I'm really confused.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

then why do every single operational F-16 in the USAF have a falcon painted on the backbone of the aircraft? no vipers painted on any of them.

Re:Misleading title

[Nadaka]

Driving a plane is so much more unimpressive than flying a plane.

And flying a plane isn't nearly as impressive as flying a tank.

Re:Misleading title

[Wyatt Earp]

USAF's name is the Fighting Falcon, but everyone that works with them calls them Vipers, yea from Battlestar Galactica in the late '70s.

http://viperpatches.jetmax.us/Swirl_USAF_01.htm
http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=27

Even the yearly exercise where USAF F-16s go to Romania and train with the newly rebuilt MiG-21s is called Viper Lance.
F-16=Viper
MiG-21 LanceR=Lance

Re:Misleading title

[DNS-and-BIND]

That is not what the pilots call themselves.

Re:Misleading title

[Kitten Killer]

i think they are called "pilots" actually.

Actually, as a tongue in cheek thing, most pilots refer to other pilots as "drivers", as in "What equipment do you drive?"

(Equipment is an informal industry term for the type of aircraft. (Type is a formal industry term for the make and model of aircraft (Type is based on certificate, not marketing make & model. (I always get lost with nested brackets.))))

Re:Misleading title

[jgtg32a]

Unless they are Navy in which case they are Aviators

Re:Misleading title

[RobertLTux]

Know any A-10 pilots???

Re:Misleading title

[Kvasio]

coming soon on slashdot:

Air Force Uses Freakin' Sharks with Laser beam Attached To Their Heads To Protect F-20 Tiger Sharks

And have been for decades

[WatcherXP]

Wow, decades old news on the front page of slashdot

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is standard procedure in a lot of civil airports. I saw it in Jose Newbery city airport in Buenos Aires.

Re:And have been for decades

[causality]

Wow, decades old news on the front page of slashdot

I ask this as someone who knows next to nothing about jet engines and nothing at all about the precise kind of airflow they require for their intake. Having said that ... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it? Once such a design is perfected it could become standard equipment and the cost would probably be negligible compared to what is already paid to design and manufacture a jet engine. We routinely try things much more ridiculous than this in the name of saving lives.

Is there some kind of insurmountable aerodynamic technical difficulty that prevents us from doing this?

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

was thinking the same thing... they have been doing this since I grew up in germany before I moved to the states... and I have been in the states for more than 20 years now... They were doing this back in the 70's and 80's

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is split between an aerodynamic issue and a much simpler physics issue.

The physics issue is that at landing the F-16 is going somewhere between 120-170 knots (aprox. 120-200 MPH), and it would take an awfull thick grate to keep birds out of the intakes at those speeds. The delta-v (difference in speed... ugg, my physics teacher would kill me for that) is so large that even a lightweight bird is going to go through anything you could describe as a screen.

The aerodynamic issue is that if you put that much blockage right in front of the engine intake you are going to create a lot of drag (going into your engine), and are going to play hell with the aeordynamic flow right at the intake meaning more air is going to bypass the intake (a really bad thing for jet engines).

Re:And have been for decades

[idontgno]

how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine

Here is pretty much the canonical list of outcomes:

• Bird hits screen, both bird and screen go into the engine. Similar to status quo, except now there are solid metal or composite bits among the turbine blades.
• Bird hits screen, splats. Engine stalls because of sudden disruption in intake airflow. For an F-16, this is a problem, 'cuz it's single-engine. (In the course of my military career, I've heard the Viper jokingly referred to as the Lawn Dart for that very reason.)
• Bird never hits screen, but engine performance is continuously degraded because of the screen's affect on airflow and intake pressure. Requires serious redesign in order to compensate for a deliberate design decision based on flight-of-safety considerations. Never mind that having less available power and (perhaps) elevated stall susceptibility is a combat-safety issue (i.e., your hazard level in combat is directly related to the performance superiority of your aircraft over your adversary).
• Bird never hits screen, miraculous design work restores full combat specification performance to your warplane, bird hits canopy and knocks out the pilot; unguided plane flies into terrain.

Not everything on that applies to all aircraft, but in general I don't think there's a screen material in the world that would stop birds from engine ingestion (including chunks of bird sucked through a screen) while allowing adequate airflow in a high-performance, high-bypass jet engine. And then that still leaves fuselage, canopy, wing, and empennage birdstrikes.

Re:And have been for decades

[gnieboer]

At the speeds of a jet fighter (and even at the speeds of a slow prop transport), an average goose will penetrate the leading edge of the wing, destroy the bleed air duct (also metal) underneath, tear up the wiring, and sometimes damage the next layer of structure.

Look at the first stage fan blades in an engine next time you're boarding an aircraft (they are ones in front you can see). Those are the biggest, toughest, blades in the engine. They basically are strong enough to pull the entire aircraft forward. When a big fat bird hits one, they bend and break.

Now, the newest/biggest commercial engines have a remarkable ability to absorb birds without a problem, but the more 'finicky' engines on fighter jets are much more susceptable, and of course if you've only got one engine... that's a big deal.

So my point in describing the impact power that a bird has is to illustrate that for a 'screen' to be strong enough to stop a bird would also completely block any airflow, and those engines are HUGE vacuum cleaners, and if that airflow slows too much, something called a 'compressor stall' happens, and that's generally bad and scares the crap out of the passengers (flames shoot out of the back end of the engine, etc)

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

At high air speeds the grill you're proposing would become the equivalent of a solid panel and the engine would stall. An experiment would be to see how fast water flows through a screen at different speeds versus the control of how fast water flows through a large gaping hole.

Re:And have been for decades

[GooberToo]

Having said that ... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it?

Jet engines consume vast quantities of air. They are giant vacuum cleaners. Placing an obstruction directly in front of and engine which consumes vast quantities of air is counter productive as it drastically reduces available power.

Take off and landing is the most dangerous phase of a flight. This is typically when engines are required to produce maximum power. So limiting air only during these phases of flight, when they are most likely to strike a bird, in of itself brings with it additional dangers.

If you don't believe such an obstruction risks major starvation of the engine, remove the air filters from your A/C in your house and note how much more air moves through your entire house. And keep in mind, the amount of air moved through your house in a minute, is likely consumed in a second, in even smaller jet engines during take off.

Re:And have been for decades

[rhekman]

Yes, while probably not insurmountable, it would be horribly impractical to design a modern turbojet or turbofan engine that would "screen" birds and other foreign object debris (FOD).

You have to remember the intake flow to one of these engines is traveling at or near supersonic speeds. Any grate or screening device capable of blocking or diverting damaging material would have a severe negative impact on the performance and fuel efficiency of the engine.

That being said, considerable research and development has been done to make the internals of modern engines more hardened to bird strikes. Just search youtube for "jet engine bird strike test" some time to see some of the results. The latest engines can survive some considerable ingestions with only a reduction in performance -- safe enough for an emergency landing.

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a screen that's only used at low speeds/aiports? It could then retract when birds aren't a safety concern.

Re:And have been for decades

[osjedi]

Yep...
I have a personal acquaintance who's a falconer. He's had a bird abatement contract with the USAF since I first met him 16 years ago.

Re:And have been for decades

[GooberToo]

How about a screen that's only used at low speeds/aiports? It could then retract when birds aren't a safety concern.

And here is your answer.

Re:And have been for decades

[Wyatt Earp]

Theres a neat documentary that's been on InHD/Mojo and HDNet about South Africa's use of animals at military bases to keep critters from causing problems. I think its about AFB Hoedspruit

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I heard, the problem is that such screen would reduce the actual air inflow, or make it too unstable for the engine to use. IANAAE I am not an aircraft engineer.

Re:And have been for decades

[couchslug]

(I'm a former F-16 A/B/C/D engine weenie/crew chief.)

Maintenance issue:

Screen must be opened and closed to inspect intake and fan stage during preflight. thruflight, and postflight inspections.
Hardware and latches would be subject to wear, screen subject to fatigue cracking, and either could dump parts downstream into the engine resulting in engine damage and loss of aircraft. That's why screens used for ground runs are inspected before and after use, and their installation and removal entered in the aircraft maintenance documentation.

Weight issue:
Every pound matters in terms of performance and fuel mileage. When you hang parts on a fighter airframe, they affect Weight and Balance calculations, place stress on their attach points, and can create host of problems anticipated or otherwise.

While the concept isn't suitable to jets, helicopters are suitable for mechanical intake Foreign Object Damage mitigation systems such as EAPS:

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/eaps1.html

Re:And have been for decades

[couchslug]

"You have to remember the intake flow to one of these engines is traveling at or near supersonic speeds."

The shape of the F-16 intake decelerates supersonic intake air to subsonic so it won't destroy the engine.

Fighter intakes

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk133_F4F_phantom/images/Mvc-0049.jpg

and those on the now-defunct Concorde

http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

often used variable ramps to handle the problem. The F-16 does it without moving parts, quite an accomplishment at the time.

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, it's retro!

The F-16 was introduced when I graduated from high school, the same year as the Commodore PET. And yeah, birds of prey were being used to reduce airport bird-strikes back then.

This'll get 0 mod points, but at least I brought a tech angle into the story.

Re:And have been for decades

[YrWrstNtmr]

Either the screen isn't strong enough and breaks off, going into the engine, or the bird isn't strong enough, and you get 6 pounds of diced bird going into the engine. Neither is an improvement.

Re:And have been for decades

[gnieboer]

Because takeoff requires the most amount of power, it's not feasible there, and during taxi it's not really an issue.

However, you aren't -completely- off base, because some helicopters do have "screens" designed to prevent dust/rocks/etc from damaging the engine during takeoff/landing. That's kind of like what I'm sure you are picturing.

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/eaps1.html

But helicopter engines aren't really Turbofan engines, they are gas turbine engines that power a transmission, and so can afford the tradeoffs that come with an EAPS system.... and for a variety of reasons, helicopters don't have the same birdstrike issues airplanes have.

Re:And have been for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take a bird strike, you're going to RTB, not continue a combat mission.

Is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

So....... what's new?

What's next?

[Drakkenmensch]

Eagles to protect eagles? Awesome! Raptors to protect raptors? KICKASS! Warhogs to protect wart... wait.

Re:What's next?

[JeanBaptiste]

wait till you find out how they protect Nimrods.

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

Warhogs to protect wart... wait.

Ah, but the A-10 doesn't need any protection -- it's like Chuck Norris.

Re:What's next?

[timeOday]

Too true! 1 2

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

Too true! 1 [birdstrikenews.com] 2 [youtube.com]

A-10's have been documented to come home and land while they have gaping holes in most of the control surfaces, leaking hydraulic fluid,running on one engine, and god knows what else.

It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of, and specifically built to protect the hell out of the pilot in that nearly indestructible tub.

And, it's got the scariest tank-busting gun on the planet.

All in all, for me, the coolest aircraft ever.

Re:What's next?

[BitZtream]

Too bad you don't realize that both Falcons and Eagles are raptors, as are every other bird of pray ... considering raptor means 'bird of pray'.

Stop watching Jurassic Park and thinking it uses proper terminology.

Re:What's next?

[Coren22]

I have heard, but never actually witnessed, doesn't that tank buster gun actually cause a very noticeable drop in airspeed too?

Re:What's next?

[TooMuchToDo]

Warthogs? You mean a puma, right? No such thing as warthogs.

Re:What's next?

[Darth_brooks]

Nothing new. At one point the USAAF tried to use Flying Fortresses to protect Flying Fortresses.

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

I have heard, but never actually witnessed, doesn't that tank buster gun actually cause a very noticeable drop in airspeed too?

That's my understanding.

According to Wiki:

The recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN), which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each). While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour.

When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines ... that's an impressive gun.

Re:What's next?

[mangu]

When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines ... that's an impressive gun.

So, why don't they mount the gun backwards? The pilot could aim through a rear facing camera.

Re:What's next?

[Monkeedude1212]

Or he needs to watch Jurassic Park more intently, because Dr Grant says it within the first 20 minutes of the film, when he's describing how the velociraptor skeleton has more similarities with birds than reptiles. He says, "The word Raptor even means, bird of pray".

Just sayin'

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

So, why don't they mount the gun backwards? The pilot could aim through a rear facing camera.

Ummm ... because the A-10 doesn't run away from trouble, it heads straight towards it and kills it. That's its job -- when it's shooting at you, it's coming straight for you.

It's built to do close air support, and crush anybody who is shooting at your people on the ground.

I suspect a rear-facing gun would significantly reduce it's 80% accuracy rate. This thing is literally built to be a tank buster.

Re:What's next?

[wowbagger]

"Too bad you don't realize that both Falcons and Eagles are raptors, as are every other bird of pray ... considering raptor means 'bird of pray'.

Our Father, who art in Heaven, bless this crow to its intended purpose, amen.

PREY, not PRAY.

Re:What's next?

[drinkypoo]

They halved the rate of fire of the General Electric GAU-8 (around which the A-10 is designed) in order to mitigate this problem. It turns out that you don't really need over 3,000 rounds per minute to saw tanks in half with a mix of lead and DPU.

Re:What's next?

[Americano]

Warhogs to protect wart... wait.

That'll happen when pigs fly!

(ba-zing!)

Re:What's next?

[CeruleanDragon]

More pew-pew == more zoom-zoom!

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

The aircraft only carries enough bullets to fire that gun for like 15 seconds straight. It's primary armament is bombs.

The engine, on the other hand, can fire for hours.

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warthog

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

One, the positioning alone would likely seriously destabilize the aircraft. Two, the airframe would need to be built in the rear to withstand the firing recoil. Three, if you've never seen an A-10 in action, they tend to make low and fast passes when attacking non-designated enemy personnel forces.

Re:What's next?

[Nadaka]

It doesn't need to fire the gun for 15 seconds strait. A single burst is generally enough to wipe anything short of a main battle tank, and even that will most likely be heavily damaged or disabled.

Re:What's next?

[GooberToo]

It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of

Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible. Pilots landing bailing wire and bubble gum on their last breath so they could save their crew don't seem very strained once you start digging. ...and far too many belly gunners crushed...

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure. Suck all the fun out of it.

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible.

Oh, I wouldn't want to detract from what those people did. I attribute that largely to sheer tenacity and balls (and in some cases, a little bit of luck probably helped). I credit the people more so than the equipment.

However, the A-10 was built from the ground up to be an aircraft with maximum survivability. The 1200lb tub that encompasses the cockpit and three levels of redundancy in the flight controls.

Truthfully, I stand in awe of anybody who flies an aircraft into combat. It takes a big pair to do that.

Re:What's next?

[GooberToo]

I credit the people more so than the equipment.

Not to diminish their contribution, but you are mis-attributing a lot. The A-10 is widely considered to be far less survivable than many WWI aircraft. In fact, most all of the survivability features you attribute to the A-10 came directly from common WWII ally aircraft attributes. One of the reasons why WWII aircraft are more survivable is they didn't use extremely fragile turbines.

Historically, WWII is the apex of aircraft survivability because of our transition to jets and then again with fly by wire and hydraulics. When a new ground attack vehicle was required (aka, the A-10), they looked back in time to re-learn what made an aircraft highly survivable. And when they looked back, they almost exclusively looked at WWII aircraft. Almost all of the survivability features in the A-10 are simply re-imaginings and modernizations of WWII ideas and technology.

I can authoritatively tell you, there has yet to be an A-10 come home in anywhere near as bad of shape as many ally bombers did. Events like this, while not daily fair, were not all that uncommon.

Re:What's next?

[gstoddart]

Not to diminish their contribution, but you are mis-attributing a lot. The A-10 is widely considered to be far less survivable than many WWI aircraft.

Then I will defer to your knowledge on this point.

I've merely assumed the A-10 was using a lot more modern/better techniques. If the WWII planes were that rugged, I'm truly impressed.

Re:What's next?

[regularstranger]

Because short bursts of gunfire are effective - the performance of the plane is not affected much. It's easier to aim - no added complexity of a pilot trying to aim a gun behind his back. Rounds have much more kinetic energy when a plane is flying towards a target than away from it - and the effectiveness of the gun is related to kinetic energy (If the plane is going 400mph, the difference is 800mph). Are these reasons sufficient?

Re:What's next?

[timeOday]

Keep in mind, though, a fantastic number of aircraft did not make it home from WWI/WWII. In an situation involving millions of people, unlikely events (like landing a trashed plane) happen all the time. WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time, but they had nothing like the titanium bathtub. They didn't even have parachutes! Quote: "World War I fighter pilots had a typical life expectancy of several weeks while flying in combat. Several weeks. Not much at all. In terms of flying hours, a combat pilot could count on 40 to 60 hours before being killed." Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?

Re:What's next?

[GooberToo]

Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?

Of course it does. The reason pilots survived as long as they did is because of those survivability features built into ally aircraft. Those pilots will tell you as much. Its a well documented fact of history. Many axis aircraft has no such features and as such, had almost no aces by the end of the war.

Its not that our aces were invincible or unhitable...its that their aircraft allowed them to remain flying DESPITE taking devastating hits. Hits that would have simply put an end to the fight right then and there if it were not for their survivability features. The reason many a pilot survived head-on encounters with Japanese pilots is because the ally planes frequently had armor around its cowl, engine, and firewall/cockpit, while the Japanese did not. We had resealable gas tanks. The Japanese did not. The armor was so effective, ally pilots actually used this as a fairly common tactic because maneuverability and size suffered from all of the extra steel plate, large gas tanks, and huge engines.

Get back to me when an AA shell explodes in the cockpit and the plane is still flown home and landed...or when almost all of the wings are gone and stabilizers are gone...and its landed... Frequently flying was done with differential engine thrust. Add thrust to gain/hold altitude. Pull throttle to sink. Add throttle to right remaining right engine to turn right. So on and so on...

I'm not arguing that its impossible for an A-10 to make such a feat. Only that the A-10 survivability in real life situations pale in comparison to what was well documented to have uncommonly happen during WWII.

And you're right, they didn't have tubs - they had steel armor plate around the pilot and their engines. Again, as I originally stated.

You also need to place those comments into perspective. The combat conditions in which WWII pilots were expected to fly, and in fact did so on a regular basis, would not even be allowed today for A-10 pilots. Not even close. Hell, before A-10s are allowed into an area, air superiority is required, Apaches have likely come and gone, not to mention many stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. Back then, they were both the first in and last out against AAA densities which doesn't have a parallel today.

Re:What's next?

[GooberToo]

WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time

Meant to say this in the other message. You're being most disingenuous. Those "puny ground threats", are demonstratively far more lethal against the A-10 then they were against most WWII combat aircraft. This is one of the primary reasons why A-10s are not allowed into areas with heavy AAA coverage.

Re:What's next?

[StayFrosty]

Pumas and Panthers are the same thing. A Warthog is something entirely different.

Re:What's next?

[TooMuchToDo]

*WOOOOSH*

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Red_vs_Blue

Sarge: May I introduce, our new Light-Reconnaissance vehicle. (Rotating around the new jeep) It has 4-inch Armor Plating; M.A.G Bumper Suspension; a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen! This is the M12 LRV! I like to call it the 'Warthog'.
Simmons: Why 'Warthog,' Sir?
Sarge: Because 'M12 LRV' is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but, why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a Puma.
Sarge: What in Sam Hell is a 'Puma'?
Simmons: Uhh, you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No. Like a Puma. It's a big cat, it's like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal.
Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
Simmons: Yes sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks, and what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif: A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?!

Re:What's next?

[BluBrick]

Great Glayven in a Glad Bag! Now I'm in the Navy!

Re:What's next?

[mobby_6kl]

Worry not, I'm pretty sure this is not actually the case. IIRC, the earlier A-10s actually has a variable rate of fire, where you could choose between 2100 RPM and double of that with a flick of a switch. Though apparently they fixed it at 3900 RPM in one of the later variants. I recall that I managed to stall out my A-10 by holding down fire for long enough, though you don't really get to do anything ridiculous like fly in reverse since you have like 15 seconds worth of ammo.

Re:What's next?

[Skilletron]

Funny you should mention the A-10 in an article about military falconry. I was stationed with the USAF at RAF Bentwaters, UK in the early 90s, where we had several squadrons of A-10s...snd falcons to deal with all the seagulls.

Old Trick

[rotide]

Nothing new. Even at JFK they tested this nearly a decade ago: http://www.cartome.org/jfk-strike.htm JFK and other airports may still be using trained Birds of Prey to scare off feed species.

old practice

[YrWrstNtmr]

This practice is at least 30 yrs old. USAF bases in England were doing this in the mid 70's. If I could be bothered to look, there are probably references much earlier than that.

Re:old practice

[pushing-robot]

According to a NASA review of the subject, falconry for bird control at airports dates back to the 1940s.

I must say this article amused me; I mean, /. regularly gives us "news" from two or three years ago... but seventy?

Re:old practice

[timeOday]

So, what are the limitations of this approach? Why are bird strikes still a problem?

Re:old practice

[Anonymous Coward]

The local "waste transfer station" (read: DUMP) uses falcons to keep the seagulls clear of the pile. Same deal.

Re:old practice

[sarysa]

To be fair, the mainstream media often picks up /. stories months later. It's amusing to see CNN headline an old /. story on a slow news day.

Re:old practice

[obscured_dude]

The Leyland Brothers did a documentary on this very subject in the mid 70's or early 80's... Falcons and Hawks are taken from the nest at birth to be trained for bird control at aiports...... and this is AUSTRALIA we are talking about here... australia in the mid 70's = the USA in the late 80's :)

Re:old practice

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics - even if the predators scare away 95% of the birds, there are bound to still be a few bird strikes. Also larger birds that aren't threatened by the falcon, etc. would still be a threat.

Re:old practice

[Anonymous Coward]

The scores (scores I tell you! SCORES! (a score = 20)) of youngsters congregating ON MY LAWN need something to talk about.

Re:old practice

[Anonymous Coward]

Because birds fly at locations other than airports?

Nothing new...

[i.r.id10t]

Nothing new, airports have been doing this and similar for a long time.

Re:Nothing new...

[commodoresloat]

you know what else isn't new? The posts telling us this isn't new! =P

obligatory...

[t35t0r]

Yo dawg, I heard you like falcons, so I got you this falcon so you can use your falcons while you use your falcons!

Re:obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

But do your falcons (birds) protect falcons (airplanes) from other falcons (birds) and/or other falcons (planes)? And do your falcons (planes) protect your falcons (birds) from other falcons (birds) and/or falcons (planes)?

Re:obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Falcon-A!

Montreal Airport also does that

[crazyfrenchmen]

The montreal airport also does that, nothing new here.
see :http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0325_030325_falconry.html

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s.

Re:Old News

[gstoddart]

They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s.

WTF?? Do you mean the 70s? What have you been smoking?

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s.

WTF?? Do you mean the 70s? What have you been smoking?

Yeah I thought that Holy Grail and Flying Circus were two different projects

Re:Old News

[pushing-robot]

Sheesh, if you'd cracked open a history book, Leonardo da Vinci was designing the things back in the early 1500s.

That's the trouble with kids these days: They think everything—helicopters, astronauts, digital watches—came from the last century!

Re:Old News

[BitZtream]

Perhaps you should smoke a little bit of some good green nuggets of history.

Helicopters were not invented in the last 100 years, only made practical and viable. da Vinci is a well know example of an engineer who attempted to build helicopters. And yes, they even got some of them in the air, even if not for long enough to actually matter.

Re:Old News

[gstoddart]

Helicopters were not invented in the last 100 years, only made practical and viable. da Vinci is a well know example of an engineer who attempted to build helicopters.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this: "They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s."

There's a fairly big gap between those two. I hardly think DaVinci ever got to the point he was worried about bird-strike. :-P

There are better ways.

[santax]

So you have an airstrip full of sidewinder maverick armed planes and you use this... That's pretty boring, albeit cheaper.

about it

[allhereforu]

it 30 yrs old practice

To prevent the falcons from becoming a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They bring in some falcon-eating gorillas. And in the winter the gorillas simply freeze to death.

I also heard....

[Quato]

I also heard they are using weasels to keep the lawyers away.

Re:I also heard....

[benjamindees]

Unfortunately, that doesn't work because lawyers are a top-level predator. They can only be controlled by being socialized to periodically engage in elaborate combat rituals, establishing a social structure of artificial dominance. The rest of the time they just lounge around drinking scotch and licking themselves. Really they're mostly harmless as long as you don't taunt them with political arguments.

Re:I also heard....

[_Sprocket_]

Sadly, the F-4G Wild Weasel was retired and hasn't been flying over Spangdahlem for years.

Oblig. Xzibit

[Anonymous Coward]

supdawg.jpg

Not new

[jddimarco]

In the mid-1980s, I worked for a few months beside a guy whose hobby was falconry; he told me at the time that he had been employed by the Toronto Airport to use his falcon to help reduce the number of seagulls near the airport.

at least do it well...

[SunSpot505]

Yo dawg, I heard you like birds, so I got you a falcon for your falcon so you can birddog while you fly.

Recursion termination condition

[Anonymous Coward]

When one of the falcons gets sucked into a Falcon.

The A-10

[Infonaut]

To paraphrase Twain: Outside of a dog, an A-10 Warthog is a grunt's best friend. Inside a dog, you have other things to worry about.

Re:The A-10

[Doctor Faustus]

I believe that was Groucho Marx.

Leonardo International Rotary Wing Airport

[Infonaut]

Obviously you haven't been paying attention in history class. It's well known that Leonardo de Caprio's wood-and-graphite-composite corkscrew blade helicopter-Transformers were in heavy use during the early 1700s, especially in New Brunswick, East Anglia, and Muscovy. If only they had survived the onslaught of the steam-powered Brazilian Aero-Bombardment Fleet, we'd have a better historical record of those unbelievable flying machines.

Re:Leonardo International Rotary Wing Airport

[gstoddart]

Obviously you haven't been paying attention in history class. It's well known that Leonardo de Caprio's wood-and-graphite-composite corkscrew blade helicopter-Transformers were in heavy use during the early 1700s, especially in New Brunswick, East Anglia, and Muscovy. If only they had survived the onslaught of the steam-powered Brazilian Aero-Bombardment Fleet, we'd have a better historical record of those unbelievable flying machines.

Oh, man. That would be an awesome steampunk novel.

Re:Leonardo International Rotary Wing Airport

[Infonaut]

Maybe we should crowdsource production of the novel. A squadron of Slashdotters armed with a few Beowulf clusters do the trick.

The REAL story

[DoofusOfDeath]

The base's CO hates toy poodles.

Unobvious sources make for bad leads...

[plcurechax]

Wow, a story about airplanes and airports from Network World, perhaps that should of been a huge clue that it wasn't really news, novel, or particularly interesting.

And the RCAF or Canadian Air Force routinely uses them as well for their airplanes as well.

This matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot to use CmdrTaco to protect nerds from news that actually matters.

Thank you for this story, Slashdot

[ThatsNotPudding]

otherwise, I might have gone my whole life without seeing an RSS feed ad for Mike's Falconry Supplies!
Next time, on The Falconer!

In related news...

[fahrbot-bot]

I hear that The Audubon Society is using F-16's to protect Falcons in the mid-west - yikes!

Pilots thinks it's always about the pilot

[gnieboer]

To the people that matter (the drivers)

So that's why it's the crew chief's name that gets painted on the side, huh...

This is awesome news

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW! This is awesome, unheard of news! Is there anyway we can use HUMANS TO PROTECT HUMANS!

Nothing to see here

[carvell]

Standard passenger airports in the UK have used birds of prey for this purpose for decades...

I'm sure the same is probably true for airports all over the world.

it's a dupe!

[commodoresloat]

First published on slashdot in June of 1983

Last Ten Years At McChord AFB... Not New

[Frosty Piss]

Indeed, we've used birds at McChord AFB for at least the last 10 years that I've been here.

Re:Last Ten Years At McChord AFB... Not New

[lastchance_000]

Also at RAF Mildenhall (which was primarily a USAF base when I was there '84-'86.

Fat birds

[ndtechnologies]

I once saw a bird that was so fat, that it waddled on the ground. It would jump up and try to fly, and fall back down on it's @$$. This bird lived outside of a donut shop here in Franklin.

I saw a better idea

[ILuvRamen]

This is nice and all but on the travel channel, I saw a guy whose job it was to ride around in a golf cart shooting off what looked like quarter stick charges and shotgun blanks to get the birds to go away right before a plane took off. That's not only smarter and more effective but definitely more fun. I'd practically pay them to have that job let alone doing it for like $30,000 a year lol. In fact, people on long layovers could be offered to go scare the hell out of birds for an hour or so to help their boredom. They'd never be without a volunteer.

Stealth Falcon whine detected

[Grail]

Okay, I couldn't resist. But when the best defense you have against falcons is to use falcons yourself, doesn't that mean the falcon is overpowered?

Damned ECM ships.

More imbalancing of the nature.

[unity100]

fuck the planet, as much as you can, while you still have time. its not like you will have to pay for it anyway ....... or ....

Re: The Lawn Dart

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a Lawn Dart because it is Fly-by-Wire; there are no direct control links to the cockpit. If the computer shutsdown/locksup, your control surfaces freeze, and you have A LAWN DART. I have personally witnessed a T-38 trainer become a lawn-dart, and that is a two-engine plane. Sheppard, 2008.

BSG

[throughwithit]

On another note, the term "Viper" was adopted by F-16 pilots from the original BSG series.

Obligatory

[Nephrite]

Yo dawg we herd u like falcons...

Re: The Lawn Dart

[idontgno]

If the computer shutsdown/locksup, your control surfaces freeze, and you have A LAWN DART.

According to my informants, and the material I've read about it, if the FLCC bricks, you don't have a lawn dart, you have confetti--the airplane exhibits negative static stability below Mach 1 and will pretty much depart aerodynamic flight and exceed structural limits in seconds at high subsonic speeds.

You're probably right about low-speed flight system failure, though.

That said, most of the "lawn dart" comments I heard were specifically from twin-engine (Eagle and Hornet) jocks and specifically about the single engine (and its somewhat unforgiving mid-air restart process). YMVM.

Oblig Wikipedia articles

[Anonymous Coward]

F-16 (practically incomprehensible)
bird strike