Two rescued, five missing after ‘mishap’ involving U.S. Marine tanker and fighter jet off Kochi
archive.is
by Jesse Johnson
Staff Writer
Dec 6, 2018
Personally, I'm pumped for when the USAF and USN have a joint collision game. B52s hitting Carriers, who wins?
Other urls found in this thread:
sukhoi.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
What's the chance they're actually temp missing rather than dead
The two men found were both onboard the F/A18, and the five missing were on the KC130; they're highly likely dead, since the plane crashed early morning hear (17 hours ago?)
What are the chances that North Korea used a directed-energy weapon, like the Chinese are doing in Africa when US pilots look at the sun? Maybe it was a sonic weapon, like the Cubans are using to give Americans headaches after they drink too much. It could also be the result of Russian electronic warfare, like that time the Internet went out. I dunno guys, I think this is probably malicious. If there's one thing Americans are known for, it's superb military aviation and a peerless track record with their navy. Something fishy is going on around Japan.
I thought you would be screeching autistically if they did that Japan, considering that's your stick and all.
Could that possibly be viable for a nation with not enough resources to make or buy missiles? Just get a huge gunship or transport plane, up armor the fuck out of it and put some explosives in the back.
6 years ago this would've bothered me, but now I actively rejoice whenever our military proves how fucking stupid and incompetent they actually are.
If it wasn't for nukes someone probably would've attacked us and humiliated all of the lardass recruits by now.
No.
Impossible to get anywhere near the required armor and even then aircraft are fragile as fuck.
...
Honestly I'm surprised this is as rare as it is, mid-air refueling is one of those things that is possible but is so difficult and risky it needs to be automated.
RIP KC-130 crew.
Come on, that's kinda harsh. Aerial refueling isn't like trying to avoid crashing on a half km long freighter/drydock.
Trying to avoid crashing on a moving 320foot long airstrip, and trying to catch one of four wires strung across said the deck.
And god forbid you fuck up, because:
a) there are hundreds of tonns of fuel, an entire first strike worth of ordinance, thousands of men, nearly a hundred multi-million-dollar aircraft and a fucking nuclear reactor next to and just below the runway
b) the next hard-soil airstrip is in the hands of the enemy and about 1000 kilometers further inland than your current maximum range including glide
c) the chance of surviving after a punchout while strapped into a chair that weighs a couple hundred kilos and flying over an ocean with winds that are easily a 10 on the Beaufort scale are only slightly better than those of an HIV positive, twelve year old, female, albino, virgin in the deepest Congo of the 5th century AD.
This is your brain on .50 cent army.
You don't ever put armor anywhere on an aircraft unless its the pilots seat and sometimes a plate in front of him. CAS planes can also have a titanium bathtub cockpit, but other than that there is no way in hell you will ever get something made of sufficiently thick armor steel to fly. At the end of the day an expanding rod warhead will still chop through the tail joints and cause a loss of control. You are much better off making the aircraft as redundant and structurally sound as possible. This is why the A-10 is so hard to put down while an SU-25 burns like a candle when it looses a turbine blade despite being "armored."
You're also getting turned into the wind which eliminates all turbulence, and you do have the hooks which make it a lot simpler. Overall its a tradeoff, aircraft carrier landings are no tougher than trying to land on any land based airstrip which is being buffeted by winds and has no wires or ridiculous effort put into visual guidance.
To be fair both are harder than air to air refueling, which is ludicrously simple.
Uh no it doesn't. It can eat a missile in either engine and carry out the mission nine times out of ten. It's a different aircraft with slightly different purpose than A-10, the engineering is still impeccable.
One of the two rescued died last night, while five from the KC130 are still missing. Rip in peace goose.
What, don't you believe in Russian troll farms, Cuban sonic weapons and DPRK laser batteries aimed at Washington?
(Hīru'd)
I'm literally shaking from laughter right now. Why do the good goyim always die young?
The SU-25 suffered horrendous casualties to MANPADS in Afghanistan because the engines straddle the central fuel tank. If it managed to shatter the turbine blade it would punch right into the fuel cell and set it ablaze. They claimed to have fixed this problem somehow but seeing that they lost one recently in Syria in the exact same manner I doubt it. Armor on any aircraft to protect components other than the pilot is backwards logic that does nothing but harm the aircraft's performance for little gain in actual protection.
There is no way you can stop a turbine disc once it shatters. A blade can be contained. An entire DISK will go through anything.
Our testing areas are constructed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, the company that builds the Leo2, because those disc thirds will go at ludicrous speeds and are made from extremely tough materials like INCONEL.
Turbine disks shattering means that you have to pray that the three pieces won't hit anything too important.
Even the F-35I, the most advanced and best jet ever, was defeated by a bird.
I want to pet the birdy
I want to grope tits.
This is why the A-10 is more survivable. The engines are mounted high and far away from anything critical they could puncture should worst come to worst.
Better than T-50, the most advanced east block jet ever that was defeated by itself.
Oh look, our resident Lockheeb shill is here to create false dichotomies again. If you want to talk about the SU-57, it's seen more combat sorties than the F-35 and injured fewer of its pilots so far, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Didn't it get hit by a goose or some shit?
Hell the 35 has vaporized itself a few times on the runway, the 57 that caught fire was fixed if I recall.
What did they mean by this?
That design philosophy didn't work out so well for the Imperial Japanese Navy.
I don't even need to read the of this post, you are bona fide retarded. Never post here again
Ahem
The vast majority of aircraft armor is pilot, cooling system or engine protection. Usually it's rather thin, meant mostly to protect against shrapnel or small rounds.
At that altitude it would've been a fuck huge common crane, not a fucking sparrow.
Well of course you're gonna armour it to face the most common threats.It's not gonna fight tiger tanks up there.
IL-2 has been known to shut off couple of 20mm before going down .
vs
and electrical systems, as shown in pic 2. and in modern aircraft, hydraulic systems as well as further fuselage armor meant to keep sheared turbine blades from piercing the aircraft.
The comment at the start of this chain was talking about up-armoring a cargo plane to the point of using it as an anti-ship weapon. Obviously that's not possible, since aircraft armor has to be limited to vital systems you don't want to lose to a stray round.
Now this I don't know about.
...
I'm agreeing with you. The problem I have is the people (some of which I know browse Zig Forums) who believe that IL-2s and A-10s are covered in armor and can sail serenely through Shilka fire. On the other hand, there's a few companies offering armor packages to protect against small arms fire.
TOP KEK
O
P
K
E
K
The soviets lost 4 Su-25 in Afghanistan. In 10+ years and 60,000 combat sorties.
Two of them were lost due to manpads (one SA-7 and one Stinger), one was to AAA the last one being shot down by a paki F-16 over Pakistan.
The 16 January 1984 one Su-25 from the 200 OShAE was shot down by a SA-7 near Urgun, pilot: lieutenant colonel P.Ruban (ejected, died of parachute failure)
The 6 April 1986 one Su-25 from the 378-th OShAP was hit by heavy ground fire near Khost, pilot: Colonel A.Rutskoy (ejected safely, rescued).
The 21 January 1987 one Su-25 from the 378-th OShAP was shot down by a Stinger near Bagram, pilot: lieutenant K.Pavlyukov (ejected safely, killed in subsequent ground combat. Decorated Hero of Soviet Union posthumously.)
The 4th August 1988 one Su-25 from the 378-th OShAP was shot down 190 miles southwest of Islamabad (Pakistan) by a PAF F-16, pilot: Colonel A.Rutskoy (ejected safely, captured by the Pakistani army and subsequently repatriated).
That's your "horrendous casualties".
War, war never changes.
Considering the Su25 was just out of development a that time too it's really amazing how well it performed.
Russian procurement philosophy right there, they refuse to field anything until it has been tested to destruction several times.
Very different to the modern US where the F-35 was in active development and service at the same time.
And just for fun here the A-10 list in Iraq.
February 2 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 80-0248) was shot down by an Igla-1 (SA-16) surface-to-air missile, pilot: Captain Richard Dale Storr (ejected safely, captured)
February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 78-0722) AAA ground fire 60 miles northwest of Kuwait city, pilot: Lt Robert Sweet (ejected safely, captured)
February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 79-0130) Hit by ground fire approx 60 miles northwest of Kuwait city, pilot Captain Steven Phyllis (KIA).
February 19 – An OA-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 76-0543) was shot down by an Strela-1 (SA-9) surface-to-air missile 62 nm North West of Kuwait city, pilot Lt Col. Jeffery Fox (injured as he ejected, captured)
February 27 – An OA-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 77-0197) crash landed at KKMC FOL after being hit by ground fire, pilot Lieutenant Patrick Olson (KIA).
Clearly the A-10 is so much safer…
Source on that? Every surface level search I've performed shows at least 23, although some include SU-25's destroyed through ground actions.
This is some retard level reading comprehension.
At no point did anybody said even remotely.
We argued that you can in fact armour plane enough to give it increased survivability without compromising it's flight characteristics too much. Ofcourse you can't actually armour it enough to stop a continuous rod warhead.You can't even armour modern tank enough to stop modern HEAT.
It's like saying tank can't stop tandem HEAT so that must mean armour on tank is useless.
The problem I have is the people (some of which I know browse Zig Forums) who make a post while having same cognitive capacity as a mentally challenged vegetable.
CIA c/c Mujaheddin bragging to get more shekels isn't a source.
You do realize that at their peak the soviet airforce had only 3 Su-25 squadrons in the country right, the378-th OShAP (2 squadron) and the 200 OShAE (1 squadron), so at best 36 plane?
The 1980-1989 Afghanistan war is NOT the Vietnam war, it's the exact same shit as the Afghanistan war 2001-present, a low intensity conflict with combat losses few and far between.
So maybe including mortar fire, accidents and whatnot you can reach 23 Su-25 written off but that still sounds like a lot especially since in 1981 there were only 11 of them in the entirety of the soviet union airforce, so unless there was a big airbase raid like the one the mujhadid pulled in camp bastion in 2012 I don't see it happening.
There might have been I'm no soviet war historian.
More claims, no sources.
According to Alexander Mladenov who I know nothing about, I'm just dropping the name to give something to work back with at least three losses had occurred by the end of '84. The ground loss spike supposedly occurred on June 23rd of '88.
Which is exactly what I said here and We are agreeing with one another.
Again, what I was meaning with We are agreeing with one another. If you took this post to mean "planes have zero armor", then you misinterpreted what I was saying.
The only time I come close to saying this is in response to the guy suggesting that armor could be added to a plane to make it into an effective kamikaze aircraft. In my interpretation of his suggestion, he was imagining that heavily armored aircraft could penetrate CAP and onboard antiaircraft defenses by preventing damage to the airframe, which as we agree isn't feasible.
"The first 11 production planes were assigned in April 1981 to 80 OShAP stationed at the Sital-Chai airfield (Transcaucasian MD). The resources of the regiment were used to put together the 200th separate attack aircraft squadron (OShAE) which was deployed in June 1981 as part of the Air Forces’ 40th army in Afghanistan to become the first combat unit of the USSR Air Forces to fly missions on Su-25 attack aircraft."
So ok they had 13 in 1981, 11 serial model and the 2 prototypes (that already were tested in Afghanistan in 1980).
The sauce is directly from:
sukhoi.org
That's where the 23 comes from too but the phrasing is ambiguous as fuck it's not clear if it says aircraft that were lost during air combat operation (so it would includes the accidents) or if it's aircraft damaged by fire in the air (so including those that came back and were written off as too damaged, I think that's what they mean).
And it latter add to the confusion saying one plane was lost per 2.600 hour of flight (with 60.000 combat missions 23x2600 = 59800).
So no matter how you turn it, they lost 23 Su25 "in the air".
At least they were probably able to wreck those that made it back on half a wing for spare parts.
Sure but plane getting damaged, coming back and not getting fixed because it's more of a pain to ship it back to the factory isn't exactly a rare thing either. Especially when you're talking about the fucking soviet "production is all" union here.
Same as this
The guy say "machine gun fire in the cockpit" you would have to be very lucky. Pic related is what the Su-25 cockpit looks like. Do you see the heavy piece of transparent something bolted on the already pretty thick glass?
You're gonna need some serious luck or something way bigger than "a machine gun" to get through that, because that thing is gonna be rated for 14.5 AP (which is more piercing than most 20mm).
Then it mentions "the alternative is pilot error"…
The turbine blades can't do that in a Su-25 so that's bullshit, even a direct explosion of a six and a half pound warhead within the engine cowling and inside the engine still doesn't "explode" the fuel tanks like it's some kind of Michael Bay movie, the airplane can safely land despite being torn to shreds. "Casualties" means anything from being shot to getting some flak scratching the paint, the Su-25 deployed to Afghanistan had the first DIRCM lasers that blinded fucking manpads, so it had quite good survivability, the stinger wasn't nearly as effective as CIA (and by extension any NPC programmed by them) thinks it was.
The reason Stinger was even noticed by Soviets is because it was used to knock down airplanes transporting hundreds of troops. Then CIA created a group called "mothers of russia" to bitch about it:
en.wikipedia.org
And this eventually caused enough heat that naive young Russians started to hate the government. That is the only real effect the Stinger had, as a small cog in a larger political game, not as any effective weapon of war.
As for the Su-25…
IT IS A STELLAR DESIGN
Quit being a retarded NPC.
Hey Olgino, hard work today, eh?
Have you seen the IL-2 Two Electric Boogaloo Loo? It has a tail mounted cannon that automatically shoots anything that approaches, and even the bombs are armored in small individual bays with blow-out panels.
And that's with 1960's tech, using todays HMWPE armor and various composites would make it even lighter and more capable.
And here we see an example of "naive young russians" all grown up into naive old ones.
Keep going, these posts won't write themselves.
