Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

US Navy litoral combat ships having engineering failures 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
spsalso

spsalso

Electrical
Jun 27, 2021
943
The Independence class can only go at high speeds on a nice day:


The Freedom class is being scrapped. And it's not because they're old and worn out and there's a far better ship to replace them:




We can't leave these kids along for a minute!


spsalso
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
If you're going to "stand off", it starts looking like drones are superior to the F-35. MUCH cheaper, and no pilot to kill.

The reason for close-in work by the A-10 is so the pilot can make immediate decisions NOW. If you don't need that, I'd go with those drones.

Divide the cost of an F-35 by the cost of an attack drone, and decide whether you'd rather attack with one plane or XXX drones.



spsalso
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's my opinion that the Top Gun types are not interested in giving over their jobs to a guy sitting in a container in Iowa :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I always figured that if I could fill the sky with some sort of modern P51 clone (the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano may suffice) that the capabilities of the numerically limited opponent (read F35 for instance) wouldn't matter, I'd have air superiority. Given what Ukraine has done with drone launched hand grenades, air superiority may be over rated. Maybe all that's needed is control of the air space up to about 25 feet off the deck.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is your goal? Do you want to kill people or take out infrastructure? Russia has economic interest in taking over Ukraine so destroying infrastructure isn't their ideal option. Instead they have to demoralize their enemy with death. This type of war supports lots of planes and lots of bullets. On the other end of the spectrum is a war to disable the enemy. This can be done with precision strikes against infrastructure and this is supported by precision munitions and stealth. I don't know that this type of war has ever been successful. It's more of a deterrent until it doesn't work anymore and we have to resort to the killing type war.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is "my" goal?

To destroy all Russian equipment in Ukraine. On land. In air. On water. This will likely demoralize any remaining Russian soldiers, and their enthusiasm to stay will be diminished.

Russia can still fire artillery and rockets from Russia into Ukraine. A problem is that of Ukraine firing back into Russia to destroy that equipment, too.

I do wonder where the "counter battery radar" is. Why is the Russian artillery (in Ukraine) not being taken out?


spsalso
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, I haven't seen TG2, but don't the Fs still have to keep the Migs off the A10s. If you have total air superiority, or are not especially interested in neutralizing assorted armor, just need to take out SAM and Migs so the Bs can get past them and reach the nuclear launch sites, or Qadafie's palace, I think you'd want some F-somethings nearby as somebody should probably be keeping an eye on angle sector while the A10s kind of have their arses up in the air when they are focused on pounding 6 O'c. 30mm doesn't have the range for that and drones are probably a bit too low and slow for mig chasing. When you've got nothing else to do but pound tanks, sure you want enough A10s to block out the sun.

Since failing attackers often go on to defending their homeland the die is probably a bit weighted towards victory falling to the ultimate attackers. On the other hand, are attackers ever ultimately the winners of any conflict. How many conflicts have there been between England, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Italy. Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Scotland, Wales ... yet they all continue to exist in various forms. Unless you kill every man and child, enslave all the women and plow salt into the fields, wars accomplish little in the long term scheme of things. Most results are temporary.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not into war stuff... but, I thought the A10 was a special weapon with really a single purpose. It, I understand, was exceptional at that. This is something that few military 'weapons' achieve.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tank buster. I recall video from one of the Gulf wars of one lighting up a building. Impressive. Make you want to abandon any vehicle.

They keep trying to "retire" them, no luck yet as far as I know. :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There just isn't anything else that can quickly lay down heavy ground attack ordinance like that can and a new platform would take 15yrs to develop.

Besides, anything that can take it like this is going to be hard to get rid of.

The A-10 is battle-hardened to an exceptional degree, being able to survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a backup if hydraulics are lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion control system; pitch and yaw control engages automatically, roll control is pilot-selected. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base, though control forces are greater than normal. The aircraft is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing.


A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They use them for all sorts of ground targets. Afghanistan didn't have many amour targets if any.

Think they have also used them against ships.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A relic from the time when we could still DO stuff :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A-10 in service since 1976.

Javelin in service since 1996. Doin' stuff.



spsalso
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TugboatEng said:
Where does the AC-130 stand in all of this?
Click to expand...

The AC-130 is functional only against targets that lack air power and anti-aircraft. One of the cases made for the A-10 is that it flies low and slow over the target and correctly identifies it. One of the AC-130's big moments was the strafing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

--
JHG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SnTMan said:
Tank buster. I recall video from one of the Gulf wars of one lighting up a building. Impressive. Make you want to abandon any vehicle.
Click to expand...

Does the A-10's 30mm cannon penetrate the armour of heavy tanks? I was under the impression that WWII guns and rockets actually were not effective against the later tanks. The Germans eventually mounted a 75mm cannon on their Hs-129s, but the aircraft absolutely required air superiority.

The problem the German tanks had in France in 1944 was the strafing of their fuel trucks.

--
JHG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think the AC130 30mm cannon is the same as the A10's unit. An AC130 with a F flying above would be a good combination. I wonder if the handheld SAM missiles can reach it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
drawoh, Wikipedia syas yes.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
According to Wikipedia, the AC130's Gatling gun is actually 25-mm. The A-10's 30-mm cannon would need to stick out the other side of an AC130's fuselage, given the 19-ft length of the gun. The A-10's 30-mm round is about 2 inches longer than the Apache's 30-mm cannon round, and PGU-14 are depleted uranium rounds. The A-10's ammo has about 200 m/s higher muzzle velocity than the Apache's

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Does the A-10's 30mm cannon penetrate the armour of heavy tanks?"

No, it does not. Tests were done with this gun against T-62's, and it did not, shooting on the frontal armor. The T-62 is now over half a century old. Of course, you can shoot off all the tracks on the sides, and you have a pretty useless tank. But THAT is not the answer to your question.

So, like many questions, yours develops subtleties.

The Javelin, however, appears to do a great job of defeating all tank armor.

Hence my suggestion of spreading Javelins around everywhere, and making tanks into very sad coffins. How many of those are in Ukraine today?



spsalso

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JohnRBaker
  • Locked
  • News
The largest peacetime disaster in US Navy history...
Replies
10
Views
163
MechinNC
MechinNC
spsalso
  • Locked
  • Question
Federal court rules engineer CAN talk about engineering failures 1
Replies
18
Views
282
spsalso
spsalso
TORCHMAN
  • Locked
  • Question
Rail bridge collapses near the US-Canada border 9
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
766
DirteJoe
DirteJoe
SSCon
  • Locked
  • Question
Dam Failures in Derna, Libya 25
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
1K
dik
dik
enginesrus
  • Locked
  • Question
Crane failures 8
2 3
Replies
45
Views
406
Cool_Controls
Cool_Controls

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom