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
For "danger close" support I don't see how the F35 can do what the A10 can do. There are videos on Youtube showing the A10 engaging the enemy hiding in a tree line very close to US soldiers. The firepower is absolutely devastating yet provides some "safety" since missiles, rockets or bombs are not being used - just the 30mm gun. Plus, once the enemy hears the "Brrrrt" of the 30mm (those that are left), I imagine morale drops quickly.

The F35 has 200 rounds while the A10 can hold over 1100 rounds. That's not a lot of "Brrrrrt" time for the F35. One pass and the F35 is done.

There are also some interesting videos on Youtube on a channel called "grim reapers" where they simulate scenarios for the A10. One is the miles long Russian convoy in Ukraine. A few passes and the convoy is in serious trouble.

Another puts the A10 against a WW2 battleship. When using the gun, the A10 inflicts some damage but the wall of lead rips it to pieces. Standoff weapons like bombs and maverick missiles allow the A10 to inflict serious damage to the ship.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Modern US ships have CIWS, which, interestingly, is the same gun and use the same ammo as the A10, but because they're on ships, they essentially have infinite ammo, compared to the A10, and that means the A10 is overmatched if using the cannon only.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Without questioning the engineering and manufacturing prowess behind the product, IMHO evaluating any aircraft and weapon system against religious militia, mercenaries, conscripts, guerillas, poorly trained and ill-equipped forces wielding outdated soviet equipment maybe fallacious. Nevertheless, the Ukraine invasion now proves that the soviet nostalgia of meeting an eye for an eye with US tech in war would only result in them getting blind. However, the US Navy needs to get their act together - too many incidents.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wasn't the F4 the first fighter aircraft that "didn't need a gun"?

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually the F-4 Phantom was the THIRD US fighter jet to be designed and built without guns. The first was the F-86D Sabre (earlier F-86's did have guns) first flown in 1949. The second was the F-102 Delta Dagger in 1953 and finally the F-4 Phantom in 1958.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I guess I was thinking of the Phantom entering the Vietnam war "not needing a gun"...till it did.

Thx, JRB

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AFAIK the big problem with the A10 is MANPADs (Stinger missiles and the like) and other SAMs. It's a very durable aircraft, but it's also a very easy target to hit. The F35 is worse at the job of close air support (CAS), but (at least in theory) it's much harder to lock onto & hit than an A10, and so more likely for the pilot to come back alive. This biases the USAF away from the use of the A10 in situations where the enemy has access to advanced air defenses, like China does. The Army & Marines want the better CAS platform, the Air Force wants the new shiny that doesn't get shot down.

A lot of the issue with the F35 is the "jack of all trades, master of none" aspect of trying to share a single chassis between a fighter (F35 A), STOVL CAS aircraft (F35 B), and carrier-based fighter (F35 C). It's less effective at any of its roles than a dedicated plane would be. A stealthy ground attack aircraft with heavy armor & redundancy like the A10 could be quite effective, but they didn't build that. They built a compromise that works better at shoveling money to Lockheed-Martin than any of its officially acknowledged roles.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Remember the F-111? Of course you do! (late '60's)

That was to be an all things to all people plane, too.

At the time, I was working for the Navy. I got to yakkin' with an older co-worker (jeez, musta been 40, poor guy). Anyway, he opined that it was stupid to build an Air Force plane that had a structure that would allow a carrier landing. He mentioned adding a ton to pull it off--don't know how informed he was on that. He said, of course WE have to. But why THEM? Here we have a Navy guy expressing sympathy for the Air Force!

But it sure made sense. You design a plane for a task. Not ALL tasks. IF it can do something else well, great. See AC-130, mentioned earlier.


spsalso
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Same name, but many versions for interdiction, separate version, "Wild Weasle" for ground attack, different aviaonics, different airframes, different weapons, different structural mounting systems. Cannons are of limited use in interdiction missions, but necessary for ground attack versions. Air Force versions do not have tail hooks, or catapult launch capability, or strength in the frame to allow either. If an AF version ever managed to land on a carrier, it was into a net and, if it survived that, was probably lifted off by crane, or pushed overboard. I doubt it fits onto the elevator, or into the below deck hangers without wing folding capability. No AF or Navy version can really be considered to be the exact same aircraft, yet it makes a ton of sense to have similarities when such is possible and differences when not. The search for a universal platform starts and ends in the unicorn forest.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The old Buccaneer UK carrier aircraft was much loved by the pilots.Not so much loved by those that had to maintain it.

Unlike the Jaguar which was pretty much pants at every it was meant to do. Although at the end of life it apparently was ok at being the target designator for precision weapons delivered by other asset's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Note that the A10 carries multiple ammunitions, only one of which, the PGU-14 is DU tipped. PGU-13 is straightforward high explosive incendiary (HEI), among others
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
spsalso, from your same link

"The F-111 that resulted first flew in December 1964. The F-111B flew in May 1965, but the navy said that it was too heavy for use on aircraft carriers.[15] With an unacceptable navy version,

F-111 could be a quirk. The swept wing required a stronger airframe than typical, so it could have been substantially the same, although there is the usual Navy version. The trunion added a lot of weight as well. I imagine it made for high operating costs. For whatever reasons, neither version was particularly successful and were not produced in great numbers.

I had a "close experience" with 2 x F-111s 2000 ft above the Freeport beach on the Texas Coast in the 70's. Well within the ADIZ and very low for them, they went from a smoke spot several miles ahead to in my face in a second. Passed me head on #1, then #2 a second later, at 500 feet or less to my right, heading southwest. Far too close for me. That left an impression. A deja vu every time I smell kerosene.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's not rude though.

The Jag only gets airborne due to the curvature of the earth and the ground dropping away from it. The only thing it can out climb is a Shackleton bomber.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
shouldn't that be, "pretty much kilts"? What does the expression mean, I've not heard it, and cannot find an explanation on the web.

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
Utterly rubbish..

Pants don't mean trousers in proper English. If you say it most would think you were talking about male underwear.

British Military kit

Pants: utterly useless rubbish that the G10 or clothing stores issue.

Gucci: utterly the best bit of kit you can get your hands on by any means including stealing it from allied forces or liberation from enemy.

 
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
280
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