Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
two_beer_bishes
Jun 27, 2004

Barnsy posted:

That's a fail and a half. Looks like the whole plane shifted, seeing how the left landing gear are bent the wrong way.

The gear probably wasn't locked. If it was up on stands they were probably doing a gear swing or something similar. It definitely looks like it shifted, and with the gear not locked it had nothing solid to land on.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

StandardVC10
Feb 6, 2007

This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant
I have to think that's a write off. Especially since FedEx' A310 fleet is pretty old.

Nuevo
May 23, 2006

:eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop::eyepop::shittypop:
Fun Shoe

two_beer_bishes posted:

...and with the gear not locked it had nothing solid to land on.

Except the buckets of those jerry lifts, one of which is pinioned between the gear & the fuselage/wing root. :wth:

Wonder if those were occupied at the time. gently caress.

CovfefeCatCafe
Apr 11, 2006

A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

Boat posted:

Except the buckets of those jerry lifts, one of which is pinioned between the gear & the fuselage/wing root. :wth:

Wonder if those were occupied at the time. gently caress.

drat, I thought they were just telehandlers, didn't realize there was a bucket in there.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

hobbesmaster posted:

I always wondered why there wasn't an anti AWACS ARM missile, but then...
It wouldnt really be necessary. A 707 with babby engines isn't all that hard to take care of if you can get past the fighters.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

hobbesmaster posted:

I always wondered why there wasn't an anti AWACS ARM missile
It's been tried: the Navy tried the Brazo program to take out high, fast interceptors, and some random joes on the internet claim Russia offers a passive, home-on-emitter version of the AA-10. I'd check on that second one, but I don't have a 2004 copy of Jane's Rockets and Missiles.

Finger Prince
Jan 5, 2007


slidebite posted:

Jesus christ how does that even happen? It's in a hangar for gods sake.

I don't know for sure, but I have my suspicions.

Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless

Godholio posted:

I don't know if such a thing exists, but it's absolutely possible. There are a ton of anti-radiation missiles; HARM for example. Pick your freq.

I don't doubt that it's possible; like hobbesmaster said, it would make things really easy for the missile. It would just be explicitly designed for shooting down comm airs/cooperative targets, and I wonder if anyone has been nuts enough to (officially) do that.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's been tried: the Navy tried the Brazo program to take out high, fast interceptors, and some random joes on the internet claim Russia offers a passive, home-on-emitter version of the AA-10. I'd check on that second one, but I don't have a 2004 copy of Jane's Rockets and Missiles.

I was imagine something like an aim-54.

I guess if Russia is going to shoot down an AWACS they might as well do it with a nuke because the rest of them are heading towards the US.

Phanatic
Mar 13, 2007

Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

holocaust bloopers posted:

When I worked in flight safety I would get to hear about all of those ludicrous complaints. My favorite one was some elderly lady out in the sticks of Fairbanks, AK who repeatedly complained that an AWACS pilot (she would read the names on the side of the jet and since we only flew two jets she kept catching the same one) was attempting to kill her dogs by flying low over her place.


My favorite one was from the new housing development that sprung up next to the small regional field in Delaware we were doing some MH-47G testing out of. One the one hand, if you move next to an airfield that's been there for decades longer than the house you're moving into, you should shut up about noise. On the other hand, you probably didn't expect a large helicopter doing all kinds of night work at the field. On the gripping hand, if you make angry calls to the facilities manager threatening to shoot at the expensive Army helicopter, you probably shouldn't have child porn visible on your computer screen when you open the door for the nice government agents who came to interview you.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Wingnut Ninja posted:

I don't doubt that it's possible; like hobbesmaster said, it would make things really easy for the missile. It would just be explicitly designed for shooting down comm airs/cooperative targets, and I wonder if anyone has been nuts enough to (officially) do that.

That would still face significant challenges. Searching via iff is one thing, guiding an interceptor is another. I doubt transponders respond quickly or often enough to interrogations to guide a missile.

If you saturate a transponder, you can end up receiving no response.

Terrible Robot
Jul 2, 2010

FRIED CHICKEN
Slippery Tilde

Phanatic posted:

My favorite one was from the new housing development that sprung up next to the small regional field in Delaware we were doing some MH-47G testing out of. One the one hand, if you move next to an airfield that's been there for decades longer than the house you're moving into, you should shut up about noise. On the other hand, you probably didn't expect a large helicopter doing all kinds of night work at the field. On the gripping hand, if you make angry calls to the facilities manager threatening to shoot at the expensive Army helicopter, you probably shouldn't have child porn visible on your computer screen when you open the door for the nice government agents who came to interview you.

This is loving magical :allears:

vulturesrow
Sep 25, 2011

Always gotta pay it forward.

Godholio posted:

It wouldnt really be necessary. A 707 with babby engines isn't all that hard to take care of if you can get past the fighters.

Actually what having a long range air-to-air (or surface to air for that matter) ARM would do is obviate the need to fight your way through CAP and/or escorts. In theory anyhow, having a missile fly unsupported for that length of time may not work out in practice but it definitely fills a role and it's not a completely out to lunch idea.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!

Phanatic posted:

My favorite one was from the new housing development that sprung up next to the small regional field in Delaware we were doing some MH-47G testing out of. One the one hand, if you move next to an airfield that's been there for decades longer than the house you're moving into, you should shut up about noise. On the other hand, you probably didn't expect a large helicopter doing all kinds of night work at the field. On the gripping hand, if you make angry calls to the facilities manager threatening to shoot at the expensive Army helicopter, you probably shouldn't have child porn visible on your computer screen when you open the door for the nice government agents who came to interview you.

A wonderful chain of events.

vessbot
Jun 17, 2005
I don't like you because you're dangerous
According to the Wiki article on chaff, both sides invented it independently around the same time, and both sides didn't use it for about a year after inventing it for fear that the other side would copy the technology and use it against them.

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

vulturesrow posted:

Actually what having a long range air-to-air (or surface to air for that matter) ARM would do is obviate the need to fight your way through CAP and/or escorts. In theory anyhow, having a missile fly unsupported for that length of time may not work out in practice but it definitely fills a role and it's not a completely out to lunch idea.

long-range ARM: AWACS shuts down radar, (optional: F-35s take over all C3 tasks because they're made of magic, right Lockheed :laugh: ), missile whiffs
long-range AAM: AWACS shuts down radar, missile doesn't give a gently caress

I dunno, I feel like if you're making a long-range missile meant to shoot down a plane, just make it seek for/home in on the plane rather than the part of the plane with a big ON/OFF switch. It's not like the AIM-54 specifically homed in on the Kh-22s slung under the Backfires.

however, it's not like I know for sure. from my armchair, I post at thee.

Psion fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jul 21, 2014

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
The AWACS has a radar kill switch. The instant I'd hear some theoretical ARM coming our way I'd hit the button.

No seriously it's a dinky little button.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

vulturesrow posted:

Actually what having a long range air-to-air (or surface to air for that matter) ARM would do is obviate the need to fight your way through CAP and/or escorts. In theory anyhow, having a missile fly unsupported for that length of time may not work out in practice but it definitely fills a role and it's not a completely out to lunch idea.

That's a feature a long-range missile, not just an ARM.

But defeating an ARM is easier than something guided by its own seeker. The E-3 isn't going to outmaneuver poo poo, or break the radar lock, but it CAN stop emitting and turn everything back on later. Or even just shut down and go home if needed.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

holocaust bloopers posted:

The AWACS has a radar kill switch. The instant I'd hear some theoretical ARM coming our way I'd hit the button.

No seriously it's a dinky little button.

The only way such a missile would make sense would be if the AWACS did not know it was under attack, I suppose large missiles traveling at mach 3 produce some distinctive radar returns making the whole thing a little dumb.

Medium range missiles for head on engagements against fighters is an interesting one though.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!

hobbesmaster posted:

The only way such a missile would make sense would be if the AWACS did not know it was under attack, I suppose large missiles traveling at mach 3 produce some distinctive radar returns making the whole thing a little dumb.

Medium range missiles for head on engagements against fighters is an interesting one though.

The AWACS knows about any sensor that's operating in a very large area.

LostCosmonaut
Feb 15, 2014

hobbesmaster posted:

I was imagine something like an aim-54.

I guess if Russia is going to shoot down an AWACS they might as well do it with a nuke because the rest of them are heading towards the US.

On that note, did the Soviets/Russians ever make nuclear tipped versions of their AAMs (such as R-40 or R-33)?

D C
Jun 20, 2004

1-800-HOTLINEBLING
1-800-HOTLINEBLING
1-800-HOTLINEBLING

Phanatic posted:

My favorite one was from the new housing development that sprung up next to the small regional field in Delaware we were doing some MH-47G testing out of. One the one hand, if you move next to an airfield that's been there for decades longer than the house you're moving into, you should shut up about noise. On the other hand, you probably didn't expect a large helicopter doing all kinds of night work at the field. On the gripping hand, if you make angry calls to the facilities manager threatening to shoot at the expensive Army helicopter, you probably shouldn't have child porn visible on your computer screen when you open the door for the nice government agents who came to interview you.

Gotta love the amount of thought people put into buying a house sometimes. Hows the kitchen? Are the closets big enough?

When you buy a car I'm sure most people do a walk around, looking at it in good light to make sure the paint is good and theres nothing missing, a test drive to see if it drives well, maybe have a mechanic look at it. But when buying a house at 10x+ the cost they dont bother to go to the neighborhood at night, or early in the morning, on a weekend, see if theres anything noisy/smelly/off about it.

Shavnir
Apr 5, 2005

A MAN'S DREAM CAN NEVER DIE

D C posted:

Gotta love the amount of thought people put into buying a house sometimes. Hows the kitchen? Are the closets big enough?

When you buy a car I'm sure most people do a walk around, looking at it in good light to make sure the paint is good and theres nothing missing, a test drive to see if it drives well, maybe have a mechanic look at it. But when buying a house at 10x+ the cost they dont bother to go to the neighborhood at night, or early in the morning, on a weekend, see if theres anything noisy/smelly/off about it.

To be fair I've had a lot more time to evaluate car purchases than house purchases lately. Market is crazy down here.

That being said everytime I hear a plane overhead I smile a bit and wish there was a noise compliment line.

MrChips
Jun 10, 2005

FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

LostCosmonaut posted:

On that note, did the Soviets/Russians ever make nuclear tipped versions of their AAMs (such as R-40 or R-33)?

As far as I know, they never made an air-to-air weapon with a nuclear payload. They did however make a pile of nuclear-armed SAMs.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

MrChips posted:

As far as I know, they never made an air-to-air weapon with a nuclear payload. They did however make a pile of nuclear-armed SAMs.

Seems like they'd be a good match for the bomberceptor they built.

edit: Tu-28

vulturesrow
Sep 25, 2011

Always gotta pay it forward.

Godholio posted:

That's a feature a long-range missile, not just an ARM.

But defeating an ARM is easier than something guided by its own seeker. The E-3 isn't going to outmaneuver poo poo, or break the radar lock, but it CAN stop emitting and turn everything back on later. Or even just shut down and go home if needed.


hobbesmaster posted:

The only way such a missile would make sense would be if the AWACS did not know it was under attack, I suppose large missiles traveling at mach 3 produce some distinctive radar returns making the whole thing a little dumb.

Medium range missiles for head on engagements against fighters is an interesting one though.


holocaust bloopers posted:

The AWACS knows about any sensor that's operating in a very large area.

An ARM used for that purpose would probably have some sort of backup terminal guidance. You may know the sensor is operating but if said missile could be fired from a mode that didn't seem threatening you might well not realize you are being attacked. Probably not a whole lot more in detail we can go into the discussion but the idea is definitely a feasible one. Also keep in mind that just getting an AWACs to shut down and go home may be all they need or want. We are pretty good at independent fighter tactics but not having AEW/AIC available certainly hampers your ability to run an intercept.

KodiakRS
Jul 11, 2012

:stonk:

Shavnir posted:

That being said everytime I hear a plane overhead I smile a bit and wish there was a noise compliment line.

I once got chewed out by an angry octogenarian because my civilian flight school had the gall to buzz his house with an F-16. He didn't believe when I told him that we had not, in fact, selected the F-16 as our new single engine trainer to replace our aging 172s. The best part was that I pretty much had to yell into the phone to get him to hear me because he was almost deaf.*

My second favorite story about noise is the saga of Arizona Motorsports Park which was shut down temporarily due to noise complaints. A racetrack being shut down because of noise isn't unheard of, and it's a little bit off topic for the thread, except for one small fact. AMP is literally only a few hundred yards away from one of the runways at Luke AFB (where the loud as hell F-16 in the first story came from.) I know motorcycles are loud but are you really going to complain about them when there's a loving F-16 taking off right next to them?

*Or he had no idea how to use a phone.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!

vulturesrow posted:

Also keep in mind that just getting an AWACs to shut down and go home may be all they need or want.

Bingo. That's usually enough.

Jonny Nox
Apr 26, 2008




MrChips posted:

As far as I know, they never made an air-to-air weapon with a nuclear payload. They did however make a pile of nuclear-armed SAMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

edit: I reed gud!!

Ignore this. :(

movax
Aug 30, 2008

holocaust bloopers posted:

Bingo. That's usually enough.

I mean really the most expedient way for an enemy to really "take out" an AWACS is send a suicide squad/similar in with a MANPADs and hit it on takeoff, no? Bonus points if they're hiding in a school bus or hospital or something.

Then again I have no idea how far AWACS usually stage from, so maybe the airbase is always immune to this.

e: wait, this is basically the Clancy subplot from Debt of Honor, I am ashamed

Captain Postal
Sep 16, 2007

Godholio posted:

But defeating an ARM is easier than something guided by its own seeker. The E-3 isn't going to outmaneuver poo poo, or break the radar lock, but it CAN stop emitting and turn everything back on later. Or even just shut down and go home if needed.

Isn't the whole point of shooting at an E-3 to make it shut-the-gently caress-up? Like, assuming you can control enough airspace to keep firing ARM's every so often*, doesn't getting it to turn the radar off and go home have the same effect as killing it?

*yes, this is a big assumption against a modern air force. But lets pretend for now.

Jonny Nox
Apr 26, 2008




movax posted:

I mean really the most expedient way for an enemy to really "take out" an AWACS is send a suicide squad/similar in with a MANPADs and hit it on takeoff, no? Bonus points if they're hiding in a school bus or hospital or something.

Then again I have no idea how far AWACS usually stage from, so maybe the airbase is always immune to this.

e: wait, this is basically the Clancy subplot from Debt of Honor, I am ashamed

Was debt of honor where they laser pointered the pilot's eyes as they were coming in for a landing?

Flikken
Oct 23, 2009

10,363 snaps and not a playoff win to show for it

Jonny Nox posted:

Was debt of honor where they laser pointered the pilot's eyes as they were coming in for a landing?

They used a flashlight.

movax
Aug 30, 2008

Yeah it was a bright-rear end flashlight or something to take out the E-767s as they came in for landing.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

movax posted:

I mean really the most expedient way for an enemy to really "take out" an AWACS is send a suicide squad/similar in with a MANPADs and hit it on takeoff, no? Bonus points if they're hiding in a school bus or hospital or something.

Then again I have no idea how far AWACS usually stage from, so maybe the airbase is always immune to this.

e: wait, this is basically the Clancy subplot from Debt of Honor, I am ashamed

Diego Garcia might be a bit of a long swim. :v:

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
An AWACS is a seriously high value target. The USAF considers it that and treats it as such. The jet is usually staged in an unquestionably friendly area.

Manpads at takeoff and landing are still a threat that's planned for though.

atomicthumbs
Dec 26, 2010


We're in the business of extending man's senses.
what we really need is an ARM disguised as a cessna 172, to approach at prop-driven speeds. if it detects itself being lit up with radar for too long, it gives up and the missile pops out the front.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

atomicthumbs posted:

what we really need is an ARM disguised as a cessna 172, to approach at prop-driven speeds. if it detects itself being lit up with radar for too long, it gives up and the missile pops out the front.

And we know that Cessna 172s are the one thing that can reliably penetrate Russian air defenses.

Fender Anarchist
May 20, 2009

Fender Anarchist

atomicthumbs posted:

what we really need is an ARM disguised as a cessna 172, to approach at prop-driven speeds. if it detects itself being lit up with radar for too long, it gives up and the missile pops out the front.

Now there's some steampunk/WW2 alternate history tech, a propeller-driven guided cruise missile.

Come to think of it...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Captain Postal posted:

Isn't the whole point of shooting at an E-3 to make it shut-the-gently caress-up? Like, assuming you can control enough airspace to keep firing ARM's every so often*, doesn't getting it to turn the radar off and go home have the same effect as killing it?

*yes, this is a big assumption against a modern air force. But lets pretend for now.

Yeah, basically. It's called a soft kill, and it's very common in the EW/ARM world. A HARM doesn't always have to actually hit its target to accomplish the goal. Same thing here. However, depending on *things* even a no-radar AWACS has some useful capability if we're in a real loving air war.

Also, nobody's going to shoot an air-to-air missile from the kinds of ranges people are thinking about in here. Not without no-poo poo radar support, like a standard semi-active missile. The targeting cell (I'm drawing a blank on the actual term here) would be loving enormous. And we'd probably notice, and have plenty of time to A-get out of the way or B-move a tanker into it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply