Can modern combat aircraft (besides certain, dedicated ground attack platforms) take this kind of damage and remain in the air?
>also, post fucked-up planes
>>30536198
The B-52. Over 'nam one of them lost a large chunk of its verticle stabilizer and made it back to base. Somthing about boeing planes
why do you make that caveat?
>>30536198
>>30536220
Because I assume that A-10s and such are hardened specifically to withstand ground fire, whereas most bombers and fighters are not. Am I wrong?
>dat titanium bathtub.
yo
>>30536244
>what are SAMs and manpads alex
>>30536256
Wow, damn. OK. That's a good example. I stand better-informed.
>>30536198
>>30536325
that thing is only flying to due the kinetic energy inside that gunners enormous ballsack
What's the general /k/onsensus on this?
>>30536477
That it's not at all related to the thread and that you misposted?
>>30536477
That you're a threadjacking faggot?
>>30536198
>Can modern technology outperform old technology?
>>30536325
Nice photoshop
>>30536605
Modern technology will outperform old technology when designed to perform the same tasks as the old technology.
This does not mean any particular example of modern technology you pick is going to outperform every piece of old technology, regardless of the difference in intended roles.
So, for example, the XB-70 Valkyrie is a 60-odd year old design that is still more or less immune to pretty much anything you can throw at it by virtue of being faster. Even modern SAMs can't touch it. In this regard it is superior to more or less everything in the fleet today in terms of delivering its payload from a position of untouchability.
>>30537106
>XB-70 Valkyrie
Speed of missile > speed of plane. Why do you have to be retarded. S-400's can hit targets flying at twice the top speed of an XB-70, and it is withing the target envelope of smaller missile systems like the Buk. Let's not even talk about air launched missiles... speed as means to avoid destruction died as a concept. It might face a revival later, but it will be with shit that will make the XB-70 seem like a cheap Cessna.
>>30536244
The use of hydraulics actually makes the A-10 more vulnerable to fatal wounds like the loss of control surfaces than a modern aircraft like the F-35.
The fact that its engines are widely spaced >>30536237 is an admission that it is highly vulnerable to MANPADS.
>>30536273
>That brave .50 cal that hung on for dear life.
>>30536198
Yes, mostly because there is nothing of mechanical value there.
>>30536605
In some cases it can, in certain areas. There are basically two measures of how "advanced" technology is, those being how much effort is put into developing it and how practical it is for a given purpose. The two do not always match up.
And quite often, new technology has disadvantages, though it's outweighed by the advantages it provides. For example, mechanical computers are immune to EMP, but are barely used anymore since EMP resistance is a less important criteria than speed and versatility, and when EMP resistance is needed there are ways to build electronic computers that are resistant to it.
>>30537801
What does the F-35 use then? Is it all electric motors? And do modern aircraft in general have "self-sealing" hydraulics so damage in one location won't cause a total loss of pressure elsewhere?
>>30537801
A-10 can fly without hydraulics.
>>30536325
thats from War Thunder you retard
>>30537801
The A-10 has two separate hydraulic systems and a mechanical system if both of those fail
>>30536198
An AC-130 can fly home with considerable portions of the air-frame, control surfaces and engines deleted.
>>30538910
Nope. Il2 1946
>>30536325
>there a hole in your left wing
NOTAM: Do not utilize Boeing 737-200 sun-roof above altitudes of 10,000ft.
>>30538354
>What does the F-35 use then? Is it all electric motors?
http://www.sldinfo.com/a-conversation-with-an-f-35-maintainer-about-the-impact-of-the-new-f-35-actuator-system-on-maintenance/
Hydraulics, but each control surface is self contained meaning you can't have catastrophic pressure loss.
>>30536220
>>30536237
>>30536244
>OP writes
>besides certain, dedicated ground attack platforms
>People post dedicated ground attack platforms
You guys suck hard
>>30536220
What in the blueberry-flavored fuck happened?
>>30542043
>People post dedicated ground attack platforms
He also said
>also, post fucked-up planes
>>30541692
>This is Aloha 243
>We have lost the sunroof
>I repeat, we have lost the sunroof and are declaring an emergency.
>>30536220
My company makes the exhaust for that chopper.
stupid expensive but beautiful.
they removed it in that pic though.
>>30536237
Made it home, just like Mom
>>30541692
i remember when that shit happened
amazing it held together and the pilot/copilot were able to get it back on the ground
even more crazy is that only 1 person died
>>30538756
While true, the mechanical system is quite difficult to use in anything other than calm weather; one A-10 pilot died after getting shot up, flying all the way back home and then failing to land straight and level, resulting in the jet's wingtip touching, the jet literally cartwheeling and finally landing on its roof, while the pilot died trapped in its burning wreckage :-/
Still marginally better than having to eject over ISIS territory and getting burnt alive in a cage for propaganda though.
![pf4zkaqnx499ki3cbx7e[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/isNi76A.jpg "pf4zkaqnx499ki3cbx7e[1].jpg")
>>30536198
![without-a-wing[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nbhaSZS.jpg "without-a-wing[1].jpg")
>>30536198
F-14
>>30536198
It depends on if the cabin is pressurized or not.
![F-18%20mid-air01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PoK2gvw.jpg "F-18%20mid-air01[1].jpg")
>>30536198
1 of 2
![ku6nszfjdpoic8d4txik[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VKBoeyh.jpg "ku6nszfjdpoic8d4txik[1].jpg")
>>30536198
>>30544726
2 of 2
![midair7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6ofFX0w.jpg "midair7[1].jpg")
>>30536198
Another Hornet mishap
>>30537801
The A-10 has double backups both for mechanical and hydraulics. The F-35 uses hydraulics too, you idiot.
>>30541869
>Hydraulics, but each control surface is self contained meaning you can't have catastrophic pressure loss.
This is not new stuff, it has been integrated into civil aircraft ever since that accident where one plane sustained damage to the tail, in the point where three hydraulic systems met each other, draining pressure from all systems. Since then, all planes have been made with separate, contained hydraulic systems so you never lose ALL pressure unless there is catastrophic damage to the airframe.
Of course the F-35's system will be more efficient and complex, but it doesn't make it sturdier than the A-10 which, on top of the double backups, is made with the idea of flying with missing control surfaces and one engine.
>>30544680
According to wiki, passengers were seated and belted. That's what avoided more casualties, as the only one was a flight attendant standing near the area.
Explosive decompressions don't work like hollywood, luckily.
>In 2 June 1943 a Sunderland survived an attack by eight Ju 88s, shooting down three of them, although it was riddled with holes, lost an engine, and several crewmembers were wounded. Such exploits allegedly earned it the German nickname of "Fliegendes Stachelschwein" (Flying Porcupine).
They really were impressively simple back then.
>>30536256
wait a sec, isn't this actually a test they did to show it off and not battle damage? don't take me wrong, still impressive.
![Flt_811_damage[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3SrjOqn.jpg "Flt_811_damage[1].jpg")
>>30544780
yeah its crazy luck everyone was still buckled in tight and no one got hit by anything and it only tore the roof off and no seats broke free
this one had 9 deaths when the seats got ripped out taking the buckled in passengers with them
>>30544801
I don't remember the whole story, I think it was the result of a mid air collision. The pilot didn't understand he was missing the entire wing until later, after landing. All he could see before was a white spray of fuel.
>>30544769
F-16, F-15s and F/A-18s weren't designed to fly home with missing control surfaces or entire wings either, but they still do; the F-35 should perform even better due to the extra body-lift and the independent electrohydraulics.
>>30544801
Nope, mid-air collision. Destructive tests are a thing, but not with pilots in the aircraft.
>>30536273
And they will know no fear.
>>30542108
Lucky hit with AA. Judging from the shot placement I'm gonna guess it was a heat seeking missile. Thankfully, this heli has two engines so as long as the fire proofing holds it should get back home.
>>30536263
Most fighters rely on speed and countermeasures to evade missiles. And by speed I mean reducing engagement times, not dodging.
>>30536993
>>30538910
Google image search says it's from a russian site.
>>30544807
>the seats got ripped out taking the buckled in passengers with them
I don't know why, but this is one of these methods of death that terrifies me.
I forget, was there any chance a seat took out an engine, or was that more likely to be fuselage structure?
>>30545135
thats why they tell you to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye "in the event of a loss of cabin pressure"
>>30545135
>Despite extensive air and sea searches, no remains were found at sea of the nine victims lost in flight.[1] Multiple small body fragments and pieces of clothing were found in the Number 3 engine, indicating at least one victim was ejected from the fuselage into the front of the engine, but it was not known whether the fragments were from one or more victims.[4] Because Anthony Fallon was seated farthest from the hole in the plane, he was likely the last victim ejected and with the least velocity; he was also the only victim not ejected with his seat (a seat entering the engine would have caused immediate destruction of the engine); therefore, it is likely that the remains found inside the Number 3 engine were his.[5] Given the aircraft's altitude and speed, the force of the ejection and the fact that debris impacted much of the aircraft's external structure, it was deemed highly unlikely that any victims were alive during their four-minute descent to the ocean's surface.
enjoy your next flight
>>30545187
>it was deemed highly unlikely that any victims were alive during their four-minute descent to the ocean's surface.
Well that's comforting.
Never before have I been so grateful I spend most of my time on tiny turboprop commuters that don't fly above the weather.
>>30545135
at that position I would assume you and your seat would fly over the wing or at worst bump into the leading edge, and not fall down far or fast enough to get sucked into the engine.
if however a seat and attached person WOULD fall into the engine that would most definitely damage the engine severely.
>>30545205
hey at least you wont have to wait 4 min to hit the ground
can't even imagine how long that 4 mins would seem if they had survived getting blown out
sounds worse than drowning
>>30544785
>union flag survived
Cor bloimey gavner rule Britannia
>>30545249
Bet there would still be time to shitpost
>>30544542
>They removed it in that pic though.
Yeah with an AA missile
