this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
56 points (98.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36167 readers
1085 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Regarding the two Russian A50 shot down during the Ukraine war, but it would also apply to US style AWACS.

Beside the price-tag of the plane itself, I would expect that the crews operating the radar are also highly trained, and that if it may be even harder to train a crew than to build a new plane.

I know, that something as simple as pulling the big-red handle on your paraglider harness is pretty hard when you're in a severe flight incident dealing with G forces and the ground moving full speed toward you, and I imagine it'll be even harder on a large plane, where you need to access a escape hatch, most likely in a burning and depressurized cabin while having no idea where is up/down due to the G-force and the rotation. However, when flying a plane which like a high value target for the opposing army it would at least feel more comfortable to know that you have a low but non zero chance to escape if you're shot down.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago

Planes that go into combat have ejection seats and parachutes.

The A50 is supposed to stay behind the front line.

[–] Bangs42 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the design of the plane allows for it.

In fighters, it blows the canopy, triggers a rocket in the seat that gets the pilot clear of the disintegrating plane, and eventually deploys the chute.

These types of planes don't have a canopy. They're also much larger, which means it's much more difficult to get clear.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You don't necessarily have to have ejector seats - WW2 era bombers for example relied on the crew making their way to a hatch to bail out. Despite being a considerably lower chance of survival than modern systems (not helped by various positions having to crawl through narrow spaces to escape and/or find and put on their parachutes due to not having space to wear them during normal operation) the option of bailing out saved a large amount of people.

[–] cynar 2 points 10 months ago

Most WWII planes were brought down with gunfire, or other passive projectiles. These tended to do small amounts of damage, that added up. E.g. A plane with 2 damaged engines on 1 side, and a cut fuel line on the other, can still glide for quite a while.

Modern missiles are designed to do maximum damage over a large area. A missile hit will generally render an aircraft unflyable. The aircraft will be in an extreme tumble, if not coming apart completely.

In short, a modern plane being shot down won't give the crew a few minutes and a stable platform to bail out from. It will be a tumbling whirl of wreckage, rapidly approaching the ground.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i thought those planes were purposefully kept far out of reach for most weapons as they don't need to be that close for their operations. those crews prolly arent expecting to being fired on

[–] Kyrgizion 14 points 10 months ago

Bet the crews of the two or three awacs they have left are a lot more paranoid these days, whether they're in "safe" airspace or not.

[–] Zippy 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

AWACS had parachute and some chut you could slide out at one time. Don't quote me on that entirely. They simply were not worth it. First most accidents happen and have happened on takeoff and landing. No good in that situation. In a war environment, getting hit by a missile, pretty much the only weapon that will take down an AWAC or similar. Missiles likely won't give crew time to escape. Plane will be doing some kind of tumble. Then you got training. It not simply train once and all good but every year. Sometimes it is better to use that money and time to provide better alternate training that will be more effective. Say for more escort aircraft or better alternate safety systems within the aircraft. You also have the space it takes up resulting in less functionality of your aircraft.

In a large scale world war III scenario, AWACs and similar would be a dangerous plane to crew. Shot down rapidly. In our current warfare situation, they are one of the safer planes to be in. Unless you are Russian and incompetent.

[–] Noodle07 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Being Russian and incompetent tend to be dangerous nowadays

[–] littlebluespark 0 points 10 months ago

So, redundant?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In a war environment, getting hit by a missile, pretty much the only weapon that will take down an AWAC or similar. Missiles likely won’t give crew time to escape. Plane will be doing some kind of tumble.

But is that an instant death, or is that like 1-2 minutes tumbling in a burning inferno before everything goes black.

[–] littlebluespark 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is there a functional difference?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A big one when you"re in that plane. In the first case you don't know what happened. In the other you're strapped to a chair, get G load, breathe smoke and know you'll die. It's the case where at least trying to reach an escape hatch gives you something to do during you'r last minutes of life

[–] littlebluespark 4 points 10 months ago

Neither case would benefit from a parachute.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Sometimes it is better to use that money and time to ~~provide better alternate training that will be more effective~~ buy a weeery big yacht, comrade.

[–] Maalus 15 points 10 months ago

Those two AWACS were the first in the world to be ever shot down. It usually is a suicide mission to even try. They are deep in enemy territory, covered by friendly SAM and fighters. The only place for a fuckup would be liftoffs and landings.

[–] byrona 14 points 10 months ago

I can't speak to a Russian plane but I can speak to it from the US side. Wearing a parachute and survival gear makes it nearly impossible to do your job, you can barely walk around in it. Also If training Russians is anything like the US aircrew's training, you really only practice using the gear on the ground and once every couple years. Going into a combat zone you don't expect to have to use it and it's essentially just sitting there in a closet. And not only do you have to have the presence of mind to put it on, but you have to strap on your crew mates gear as well. Then find the usable door. Then jump out of a plane which you've certainly never done before. Unless you're in a slow controlled descent it's basically impossible to do