The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Air Transportation Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: C-130 alternatives
david.davenport@mindspring.com    6/30/2002 11:05:34 AM
(a) Requiring comant vehciles to be C-130 tranpsotable is a good way of iscipling weight growth of the ground vehicles. In other words, the C-130''s aren''t too small, instead, the LAV III''s are getting too heavy;

(b) Favored future transport aircraft are the Boeing SuperFrog and the Bell quad tilitrotor concepts. The A400 is too plain vanilla!

(c) 42,000 LAV III''s will probably be transported via C-17''s, at least until some futre aircraft becomes available.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
1/18th    RE:C-130 alternatives   7/21/2002 9:53:16 AM
Recent comments in the Av press also talked about a"stretch" C-130 being designed. Maybe they'll be able to carry more than one LAV.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives   5/8/2003 1:51:11 AM
The "problem" of a Herc replacement has hounded the industry for the last 30 years to no avail. The fact of the matter is: There are clear technological plateau's in transport aircraft: The Dakota was around for many years (please don't write about South American "airlines") the same generation as the Ju 52/3m. The DC8/Boeing 707/Convair Coronado. The 747. And above alle the Hercules. A Technological plateau is a state of affairs where the improvements of new technology are so marginal, that they cannot justify the development cost. Which means the old model gets produced in even greater numbers with incremental improvements, which in turn makes it even harder to justify a new development. The target max cost keeps moving down and the performance demands keep moving up. civilian aircraft has less marked plateau's due to the fact, that military aircraft don't fly very much.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   5/30/2003 5:52:31 AM
Nope, won't work. The Stryker problem is a weight issue, and the C-130 carries 20 metric tons. Period. Lengthening is generally done by inserting a tubular plug in front and behind the wing giving more volume and LESS weightlifting capability, as the main structural elements: Wing, Wingbox undercarridge are the unchangeable parts. The Boeing 727 never appeared in a -300 version, because the wing was designed too small for that. It is actually easier to design vehicles to fit the C-130 weight and door limitations, than to design and build an aircraft around army vehicles. The European project being a case in point. It lifts a little more, but nothing that will materially change the types of load. This is why I keep pressing for light infantry: A C-130 can get the troops where they are supposed to be before the bad guys - it can supplement the supplies, that cannot be requisitioned or pre-positioned on the spot. The C-130 is one of the best military designs ever - but remember your earplugs before boarding.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   6/2/2003 4:03:42 AM
I know for a fact that the RAF operatives a stretch version of both the new and old Herc. Which I believe the USAAF also uses, increases the payload by 7,000ib I think
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   6/2/2003 7:15:42 AM
Ok they must have beefed up the undercarridge and wing - hadn't checked that. But it still doesn't change the basic proposition: The increase of lifting capacity of 15% does not make armour airliftable.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   6/12/2003 2:24:58 AM
The A-400M may be vanilla, however, juding by some DOD figures on the net, it has the saem unit cost as the C-130 ( $80m, however, this site states it as $40m (the C-17 is $325m)), whilst having a far greater lifting capability and greater range. If there is the BAe-American tie up, it may be possible for th eUSAF to purchase some, without being too politically dfficult? Vanilla is not a problem i teh military, if it does its job, that is ideal.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   6/12/2003 3:15:05 AM
There is a very great difficulty in getting reliable cost figures for defense equipment: 1 What does the prise cover: Spares, maintainence, modifications and so on. 2 There are often huge bribes in the price: A Blackhawk for Columbia will be double the price of a supplemental buy from USArmy. 3 The suppliers political interest in supplying. 4 Advantageous/disadvantageous time of purchase. 5 Exchange rate fluctuations. You'll allway have to be satisfied with a ball-park figure.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives 1/18 th   6/12/2003 3:33:42 AM
The most commonly quoted argument in favour of the A400M is that this aircraft could carry a 25-ton payload over a distance of 4,000 km. Thus it is argued that a fleet of 40 x FLA could carry a UK Brigade to the Gulf within 11.5 days, as opposed to the 28.5 days required to make a similar deployment with 40 x C-130s. The max payload for the C-130 is 20tons, 30 for the A-400M.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives - giblets   6/12/2003 9:14:46 AM
I've heard that too; but I'm not convinced. Wether U lift 20 or 25 tons is immateriel to the type of equipment lifted. The streach of the "Fat Albert" points to the fact, that the critical factor is volume - not weight. Anyway the real limitation of the Herc is the rear door opening - which can't be made bigger as it is - You would have a cargodoor larger than the fuselage - nice; but not a solution. Furthermore The Herc is a "square" transport aircraft: i.e. it can carry max load to max range (very nearly) the old russian Cub could carry as much; but not nearly as far. It could fly as far; but with little cargo. Maybe I'm ignorant; but I simply can't find any arguments for the A400M - especially if you can get a deal for a nice order of C-130.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives   6/12/2003 10:05:25 AM
A few figures for Cabin Volume, C-130: A-400M: C-17 L= 41' 74'4" 85'2" W= 10'3" 13'1" 12'4" H= 9' 12'8" 18' The Bradley would fit, as would the LAV III, (Size and weight!)and you can buy 4 for every C-17
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130 alternatives   6/13/2003 7:52:04 AM
Maybe until the rebuild, that adds more fat. And again a A-400M will only lift ONE at the time. Big vehicles use lots of petrol, lots of ammo and lots of spareparts, and not nescessarily at the same time. I'm afraid this develops into a Nimrod AEW debacle - spending lot of money and precious time - and ending up buying american anyhow.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives   6/14/2003 4:01:45 AM
With Respect, the C-17 can only just take two LAV III's , and if they get weight gain of just 2,000kg's then it is down to one, further with this being so close to its max weight, the range will be reduced dramatically, as was seen with carrying Abrams tanks. In any case, the A-400M is not designed with the C-17, but more the C-130, which to quote strategypage "The LAVIII barely - if at all - meets C-130 air transport requirements", and it is not in production, so is bound to get some weight gain. Of COurse this is all hearsay if the Europeans do not get their act together!
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:C-130 alternatives-A400M   6/14/2003 1:18:16 PM
Giblets you are correct about the Stryker being to heavy for the C-130J at 19 tons that is the MAX limit for the aircraft. The AF does not fly at the MAX unless it is an emergency signed off by a CINC commander. EU's RDF could be the justification for the production of the Airbus A400M and vis versa. It will be enteresting to see which country receives most of the production work, France or Germany
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:C-130 alternatives-A400M   6/15/2003 5:02:39 AM
I think you are spot on there! Germany will cut its order to two aircraft, but will still want its full share of production, France, will demand it is all done in France, and Britain will quirtly get on with it, and make the most profit, when they were integrating airbus the other year, the european partners were totally shocked/ horrified, when they realised the profit BAe were making on the wings!
 
Quote    Reply

u501    RE:C-130 alternatives   6/29/2003 4:49:38 PM
We would never do this, but the for purposes of discussion, would An-70 be an alternative?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy