Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: C-130 alternatives
[email protected]    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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   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
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics