Dr. Zilbergeld, Good luck in getting a response from Mr. Cole on this disscussion board. However I was able to dig up some info for you. The M1's high weight (57-63 metric tons) limits the number of bridges it may cross and restricts its airportability to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy or C-17 Globemaster III (which can carry only one tank each). The average fly away price of a C-17 is $173 million (1996 prices). After the Afghan war the Air Force decided to purchase more C-17s than they originally planned (pushing the total to 222 or even more). I'm not aware of a plan to have the capacity to airlift an entire armored division anywhere in the world. Unfortunately the old Air Force vs. Army rivalries come into play, and the Air Force would much rather spend money on fighters than on Air Transport which the Army would mostly benefit from.

Robert996 ablely answered your questions on the cost and capacity of the C-130 and C-17 aircraft. I'll add to his response with the following - *Can you tell me if there are any plans to have the capacity to airlift an armored brigade ( which I believe has about 54 tanks) anywhere in the world ? We can currently do this with the 70-some C-5 GALAXY transports currently in the USAF fleet. BTW, there are 54 M1s in an Armored Battalion, while an Armored Brigade usually has two Armored Battalions and a Mechanized Infantry Battalion. *Are plans to have the capacity to airlift an entire armored division anywhere in the world ( which I beleive would amount to about 300 tanks)? An armored division would currently go by sea transport, which is why General Shinseki pushed the Interum Brigade Combat Team (ICBT) into existance, with it's eight-wheeled Light Armored Vehicle (LAV-III). More ICBTs can be moved by air than the corresponding number of Armored Brigades, which is great unless you're facing a threat that could beat the pants off an IBCT. A more-usful idea is the Hybrid Airship/Plane idea, of which there are several different drafts kicking around. Check out one of them at http://www.sfu.ca/~howardc/delta/overview/overview.htm Adam Geibel

Extra-large body transports could carry two or more tanks/APCs if the rest of the cargo deck was filled with helium and the vehicles were of lighter design (using electric twin layer composite armour to obtain the same level of protection). The need for air transport of an armoured unit as large as a briagade in one flight is yet to be proved. No airport could cope with 100+ air transports landing at once. The vehicles would have to be dropped out of the planes in mid-air. Helium pockets would lighten and cushion the vehicles as they drop to the ground on parachutes. It is unlikely that any crew would want to drop with them. Maybe a second wave of paradropping crews would work? Then the difficult job of keeping them all supplied with spares, fuel and ammo from the air would begin. First airborne armored division? Not likely, but possible with deep pockets. An armoured force much smaller with that level of suprise and flexability would be plenty for most tasks.

Taken from an ealier post of mine in the C-130 alternatives section: Aircaraft Cost Payload Range C130j $81m 16000kg 4500nm A400M $104m 37000kg 4900nm C-17 $215 77000kg 5200nm This s obviously not the full pciture, as those are mostly ferry ranges. Clearly the C-17 is the 'daddy'. For payload range is as follows C130 16000kg (max payload) 2049nm 11250kg 2174nm A400m 37000kg (max) 1700nm 20000kg 3550nm 30000kg 2450nm C-17 72000kg 2400nm

Dr. George Zilbergeld I think Your question can be answered more profitably by ignoring it, as the transportation of tanks is just one issue. Generally You can divide forces into four categories: Heavy or armoured with heavy tanks, infantry combat vehicles and heavy artillery. You might lift a tank at the time with a C-5 or C-17, but that is the smallest issue: Can you keep them supplied: A tank without gas or grenades is just a worthless lump of metal. Tanks and heavy artillery uses a LOT of heavy stuff only about 1/3 of the troops in an armoured division are actually used for killing the enemy - the rest are keeping the combat troops supplied, fed, in repair, in health, in communication and so on. Heavy forces are best deployed by sea, as sea transport is effective in moving heavy stuff. The advantage is that Heavy forces can move tactically (when people are shooting at them, but they tend to run away from their supplies) so this tactical mobility compensates for lack of operational (strategic in some quarters, but correctly operational) mobility. Medium or mechanised forces uses medium tanks (which the USA has none of), armoured personel carriers (battle taxies) and medium self propelled artillery. These forces generally have the mobility to avoid heavy forces (can use more bridges and so on) and are not totally lost if they run into heavies - and they are easier to supply and keep going. The US could bring off the GulfII war, but no other have the supply forces to handle that task. In my opinion a proper MEDIUM force would have answered the task at least as well - and a lot cheaper. These forces can be transported by rail or road. Light forces have no tactical mobility. They have to get to the spot before the bad guys, dig in, and fight from prepared positions, and when the heavies eventually arrive, they will let the heavies through and secure the supply-lines for the heavier. These forces have high Opereational mobility to compensate for their lack of tactical mobility. They can be airlifted and supplied by C-130 and other military transports. Airborne with helicopters (82 is reconned as light here) have a short range selfdeployablity with some protection. The US used helicopter in Iraq as medium forces, which in my opinion was an abuse of assets, but when You don't have the right tools, you make do with what you got. In conclusion: I think You with Your question are on the wrong track: In stead of trying to make pigs fly, get other types of farm animals, poultry for instance!!

Hey Folks, Thomas you left out armored cars like the Humvee. The tactics of Ex-Soviet trained and equipt armies is to resort to special ops and insurgencies if their primary force fails to win. The Armored Humvee could fight off most of these forces with plenty of loiter time and a small foot print. They are both Air Assault and Airborne capable. One of my LCBA units could be deployed in 48hours and backed up with the 10th ID or 82nd Airborne in a week. My LCBA is meant to give maximum utility for ARNG units for state missions as well as provide rapid reinforcements to South Korea!!! Sincerely, Keith

No heavy forces are not airlifted - there was an idea to lift a Small COMPANY (8 Bradley , 4 Abrams , don't know about any support, M88 Hercules ~ as heavy as M1) From the 3rd Mech to support the 82nd. Adam was right in that this was the idea behind the IBCT. Not a light force but a force light enough to airlift, we can spend days argueing about the wisdom of the Stryker. These units were not designed for heavy force on force (them against heavy forces - tanks), but were designed with missions such as Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo in mind. One ? of them has been deployed to Iraq (Following the invasion - little threat of heavy forces) to help in the "peace" phase of Iraqi Freedom.

Dr. Zilbergeld, A useful discussion of medium force air and sea deployment options can be found here, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1606/MR1606.pdf Note, this document deals with movement of Stryker Brigades, not heavy brigades.

Here's another interesting Rand article concerning air deployment of U.S. forces. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1755/MR1755.pdf

As I recall, during one of the Arab/Israle Wars (Probably the 6 day war) we airlifted tanks in for quick support. That was before the C-5B and before the wing replacement program on C-5As. Each C-5 carried two tanks and equipment.