Quote:
kevin said:
Thanks guys.
Just some FYI's:
A comprehensive study was done to determine the C-130 replacement. It was decided to replace the C-130 with the C-130J. It looks like the original design, but was completely redesigned from the inside out. Better materials, Glass cockpit MFDs, etc. They saved thousands of pounds of weight by replacing cables with fiber optics (In fact, the cockpit is so light now, that the titanium armor cover is a standard option on all models, military and civilian. Otherwise there would be no way to trim the airplane.)
|
I think that the bottom line might also have something to do with that transports aren't sexy and no one really wants to invest in it.
Apart from the USMC pet project tilt-rotor that is...
The end result is that the end user (the medium brigades) will get squeezed in capability and the possibilities of their airmobile doctrine hampered.
What probably will happen is that when needed the carrier will be very much more expensive C-17 anyway...
Quote:
kevin said:The bottom line is that the C-130 is a proven design (some 50 countries use it) and has unsurpased rough-strip landing capability (IMO the A400 will need to prove it has the endurance to take repeated rough-strip landings.)
|
They are
really proven here in Sweden. I think we're still using A models.
Quote:
Source: "Airborne, A Guided Tour of an Airborne Task Force" Tom Clancy
|
Not that I'd say anything bad about Clancy, but are you comfortable using him as
source?
Quote:
Of course, Donald Rumsfeld put the C-130J program on hold, along with M1A2 SEP and a whole host of other legacy programs. I havn't been able to determine if they have reopenned the Medium Tactical Transport research program or what? Does anyone know?
|
haven't heard anything else either.
Quote:
The Bradley was looked at as an Interim solution but they determined it has too big a logistic tail, (tread spares and horrible gas mileage) and too heavy for what they wanted.
|
Perhaps they should have bought some CV90.
Seriously though MICV do use up loads of stuff, although you get actual combat power out of it. But if supply also is to be brought in by air (one of the doctrinal requirements) even the Stryker is in trouble if engaged in combat operations.
I'm still pretty sure that the Brad was to big for the Herk played its part.
Funny how the maker in an advertisement showed an artists depiction of Brad dropped by chute from the rear of a Herc during the '80s (a Defense Review Weekly from 1988, dont remember actual issue)...
Quote:
The USA's procurement process is at least partially broken!!
How dare you characterize the US like that
|