+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 83

Thread: Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

  1. #46
    Distant Deeps or Skies Senior Contributor HistoricalDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 05
    Location
    North London, UK
    Posts
    2,292
    Country: United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rossiman View Post
    Woah, first off to lift 2 MBT'S doesn't necessarily mean a bigger plane. It means however a stronger engine and the right Aerodynamics.
    ...It means stronger engines, stronger landing gear, larger, stronger wings for more fuel and to cope with the increased MTOW... all of this adds weight, making it a more maintenance intensive aircraft with inferior flying abilities and a larger, slower target.

    Secondly, the C-17 is a great aircraft for what it does, but the amount of strain we are putting on that aircraft is bad in the long run. Yes, it is a verstile aircraft it can do many jobs. We need a heavy lifter though that's main objective is to lift HEAVY MBTS, HMMV'S, COUGARS, APCS and if we need to para drop troops into the battle it can do that to. With the right plane though, it will take off the stress that the C-17 is being pushed to.
    How will a fleet of jumbo airlifters ease that, once you factor in the relatively high R&D, as opposed to building more of the same proven design, the current C-17 with possible upgrades? Jumbo things have their own structural challenges which is not going to magick away stress. I'm not sure you understand that you can't just say "it will be able to do it" and voilà, it can do it. The C-17 is the right size; big enough for the heaviest common stuff, i.e. combat-ready MBTs, but not so big it loses its short take-off abilities and so on. No need for Tsar Cargo Plane just because it would be admittedly awesome.
    Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 12 Nov 07, at 21:15.
    HD Ready?

  2. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    Who said anything about building a whole new aircraft, the C-17 has already proven itself it does however need upgrades. We can argue all day about this but the strain on the C-17 is not good. It needs a more powerful engine with the capabilities that it has, such as short takeoffs, para trooping and what ever else its used for.

  3. #48
    Distant Deeps or Skies Senior Contributor HistoricalDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 05
    Location
    North London, UK
    Posts
    2,292
    Country: United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rossiman View Post
    Who said anything about building a whole new aircraft,
    Quote Originally Posted by Rossiman
    We need something that can airlift 200+ tons or 2 MBT's. Imagine how much greater are capability would be..... don't the Russian's have a heavy transport that can lift in excess of 250 tons.... we need something like that lol.
    Either the USAF buys An-124s, An-225s - obviously not an option - more C-5s, a very old and stressed design, or...

    Oh hang on, are you suggesting we upgrade the C-17 to lift 200+ tons? From its current capacity or ~75?

    Damn, I wish highsea and jgetti were around.
    HD Ready?

  4. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    The C-5's with a little work could be the perfect plane for the job. OK so we would alter the planes a "LITTLE" not that much =) LOL.

  5. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    What is so wrong with the C-5 look at the B-52 bomer it is old as hell. But with upgrades its gonna be in service for a lot longer. Why not do this to the C-5 or upgrade a few C-17s to be able to do these tasks.

  6. #51
    Distant Deeps or Skies Senior Contributor HistoricalDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 05
    Location
    North London, UK
    Posts
    2,292
    Country: United Kingdom
    You're still doubling its capacity. And you haven't really commented on exactly why these super-large airlifters are needed considering their disadvantages.
    HD Ready?

  7. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    Or, we could bring 50 C-5's that are upgraded to be larger, and then keep the C-17 fleet as is. The C-5s main goal would be to transport heavy loads in excess of 100 tons. The C-17 would be for Transporting Medium Tanks, APC'S, and if need be a MBT.

  8. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    A C-5 surrounded by F-22s would be a very hard plane to be shot down, the C-5 would be able to bring in A LOT MORE,flying less sorties than the C-17 but providing fast support for ground troops.

  9. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    And yes you are right sure it will cost more, but we will have a specific aircraft for (A specific task in mind) to transport HEAVY loads reliably.

  10. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    To upgrade 50 C-5s wouldn't cost that much, to maintain them is a diffrent story. But i am sure congress would find a way to deal with this.

  11. #56
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    1,854
    Country: United States
    First off, the C-5 is currently undergoing its most intensive upgrade program yet. New engines, new cockpit, internal modifications. Its happening.

    But these kinds of changes are made to extend the life and improve maintenance and "user-friendliness." But bumping its max cargo from about 135 tons to roughly 200 is not a modification. That would require a complete redesign of the airframe itself, not to mention wings and engines. So basically a new aircraft. That's not a priority, because its not necessary.

    Yes, we're burning up the C-17 pretty damn fast, and the C-130 obviously. But 200-ton hauler isnt necessarily the answer to that. There arent many situations where we'd NEED to fly 2 MBTs out to anywhere.

    The problem isnt the ability to move massive quantities of *stuff* around the world. We can do that just fine, using ships (the military doesnt quick-deploy heavy armored divisions and the like, so a massive airlift isnt really necessary). Something like a C-5 can only operate from certain locations anyway. So what if we can fly 2 tanks in from Germany? That plane cant deliver it where its actually NEEDED, it has to fly into Crackistan Airbase, where those 2 tanks are unloaded, then loaded onto 2 C-17s who can deliver it close to the lines. The real heavy-lifters dont interact with the ground troops hardly at all, unless its flying a bunch of them overseas (which doesnt really require such a huge aircraft). They dont directly resupply anybody except large air force bases.

  12. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    Did u see my thread on congress pushing for us to buy the C-130J, this would seem like a more logical way to deal with this situation.

  13. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    And I hate to argue with you about this, but i am afraid that it is indeed needed. The capacity to lift and bring heavy tanks, anywhere on the globe overnight. That is needed.

    Using ships to transport MBT'S takes days to weeks, if we need to have a battalion of M1A2 SEP Abrams, and we need it fast, heavy airlift is the only way to go. What if we need a whole armored division do you think that sea transport is the logical answer... NO

    We need the ability to Air transport heavy cargo like this in a moments notice.

  14. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Mar 07
    Location
    Peoria,Arizona
    Posts
    132
    Country: Italy
    So be it maybe we would have to redesign or even build a new aircraft for this job. But if that is what we have to do, then we have to do it.

  15. #60
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rossiman View Post
    Using ships to transport MBT'S takes days to weeks, if we need to have a battalion of M1A2 SEP Abrams, and we need it fast, heavy airlift is the only way to go. What if we need a whole armored division do you think that sea transport is the logical answer... NO
    It's been working out quite fine for us, actually.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Royal Navy ASW, MW,careers, etc
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04 Dec 06,, 20:12
  2. Annual Naval Review(Quite long)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19 Mar 06,, 19:39
  3. Who needs the USN?
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05 Jul 05,, 06:47
  4. USN 30-Year Fleet Structure Plan
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Mar 05,, 23:45
  5. Russian Navy
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17 Feb 05,, 04:55

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts