|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Pentagon Heavy Airlift Chopper Designs|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164439,00.html
it will probly cost to much like the F22 raptor and will be in to small numbers to be usefule |
||
|
|
New Member |
The C-130 and CH-47 are olt technology, but they wook well. I hope they don't scrap good machines that still do a great job. The Chinook is still about the fastest helicopter out there and can haul a hell of a load. Maybe not as sexy as some new designs, but a good design anyway!
|
|||
|
Member |
Either way,..... I don't know. I really need to read the article.
Question though. Does anyone think that the army/military is trying too hard to look "futuristic"? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
If McCain has anything to do with it, this heavy lift airframe will be built in China or possibly Iran.
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Simple laws of physics will not allow for an airframe to perform the combined tasks people are looking for. Increase payload, you increase the size of the aircraft plus larger engines are needed (unless they figure out a way to downsize an engine and increase power at the same time, higly unlikely).
The V-22, while a technological breakthrough still has many limitations and cannot perform all of the original tasks planned for it...long distance, high altitude transportation of troops being one of them. I think we should be looking at deployments from the aspect of a spoked wheel. Establishing a central hub that larger transports can land in (either by being allowed by an ally to use a base, or by taking a base sufficient to our needs, reaching out with the spokes with vehicles like the V-22, maybe a new modified CH-53/CH-47 to cover the near future (much like we do now). I think the possibility of building something like a STOL with super lifting capacity isn't in the cards from just a technical aspect. The idea of a CH-47 ala V-22 is going to be a tall order to fill. And the cost will be absurd for each aircraft. Frankly, I would rather have 100 47's at my disposal than say 25 of some new ultra expensive vehicle...the more technology, the more difficult to keep them in the air. I think the technology bug that is rampant at DOD and within the military is stretching here and looking to spend money in areas that could be better well spent in more critical areas...like replacing the M-16 as an easy beginning. See what modifications can be made to the 53 and 47 that are practical and reasonable. We have lots of technology but it still all comes down to the grunt on the ground getting the job done. S/F Gordon |
|||
|
|
Member |
You should heed your own advice and read the article. How did you come up with such a question of the "army/military trying to look too futuristic?" Just because we have the technology to bring our military up to date doesn't mean we're attempting to make it look futuristic. The only futuristic nonsense I see is that picture you have on your bio. And your how old? |
|||
|
|
Member |
And you were an officer? To make such a comment is not only ludicrous but highly dubious. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Always a shooting match in the place. Good grief!!!! It was just a question that I thought about from the picture in the article, and other articles I have read in regard to the Future Combat Systems, and robotic systems. Just a question/observation. I'm not trying to down play our technology. Maybe you need to lighten up. Don't worry about the silly picture in my bio, it not there to please you, and my age has nothing to do with it. It's pretty evident, I'm not as old as you, Big Vet. |
|||
|
New Member |
Talking about aircraft that can land in bad conditions, why don't we build an aircraft that has a hovercraft like base, divert some of the engines power into producing a ground cusion effect that way the undercarriage requirements would probably be minimal if required at all. Look at some of the more radical designs, like the hover boat that was the ferry to the Isle of Wight off the south English coast, it looked like a fast ferry boat but had a hover cusion inside a vacant hull space.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I was just rattling your cage. I meant nothing by it. Your comment said you need to read the article and I felt you should. I hope there's no problem? |
|||
|
|
Member |
No,
I probably just jumped the gun a little. Alls OK. |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
The article threw out a "red herring", the U.S.A.F. doesn't operate from Navy carriers.
The "heavy lift" for carriers is performed by underway replenishment at sea from ships and by CH-46's flying palletized loads from the ships while they are along side the carrier transferring other items, such as P.O.L. and ordnance. Heavy lift for the Army and Marine Corps in "forward combat areas" is usually done by helos. We, unfortunately have a lack of true heavy lift, as compared to the Russians in the past. To not plan for the future and fill out the "wish list", is criminal. To not plan for a new heavy lift capability in the helo department, is to surrender the battlefield to the enemy... Politics will kill us for sure, if the politicians are allowed to make the final choices. They, the politicians control the purse strings but not the tech. Let's hope that's the way that it remains... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
If you take your life at once aside Then remove yourself from the cast You will find the ship of fools steams on- regardless...... Leaving you free to sail on past. -"Shaneo" 1998 West Australia |
Although not "heavy lift", Pumas are doing alot of the lifting now.. |
|||
|
Member |
This seems to be a never ending battle. The equipment needed to support and protect the troops keeps getting bigger and heavier so the equipment to get them to the front must continue to grow. This in turn requires longer runways and more support at advanced bases with more troops to provide security. We have got to find a way to provide MRAP protection at Humvee weight, which is where the research should be focused. Composite armor on today’s tanks is lighter and tougher than the thickest steel armor of the 60's. Perhaps that is a starting point.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The need for a helicopter to carry heavy loads is a good idea. Carry them to where? Into a battle zone or just for re-supply? Thats why Paratroopers will always be needed. You seize an airfield, the Humvees can be dropped by air. Stryker vehicles by LAPES.Or hitting a beach and moving inland? How about if you need an air assault brigade on the ground fighting before 36 hours? I think the best investment would be heavy lift cargo planes. Getting those forces to the fight quick is becoming a lot more important these days. In the last part of the article it mentions using converted container ships as a platform. I can't see a BCT at sea for 6 mos or more, unless they pre-position equipment near problem areas. An Army "ready brigade" at sea? I don't know...
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
There is no "one size fits all" solution to this logistical problem. Anything that can haul trans-oceanic will not work well for combat logistical support. And any runway used not only needs length but the capacity to handle the weight. Dirt with landing mat probably can't handle a C-5 or equivalent. In addition there is NO heavy lifter that deals with dirt, dust, flying debris very well. It gives new (or old) meaning to the term "dust-off".
|
|||
|
|
Super Member |
When did the U.S.N. start using Puma's? Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
If you take your life at once aside Then remove yourself from the cast You will find the ship of fools steams on- regardless...... Leaving you free to sail on past. -"Shaneo" 1998 West Australia |
-Sorry I did'nt see USN, but was refering to vert-reps involving MSC ships w/USN, NATO & Coaltion Navies, often the helocopters will be Pumas along with the Naval version of the Blackhawk ( whos name escapes me right now)> Seahawk. Regards |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Seahawk... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Pentagon Heavy Airlift Chopper Designs
