Home » News » Money Money Money » So, The Air Force Wants A C-130 Replacement By 2024

So, The Air Force Wants A C-130 Replacement By 2024

by John Reed on October 25, 2010

A Quad Tiltrotor JFTL Design Proposed By Bell Boeing A Few Years Ago

Props to Steve Trimble over at Flight Global for again noticing a new development on the air warfare side of things that might have otherwise slipped through the cracks; the U.S. Air Force is kicking off its effort to ID a potential replacement for the seemingly ageless C-130.  He posted the skinny on his blog, The Dew Line, last Friday.

The launch of an all-new airlifter development for the US Air Force could start in 2014. The new aircraft could become operational 10 years later. The aircraft would replace the 450-aircraft C-130 fleet, but the USAF may buy no more than 250. Even after at least five years of discussion, the USAF still does not know whether it wants a fixed-wing, tiltrotor, rotorcraft or airship.

These are possible implications inside a capabilities request for informationdocument posted earlier today by the USAF’s Aeronautical Systems Center about the Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program .

Trimble goes on to say that the the CRFI doesn’t mean too much since the Air Force won’t have its JFTL requirements laid out for some time. Still, it shows the Air Force has a basic idea of what it wants the Herk-replacement to do.

According to the CRFI, the next C-130 may have to carry up to 190% more payload and assume a new mission — mounted vertical maneuver. Taking on the MVM mission means dropping off medium-weight armored vehicles — think Bradleys, not Abrams — in places the enemy does not expect. Long, concrete runways? Not any more. Fifteen hundred feet of level, hard-packed surface? That might work. Perhaps better: a clearing big enough to land a really big tiltrotor or helicopter. 

He goes on to note that there are already plenty of ideas being thrown around by industry for this project ranging from gigantic tiltrotors to a “fat C-130″ designed by Lockheed Martin, a super-fuel efficient C-17 from Boeing and even EADS’ A400M.

So, the Air Force ideally wants an aircraft that’s considerably more capable than the C-130 to haul all that extra gear and land in tight spaces while keeping the fleet size roughly half that of the C-130 inventory. Can you say expensive?

In these fiscally tight times, one has to wonder if the Air Force can convince the powers that be that it needs a new tactical airlifter when it’s already buying new C-130Js and C-27Js for tactical airlift and 50 CV-22 Ospreys for special operations use? 

Oh, and don’t forget, the Pentagon just gave Boeing the green light to begin work on the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program to eventually upgrade hundreds of aging Herks for millions of dollars apiece.

Maybe we’ll be out of our dire financial straights well before 2014. Maybe those billions in overhead dollars the Pentagon is looking to save really will allow the air service to recap its tactical airlifters. Maybe not…

Click here to check out Trimble’s full post.

– John

Share |

{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }

Mike October 25, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Another gigantic American program destined to fail. You'll pour billions into this and end up with a hanful of barely usable aircraft, see V-22, F-22, B-2, F-35 (its iinevitable), X-30 and i'm sure there's plenty more as examples,.
Sad to see you guys can't even build aircraft anymore.

Reply

Jeff Fraser October 25, 2010 at 11:26 pm

"Affordable" aircraft.

We can sure as hell build 'em. But only four of 'em.

Reply

Jimmy C October 26, 2010 at 2:05 am

Mike,

AND you know this how…from sitting on your hinnie parts in your Lazy Boy Chair? I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about

Reply

Mike October 26, 2010 at 5:15 am

Well if histories anything to go by… I could be proved wrong of course, but its very very doubtful.

Reply

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 10:35 am

Just so Mike Knows The U.S. is the worlds leader in military aircraft sales, by far.
And the F-22 is the worlds best Fighter. Just ask the India, They brought thier
SU-30MKI's to red flagg and where taught a lesson.

Reply

STemplar October 26, 2010 at 4:19 am

And what great world power might you hail from?

Reply

Tad October 25, 2010 at 7:40 pm

The C130 seems like a pretty decent plane that gets the job done reliably, why can't we just build more of those with some modern upgrades?

I tend to agree with Mike's generalization that America has lost the ability to build aircraft for a reasonable price. I'd say this statement applies to ships and ground vehicles, too.

Reply

Howe October 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm

I agree completely with Tad.

I assume Mike was referring to prices, which have gotten absurd. But you can't say America cant even build aircraft anymore…because we do have the most advanced planes in the world, in are arsenal. Its just nowadays the military wants everything to have the "gold package".

Reply

Mike October 26, 2010 at 5:16 am

Well the F-35 sure looks like its going to come up short of the competition (T-50 and Chinese 5th gen)

Reply

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

Mike, I think you miss the point here. That would not be a good comparison, in my opinoin. That would be like comparing a Bradley With a T-90 tank. The better comparison would be the F-22 vs T-50 and Chinese 5th gen. By the end of 2010 we will have 187 F-22's. T-50 is still a prototype dose not have the Saturn engines yet or
avionics. It's just a shell right now. Even The new SU-35 is just starting to come off of the factory line, with only 45 on order with the Russian Airforce. The 5th gen. Chinese
is further behind & they cant even copy the the SU-27 very well. The F-35, again in my opinion, should be compared to the MIG-35/29 or Chinese Q-5 and JH-7A. The SU-34
might make the comparison but more likley on par with F-15E

Reply

Stephen Russell October 25, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Beef up C130 airframe, add newer wings, improved engines, or make one a 2 engine model?
Or al Jet mode model
or for VTOL, Ducted Main Fans for Lift with C130 airframe for Gunship use.
Improve cockpit & nose viewplates fwd.
Rethink airframe for Today on CG & Save Billions.
Host a Design Competition with OFF Shelf equip.
Rename
C131 HERCULES 2.
Yes Hercules 2.
Or C130N,0,P models.
Museumize the A,B models from early debut years.

Reply

C13 October 26, 2010 at 7:31 am

A and B models have been gone for years. There already was a C-131. The 2 engine offshoot is the C-27J. Jet engines were tried, they didn't work well for the airframe. The C-130 is a great airframe as is. Only avionics upgrades are needed. If VTOL capability is required it will have to be from an entirely new airframe. That of course means money.

Reply

john October 26, 2010 at 1:10 pm

The main problem with the C-130 is that it's cargo compartment is now too small to carry military loads, it can't carry Bradley's because they are physically too big to carry as well as too heavy.
Don't forget it was designed at the time of the Korean War to carry the sort of vehicles and loads at the time.
The best thing the US Government could do is to buy the A400 and build it in the US. Don't forget that EADS has a manufacturing plant in the US building Lakota Heliocopters, so they could expand the production plant to build the A400M. Also EADS Airbus is already trying to persuade the USAF to buy the A400M as a replacement for the C-130.

Reply

William Peterson October 25, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Yes, we're building a lot of C-130Js…
Because Congress keeps funding the program, not because the Air Force wants it!
Something Big, Expensive, and Hideously Impractical is more the USAFs style, anyways…

Reply

chaos0xomega October 26, 2010 at 12:08 am

While I think it sounds like a cool concept… it also sounds impractical and expensive. The Air Force is already stretched thin when it comes to planes, and they want to stretch that out even more? I get that the fleet could in theory move more than the current fleet of C-130s, but as we have seen from the past few attempts at bringing new aircraft into the inventory, we never end up with nearly as many aircraft as we intended to, and those aircraft aren't all needed in one place either. Consolidating like that will make it harder to conduct operations in more than one or two areas simultaneously.

Reply

BadKarma226 October 26, 2010 at 2:45 am

currently the AF has enough heavy lift aircraft to transport a full battalion anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. The "tactical" side of things, meaning C-130s for STOL, we're a little tight. Fighter wise……… well, lets just say our fighter jockies outnumber our fighters 6 to 1…

Reply

Mike October 26, 2010 at 5:18 am

But the USAF always has to contract out AN-124's to get stuff moved, thats not to clever is it.

Reply

C130LM October 26, 2010 at 7:34 am

That's because the Air Farce in inflexible and nonsensical in its rules for getting and airlift moved, unless it's a tactical commitment.

Reply

sw614 October 26, 2010 at 10:21 am

So, just business, USAF airlift kinda busy lately. Besides the Russians used to contract out to the USAF to move stuff for their scientific community in the 70s and early 80s.

COme to think of it, who fills most of Europe's tactical airlift needs?

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 12:19 am

So as the army gets itself into new places, we need /less/ airlift? Soon we'll be a light infantry/tankette army that looks exactly like pre-WW2 Poland. We'll put up a good fight, but we won't /win/.

A new VTOL-lifter that can move Bradleys is still limited by the fact that they will probably be moving /one at a time/. And if you reduce procurements, you're bringing even less vehicles per lift, and it's coming out of your resupply and theater reserves.

We may need to design lighter vehicles that can be mass transported if we want to play the airmobile armor game.

Reply

C130LM October 26, 2010 at 7:38 am

For the air mobility game what is needed is something like the sikorsky sky crane. A large helicopter fitted to lift and move armor realatively short diatances into combat, say…150-200 miles from forward operating bases to the battlefield du jour.

Reply

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 11:19 am

I miss that heli. Still see it on some logging show

Reply

Brian October 26, 2010 at 12:28 am

For some reason the thought of what a VTOL/SVTOL could do for an aircraft carrier is interesting. Giving carriers a medium armor assault option with this heavy lift capability would open up a huge new tactical advantage to carrier groups. (if they were upgraded to use them, a tall order)

Reply

Jacob October 26, 2010 at 4:15 am

Yeah but is it really that valuable of a capability? We can already crush the likes of Iran or North Korea in a frontal ground assault, so at this point I'm putting this in the "luxury" category.

Reply

C130LM October 26, 2010 at 7:41 am

We have a similar capability with our LHA's already. minus the airlifting armor part.

Reply

Brian October 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm

I would think the threat of an armoured assualt that can flank and directly assault the rear would be a huge deterrent. Based on a carrier or a maybe a modified super tanker, we could threaten a large number of aggressors with a relatively small force.

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Then it means any coastal power is better served investing in stealthy cruise missiles than ATGM's.

Airlifting armor would probably be better than the mythical EFV capability. At least an aircraft can go faster than the ~40 kt of an EFV.

It would probably be cost prohibitive to outfit a CVN to carry tanks with only one way to get them off, and the present gator ships don't carry that many tanks to begin with (le sigh…). Cargo ships sounds intriguing, but would require a Skycrane-esque vehicle to carry tanks one by one to a landing zone (assuming the military never gets over its obsession with ultra-heavy vehicles that can only be moved one at a time).

Reply

Brian October 26, 2010 at 6:31 pm

I was thinking about modifying the super oil tankers. I think they are big enough to hold a few tanks with a flight deck of VTOL c130′s. At the range these craft will operate I would imagine land based cruise missiles would be ineffective.

Medium armor with active defenses is clearly the future of combat, but if you look at the truely big game changer, is that this concept would allow us to base and support in locations we would never have been able to before as well as setup in faster times. Logistics, logistics, logistics.

FormerDirtDart October 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm

I really doubt the Navy would be happy at the thought armored vehicles driving around their flight decks. Plus, have you seen how much deck space was taken up by just a C-130? What size force could be launched from a single carrier in one lift, maybe a platoon? Seems like a vastly impractical use of resources for what would not even provide a minimal tactical advantage.

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Perhaps a VTOL transport is aerially refuelled, flies in from elsewhere and shuttles your tanks from ship X to shore Y. Embarking it aboard the vessel would definitely put a cramp on operations if it was big enough to move Bradleys.

Reply

FormerDirtDart October 26, 2010 at 4:06 pm

If you're aerial refueling, why would you have to pick up some armored vehicles off of a carriers deck?

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 6:17 pm

It might be easier to push a carrier with vehicles close to an objective, then fly an empty transport to it and do the relays than it is to fly from somewhere farther away with repeated relays over long range.

Brian October 26, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Because VTOL is more about where you can land than where you can take off from. The added carrier benefits are just another interesting reason.

@Earlydawn October 26, 2010 at 1:34 am

We're certainly in a year where need beats pie-in-the-sky dream programs. The ability to vertically airlift medium armored vehicles would be nice, but do we really need it? This aircraft would be a nice capability, but it also mitigates all of the things that make the C-130 great.

Reply

John October 26, 2010 at 2:35 am

Speaking of not being able to produce aircraft, the A400M might be in production by 2024 ;)

Reply

Mike October 26, 2010 at 5:23 am

It's already being produced and was mighty impressive to watch fly. Not cheap I agree but it will be a good if not very good aircraft. America can't even build tankers these days either it seems and is set to lose out to a european tanker for the competition to equip the USAF. How extremely embarrassing.

Reply

Greg October 26, 2010 at 8:50 am

You europeans crack me up. Write in your on forums then. Why sweat our nuts if we make all junk. Please all of the equipement mentioned is much better then anything Europe has to offer.

You talk about the b-2, but when was the last time there was a european bomber much less a stealth bomber? Don't count Russia please.
You talk about our aircraft being unaffordable, but the original countries are balking at the a400 price.
The eurorifghter is ubber expensive, I mean its not much less then a raptor with about half of the capabilities?

You talk about the f-35, but seriously what is europe producing comparable?

You talk about the v-22, but last time I looked people stopped ordering the nh-90. Its junk, can't carry wounded. Can't support fully loaded combat troops. Austrailia bought a few and now are opting back for the s-60.

And the tanker competition is not over.

Europeans like to sit real high on their hoarse, but they forgot who saved their arses(British and French) and who got there arse kicked.

We should let Europe fend for itself since it is so "advanced"

Reply

Mike October 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

You're creating a strawman argument to divert away from the extreme likelyhood that America will yet again bungle up another military project. If this were a topic about Europe then you'd have a point but it is not.
. I fully accept alot of what Europe makes is sub-par and we have serious problems here but again that doesn't detract from the fact America will screw this up, I'm guessing 15- 20 billion will be thrown at this thing and you'll end up with a unit cost per aircraft of 400 – 500 mil or possibly more if you're idiotic political system screws it up like with the F-22 and B-2 (and what is likely to happen to the F-35) and caps production at a quater of the units that were planned .
Its no good crying but ..but Europe.

Reply

STemplar October 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Don't feed the troll folks.

john October 26, 2010 at 1:34 pm

Hmm, let me see a Hyper expensive white elephant called the F-22, which Lockheed are not allowed to sell or the extremely effective multi-role Typhoon which is in service with seven countries and maybe bought by India, Japan, Oman, Turkey as well as host of other countries once the badly flawed and also hyper expensive F-35 programme is cancelled by the incoming congress.
The US Defence Department over the last twenty years have wasted a lot of money only high expensive programmes like the F-35, the F-22, the Zumwalt class Destroyers and don't forget the FCS and the LCS. It's about time that they showed some common sense and had a look at what is on the market first before committing any money to develop another hyper expensive lemon.

Reply

Greg October 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm

How do you figure the eurofighter is effective. We need to stop giving Europe welfare and our technology. Let them fend for them selves.

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Wow, the extremely effective Typhoon was cancelled by Greece in favor of the
F-16. John you also listed India, & Japan both countries have not decided yet,
but here is a quote.

On 17 October 2007, Japanese Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba confirmed that Japan may buy the Typhoon. Although the F-22 Raptor was in his words "exceptional", it was not "absolutely necessary for Japan", and the Typhoon was the best alternative.

John, dont get me wrong. I love the Typhoon, but it is no match for the F-22.
I'll take my white elephant vs. your extremely effective multi-role Typhoon in a dog fight.

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Mike, again i think your wrong on all points. as of July 2010 3 A400M where made and these our test aircrft not production aircraft. America ( Boeing ) just delivered new tankers to Japan with Italy's on order. Hmmmm why would a Italy buy an American tanker. If i was a European i would be embarrased that a European country did not buy a Airbus. And you say the A400M is not cheap, Thats an understatement. Airbus had to go back an ask for hundreds of millions of Euros MORE to help pay for the development.

Reply

STemplar October 26, 2010 at 4:35 am

I get the basic idea of being able to set down IFVs where un-expected. Kind of like I get the idea of storming 2 BDEs onto a contested shoreline. Where both ideas come up short is precisely where I would want to do this. Just being able to doesn't cut it in these financial terms anymore. Now if some sort of super lifter VTOL aircraft could be made that had commercial spin off applications it might be possible, but as a stand alone military program way too expensive.

Reply

C130LM October 26, 2010 at 7:42 am

Too much fuel. Impossible with current propulsion technologies.

Reply

john October 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Actually, we Brits actually started developing a V/STOL Medium Transport Aircraft with a 15tonne lift capacity in the 1960's but was cancelled by the then Labour Government in 1965. It was powered by four RR Pegasus Engines. See this link for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_

Reply

Jimbo October 26, 2010 at 10:23 am

The C-130 is a basic airframe – wings, engines and a cargo hold. That's really all that's needed in a transport plane. Why make it more complicated?

Indeed the Skycrane choppers are good to dump IFVs somewhere unexpected but let's keep the simplicity, people!

Reply

Rodger Morris October 26, 2010 at 10:37 am

"You have to remember," Washington, DC is the Golden goose, to the DOD. All you have to do, is think you might need something, sometime, somehow, & somewhere, and Washington will lay out the money !!!~!!!!!

Reply

John Moore October 26, 2010 at 11:30 am

Maybe the Air force need to lease some of the A300M and see how they do. then go from there.

Reply

Belesari October 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm

LOL What ya'll dont know the replacement for the C130? The next model of course.

There is no reason to replace the c130. Its not going toe to toe with fighters. Its a big stupid dependable as hell dog of a aircraft.

There is no need to replace everything with tiltrotors and make EVERYTHING VTOL.

And this is coming from a guy who is a osprey supporter.

The airforces freaking obsession with technocrap is starting to annoy the piss out of me. They hate the A-10…but wont give it to the army to do CAS with (even when ordered by congress). Hate the AC-130. Hate anything that doesnt have massive jet engines, isnt stealthy, or doesnt make pilots feel sexy. I myself would rather fly a C-130 or varient or a A10 than a fighter.

Besides hogs have bigger guns :)

Reply

pedestrian October 26, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Other than VTOL capabilities, I believe the answer is blended wing body.

Reply

FormerDirtDart October 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Tactical airlift favors a high-wing configuration. It allows the floor of the cargo space to be closer to the ground, allowing easier on/off loading. And, it keeps the engines, and the wings themselves, clear of the crud & scrubs you might typically find in unimproved landing environments.

Reply

Deltaflot October 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Something not right with letting Boeing upgrade the electronics of a Lockheed product. :)

Reply

John October 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Would it be possible to mod a c-130 into a SVTOL? I'm not a structural engineer but maybe something they should look into. Hell, we got all the designs for the Herc, so see what it would take to convert it and go form there. If it costs too much or is completely unreasonable, see what you can re-use off of the c-130s. Maybe the cargo bay/fuselage/nose/tail section….who knows.

Reply

Belesari October 26, 2010 at 6:29 pm

The bad thing is the C130 is a vtol.

It even has rocket assited takeoff.

Reply

Belesari October 26, 2010 at 6:29 pm

OOps ment STOL

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 9:11 pm

JATO has been done before, but it probably is expensive for routine use and stresses the airframe. Navy planes are built more heavily to take the stresses of routine catapult launches, and maybe the C-130 doesn't have that kind of engineering in it.

Reply

Joe October 26, 2010 at 6:54 pm

Google: LTV XC-142 (1965 Tilt Wing Cargo aircraft)…maybe it's time has come????

Google: Mil V-12 (Russias Worlds Largest Helicopter..This is Massive, built in 1960's)

So, Have we've gone back to the 1960"s??? Groovey dude!

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 9:13 pm

It just means that in the '60s engineers were gutsy and innovative and tried a whole bunch of things that were ahead of their technical capability, and they did it without putting the nation's defense budget into peril (maybe because they knew the money was going to keep America free from the Soviets?)

Reply

seeker6079 October 26, 2010 at 8:47 pm

"The C-130 is a basic airframe – wings, engines and a cargo hold. That's really all that's needed in a transport plane. Why make it more complicated?"
Because that's where the graft is. And if you budgeted your armed forces for what they need for security instead of what they want for themselves and their own self-perpetuation then there might actually be some money left for schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and, lord, you can't permit that, could you?

Jeez, at what point do people say, "hey, ya know, I'd rather have an overpass that doesn't fall down than an Osprey or C130X-1-million taking people to yet another damnfool war on the other side of the effing planet?" Seriously! You can be pro-defence and be against your military sucking up ever-increasing amounts of GDP built on the rickety foundation of money borrowed from the Chinese.

Reply

Jimbo October 27, 2010 at 7:22 am

Once the overpass has fallen down?

Reply

William C. October 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm

But the military isn't sucking up ever-increasing amounts of the GDP. Historically it is at a low point. We should be spending at least 4% of GDP for defense purposes in my opinion. Use the money saved by not "nation-building" in 3rd world hellholes to get the new vehicles, guns, and aircraft we need.

If you can't handle infrastructure with the other trillions of dollars, something is wrong.

The C-130J is fine for today, but sometime before 2050 we should have a "next-gen" transport flying.

Reply

Benjamin October 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm

I think for now the only thing I would invest in an improved C-130 that cuts down on its RCS. This does not mean it needs to be a stealth aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 have a large amount of improvements that can be done to them before we should look at any new design aircraft. I think the only new design aircraft we should look at is a new bomber.

Reply

MattMusson October 28, 2010 at 10:55 am

Let Burt Rutan design it. Then actually build it with a tough Composite fuselage and off the shelf engines and electronics.

Or, design some solid gold POS that makes everyone rich and never gets built.

Reply

Shawn December 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Does anybody know how this will affect the Marine Corps? Will they try to replace the KC-130 Hercules for every branch with this new aircraft? The Marine Corps was the lead branch on the development of the MV-22 so how would they implement the new aircraft into the squadrons. How would this affect someone trying to get a federal contract job with a federal contract company? Would being a technician on a MV-22 Osprey suffice? Please reply.

Reply

heating equipment March 31, 2014 at 8:15 am

Really loads of terrific information!

Reply

social media marketing youtube August 4, 2014 at 3:03 pm

The process of implementing a social media campaign can be daunting.
Promote multiple affiliate programs in your website
but don’t promote every little thing the world has
to offer. The last thing to consider in regards to the idea of seo tools is that there is an algorithm that
is continually changing.

Reply

gym free clothing design software program August 18, 2014 at 10:00 pm

In the celebs over the red floor covering to the gals in the
powder room at a wedding event, it seems that folks have gone physique shaping crazy; it is worn out
for a particular outfit. The premise behind using
professional grade equipment is that the exercises performed will be more effective.
I always do pelvic floor exercises when I’m sat at my desk.

Reply

mesh bodycon dress big cartel August 18, 2014 at 11:35 pm

Still, Nh, where Bartlet supported mainly because Governor a week

or two words and phrases, among the solely a pair of advises (the second simply

being the nation’s neighbor Vermont) in which a gubernatorial term should be only 2

years. The classic man’s suit has barely changed

for over a hundred years. Hence, the final price of a product is automatically lower.

Reply

celebrity dress up games beyonce knowles August 19, 2014 at 12:02 pm

For girls with moderately sized body can accentuate their body shape with a dress that
has a good neckline. Baby Phat tees were launched in 1998 and quickly grew to become hot favorites of the celebrities.
, HCG Drops by knowing Dr Simeons HCG Diet and get advantages.

Reply

plus size long sleeve bodycon dress August 25, 2014 at 11:58 am

Women all over the country go out via the day so the
norm, they will increasingly work located in what
before certainly male dominated industries. Hence, when you want to find your right dress for
the wedding day always be open to research about it.
On the contrary side, old females may wish to imitate the styles of some middle aged stars.

Reply

praetorian October 26, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Sorry Stemp, but the guy is flat out wrong

Reply

blight October 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Supertankers may not be structurally suited towards easy modification to carry bulk cargo. They're designed around double-walled oil tanks, and gutting a oil tanker to remove the tanks and follow up with decking makes the modification cost prohibitive. A RO-RO ship or other large container vessel may be better suited.

I'm pondering if a Skycrane system would load vehicles faster and more efficiently, but you'd need to palletize to see real efficiencies in loading. VTOL C-130s landing to load/unload might be better after all…

Reply

john October 27, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Greg,

Let us see two Spanish Air Force Typhoons took on 8 USAF F-15C's and the score was Typhoons 7, F-15C's 0.
The Typhoon was designed by four European Countries working together and jointly developing the technology for themselves without getting any hand-downs from the US.
Also, don't forget that the Greece cancelled the Typhoon in order to pay for the Olympic games and is currently one of the countries in Europe which is an economic basket cases. Greece is broke, has been broke for so long, that it brings new meaning to the word broke.

Reply

William C. October 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Of course the American AMRAAM is the Typhoon's primary weapon system until Meteor comes online. And if those F-15Cs were upgraded with APG-63(V3) AESA radars, JHMCS with AIM-9X capability, and newer F100-PW-229 engines the outcome could have been the exact opposite.

I'm sure the Germans, British, and others involved in the Eurofighter program did learn a few things from operating different American aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II over the years.

Reply

praetorian October 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Yes John, but why is that significant. The Typhoons are brand new aircraft
going up againt the F-15C's that are 30 -35 years old. They are suppost to win that engagement. What makes the F-15 still viable is its long range radar. the F-15C wants to shoot at BVR, not to dogfight with a fighter
30 years its younger. Again, we should be comparing your Typhoon
with the Raptor. You are right about Greece, I agree.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: