It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Screw-ups: The good and the bad of US Planes!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I agree the C-17 seems to have been over looked on this thread. I saw it fly for the first time last year! WOW amazing shortfeild landing. I think the C-130 still has a role to play in conflict as it is one of the most durable planes I've ever seen. With being a Can and having our 30 year old hercs I really see a need for them being replaced if Can forces hope to keep up and not have planes fall out the air like the Sea Kings. As for my openion on the F-117 its getting old and should be fazed out. the planes are becomeing easier to target etc and honestly should be replaced with more B-2s or following through with the idea for the F/B-22.




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Som people above stated that C-130 is great plane, but I disagree. It was great, but today it is seriously limiting the specifications of future armored platforms. Not only can it take "only" 20tons, but the cargo bay is also too narrow. USAF needs new cheap tactical transport with 30tons payload and wider cargo room.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I agree with you longbow that the usaf needs to be buying different cargo planes so as to not limit the armour being made or anything else but also there is a point were you have to draw the line or your making something diff like the C-5 galaxy. Also is a reason for the increased cost due to the tech that is in use on the C-17 for it short take off and landings? i honestly have very little idea as to why it would be so dang costly.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The Pentagon has changed it requirements on the FCS program. The vehicles no longer have to be C-130 transportable. The requirement is know C-17 portable. Much more realistic.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
USAF needs new cheap tactical transport with 30tons payload and wider cargo room.


Well this one wouldn't have been cheap but it would have been pretty wide!

(from FLIGHT International, 22 Aug 1981)




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by longbow
USAF needs new cheap tactical transport with 30tons payload and wider cargo room.


Well this one wouldn't have been cheap but it would have been pretty wide!

(from FLIGHT International, 22 Aug 1981)


It's too big, I mean just somethink like Superfrog able to carry Bradley, MLRS, 155mm self moving howitzers etc.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
HOLY!!! is that thing carrying 3 trucks across ie wide? im sorry but i was under the impression they had to do airport upgrade for the A380. the ones needed for the plane would be huge and expensive it would of ever made it past eh drawings!



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Yet I don't think I saw anything about the Boeing C-17 here, which has about the same short field capabilities as the C-130, and greater range and cargo capacity. For example, the C-130 can transport three Apache Longbows at once; the C-17 can transport six (with the new blade-fold kit or with blades off, and the FCR and Dero kit removed). the C-17 can also transport an M1A2 MBT, which the C-130 cannot.


Greetings,

I find this comment rather odd, I can personally sit here and ask "Can I have some of what your smoking!"

I have never in my life heard of the C-17 being able to carry 6?! Apache Gunships in one load, last I heard the max load for the C-5 was 3 Apache gunships.

The most I have EVER heard of the C-17 carrying was 2 Apaches and from all accounts that was a VERY tight squeeze, based off the RAF's standard proceedures. Just for the rest of the Board I will do a Simple Mathmatic diagram.

C-17 Cargo Hold



88 ft. × 18 ft. × 12 ft. 4 in.

26.8 m × 5.5 m × 3.8 m

Apache Gunship
Fuselage length 49 ft 1 in 15.47 m
Wingspan 17.15 ft 5.23 m


Now... as you can see from those numbers, 2 would be the max, its not the weight of the apache, its the bulk. If you can fit 6 Apaches in the C-17, I have a number of RAF friends that would KILL to meet you and explain how its done.

Interesting, based on your 30 years of experience.

- Phil

PS. Though I should add links
www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com...
www.military.cz...
www.absoluteastronomy.com...
www.sfu.ca...


[edit on 8-6-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
HA man i must of been reading over that too fast! I agree man Ive been at this computer all day, I need what he is smoking! the calculations as posted doesn't agree with 6 apaches! unless there is something we are both missing?

[edit on 8-6-2005 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
HA! I bet my LGA-144 could carry nine!

And if you can't fit them inside you could always do this! (Lockheed again!)



sorry for going off topic but I do love these pics.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
quote]you have to remember the Indians were handicapped in this excercise as well

we all know what the handicaps were and which side was restricted the most so I'm just going to lave it at that.
The Navy better develop the FB-22 Because they will be left without a long rage bomber or strike aircraft the F/A-18’s and F-35’s are too small to carry out those sort of missions. This is another Pentagon screw up IMO.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The F/A-18 E/F will suit the strike role nicely.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Maybe you haven't heard, but India showed that F-15s are passed their prime.


OMFG every time I see a misinformed member posting something like this it makes me want to scream. Learn the fats about that encounter!!!

I do agree we need more B-2’s and we need to replace the F-117 it can’t fight in A2A and its stealth is getting old. We also need more Raptors, and we should have just built more SuperTomcats F-14D’s instead or retiring them.


OMFG OMFG OMFG!


The USAF has even said F-15 would only stay our air superiority fighter till 2010 at the latest before it gets too old. Well, thats just 5 years away. So might as well have F/A-22 enter service this year like currently planned.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Oh and the USAF plans to retire 20 F-117s.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
GOOD get those planes out of the air. they are more accidents waiting to happen even though they have the proper methods to fly em now. i think they need a new strike bomber for the airforce but im happy for now with them actually buying F-22's and soon F-35s. in the future though they are going to be in need.


M6D

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
about the v-22, i guess you can if you want, not trust me here, but i heard from a reliable source that the 2 v-22's in question that crashed, were been piloted by marine pilots, who couldnt cope with the complicated flight control system, and in the end crashed, however, the pentagon or whatever isnt happy about admitting that the 'best of the best' milltary pilots arent up to the v-22



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
about the v-22, i guess you can if you want, not trust me here, but i heard from a reliable source that the 2 v-22's in question that crashed, were been piloted by marine pilots, who couldnt cope with the complicated flight control system, and in the end crashed, however, the pentagon or whatever isnt happy about admitting that the 'best of the best' milltary pilots arent up to the v-22


That is a load of crap.


jra

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
By the way Canada wins for biggest aviation screw up. ever heard of the Arrow haha. Sometimes it just makes me want to cry it hurts so much.


I completely agree with you. Damn Diefenbaker and his Conservative gov't. He cancelled one of the best aircraft of that time, so sad


Anyway, sorry for going off topic.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
lol i figured you'd agree with me jra about the arrow. every american in the avaition industry should thank diefinbakers pure dumb stupidity in cancelling the project. Also mention of the V-22 again. the "planes" that went down in the accidents with the marine sqn in it (not marine pilots) was due to 2 parts as i far as i know. one lead to the other actually. the pilot entered a desending turn in its vertical take off configuration lost lift to the aifoils on the one engine which casued it to spin into the ground. the main problem lied in that the pilot was flying past the test envelope and you run the risk when you do that. it was a sad accident though thats for sure.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The SR71 had a theoretically infinite lifetime. The outer shell was made out of titanium, and the stretching was caused by large amounts of heat, which also served to retemper the skin everytime it flew. They also weren't as expensive as Congress made them out to be, just a lot of people thought that sattelites were cheaper and more effective, which is a joke.







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join