Re: Wider Hercules?
- From: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 9, 3:07 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:27 am, Dan <B24...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Sep 9, 8:24 am, Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:20 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dumpst...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:If there's a market for a A-400, why wouldn't there a market for a
"Lockheed Martin confirms studies are under way for a new version ofLockheed has ridden this horse about as far as you can go. Time to break
C-130 featuring a wider fuselage to accommodate a proposed class of
Army ground vehicles entering service after 2015. "
I wonder how far this project's gonna get.
out new design from scratch.
larger development of the Hercules? Lockheed has the engineering
capability and experience to produce one, although I cannot think of
any technology out there that would give them an advantage over
Airbus's lead in development.
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It would probably be cheaper in the long run just to buy A-400Ms than
to start a brand-new program, but you know how the US military is-
always wanting bigger and (not so proven lately) better systems at the
Would you have said something similar when C-141 stretch mod was
proposed? The U.S. definitely got their money's worth out of that.
Count on Congress to block all major weapons competitors from foreign
powers concerning major military contracts. They do that really well.
Praise the weapon system in the field and then make sure not to
Something wrong with trying to keep U.S. dollars at home?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, but I believe in giving the troops the best weapons regardless of
The joint US-HK XM-8, German HK-416, and Belgian FN SCAR all are
superior to the Colt M4, so why did Congress block the XM-8 in Dec
2006 when the US Army wanted it so badly after field-testing? Because
Colt had to be bailed out again for the third time. At this point,
they are incapable of making a competitive US assault rifle against
the Europeans. Best US version M4 is the Bushmaster Blackwater
Edition. So now Bushmaster, Remington, and other US arms manufacturers
are waiting to step in. A damn shame.
Well, US or foreign, the question comes when the issue of replacing a
large number of weapons, with spare parts, training etc. all in place,
as well as NATO standard ammunition and so forth, and spending all the
money to retool and introduce it all in, is worth the possible gain in
performance from a new rifle.
Also, the Army future rifle projects in the 1990s with all the
computer stuff that ultimately didn't go as big as some had hoped.
It is possible to make a mistake the other way, like the Ordnance
types who opposed repeating rifles for the Union army in the U.S.
Civil War because they were worried soldiers would shoot off too many
bullets and make resupply hard, but rifle changes usually happen when
it is a really major change in ammunition philosophy or weapon
As in the UK going from L1A1 (FN FAL) in 7.62 NATO to the 5.56mm
Individual Weapon. They changed when they wanted to follow the smaller
bullet trend, and eevn then they went with the US round instead of
another round for standardization reasons.
The Germans have done a lot of work, HK made good guns in the 7.62mm
G3 and then the 5.56 follow ons. I am not sure they restock the army
every couple years though, that wouldn't make too much sense unless
there was some huge development. The caseless ammo was to be the next
lvel but the end of the Cold War combined nixed the project I guess.
At any rate the regular HK rifles are OK.
The US went to the 5.56mm M-16 because of a philosophy shift and the
materials thing (Curtis LeMay was an early backer of manufacturing
using new aviation type aluminum and plasic materials for weight and
resistance to the elements.)
The Russian AK-47 was chambered in a round they'd already been working
with. It replaced the SKS because it was just such a leap forward in
capabilities as an army rifle.
When they went to the 5.45 Russian round with the AK-74 they didn't
change the Kalashnikov design much. And some today like the AK-47
better than the AK-74. (Just as some otehrs prefer the M-14 to the
M-16, for instance.)
It's just tough with the standardization thing and the mecahnics of
it. Even a revolutionary weapon like the British one sometimes has to
be tweaked to "fit" an existing structure. Sort of like the US, when
the M-1 Garand was invented the inventer wanted a .270 or .280 caliber
round, but there was so much .30-06 ammo left over from World War One
the Army insisted it fire .30-06, and so it did.
It seems a rifle must be a huge leap forwaord, or part of a serious
change in ammo philosophy, to get the nod. Wartime can make a
difference but in the case of the US the percieved gains are probably
not seen as worth it for a switch right now. Even the 6.8 concept
might have problems with that, though existing weapon types can be
remade in it.
Special operations and small units are a bit different as fewer
weapons allow for that sort of specialization and freedom.
Same for US military interests in German AFVs, aircraft cannon, and
Well in fairness the Boeing jets are decent and the Airbus ones were
thought to be unable to land at some fields the US would want to use,
which was a big argument in the recent tanker contract dust-up.
- Prev by Date: Re: Defensive Weapons
- Next by Date: Re: Iraq Wants F-16's
- Previous by thread: Re: Wider Hercules?
- Next by thread: Re: Wider Hercules?