I need to know the max dimensions (size and weight) of airdrop AND non-drop normal mode for the various major transports such as C-130, C-17, that new Airbus with the curved props, whatever Slav-tier stuff is used in 3rd world, etc.
Also helicopters, especially craft with internal carry and rear door drop ability.
I'm guessing there is a "max, but it takes a week to set-up" and a "max that we can do fast without thinking".
Anyways, IMO this should all be on one spread-sheet, along with common ground vehicles/pallet sizes.
This will be for designing new ground vehicle concepts IRL, but I guess the data would also be useful for gamer faggots and game designers.
Yes, the pic is not technically an "airdrop" but an "extraction". Include that data too, if you got anything.
I need to know the max dimensions (size and weight) of airdrop AND non-drop normal mode for the various major...
Other urls found in this thread:
usacac.army.mil
youtube.com
twitter.com
PS-not to jack my own brand new thread, but how about a mod of C-130 or similar with NON-retractable "tundra tires" (basically tires so big they can't be retracted) and maybe mods to rest of landing gear for super-extra rough field takeoff-landing ability?
IIRC there was a "sand-ski" attempted on front wheel of 727 or 737 but not pursued because why beatup an airliner on shit field for shit people.
cant c130s take off and land on beaches? iirc there was a dutch airforce video depicting this
IIRC Janes has a nifty book on aircraft by country with payloads and flight parameters and aircraft dimensions.
not sure about the dutch, but here
payloads are listed in Wiki, but don't tell the full story, like how heavy a single dense object can be ejected/extracted.
Further, I'm mostly interested in DIMENSIONS of at least the most common versions of C-130 and similar, and how wide and TALL a "package" can be para-dropped out the back.
What about max size of two packages, or if one is X, what is Max-X size (for trailer or jeep, etc.)
interior MAX-CARGO SIZE that is.
The botched attempt to rescue the Iranian embassy staff required helicopters to land with a couple of KC-130s to refuel in the desert. This all went wrong when an RH-53 taxied into the back of one of the tankers on the ground when the pilot got disoriented by the dust it was kicking up.
Lol, I know you mean that as a compliment.
Slavic weaponry > rest of the world's weapons
Prove me wrong.
German/austrian stuff is better.
Ok retard
C-130 can take in Strykers. Il-76 cannot take in T-72.
That's their max.
Note that they never actually do it, they can in theory do those things because they barely fit in there and the weight is ok, so by taking some of the stuff off they CAN fit in but it's super dangerous to have a plane fly with an armored vehicle touching the surface of the cargo plane as turbulence might cause a slight shift which might cause a hole in the plane. So it would be a one off.
Note that a lot of older planes were made with a basic volume in mind with little care on "how" the payload was supposed to fit in them.
A modern plane like have their defined volume in "NATO standard pallets" (463L) which in fact means Quadcon II containers (as the pallets themselves are flat). 4 of those makes a 20ft TEU.
An A-400 carries 9 of those and still has it's seats accessible.
the C-130 has a cargo capacity of about 45k lbs with five 463L pallet locations and one on the ramp(the one on the ramp is significantly lighter than the others)
it also has the ability to land and takeoff from improvised airfields.
the C-17 has about 11 pallet positions(loaded side by side), or 5 pallet positions(one on the ramp) if the load plan isn't run side by side. It's carrying capacity is 169k lbs
it has the ability to go in reverse
don't know anything about the new airbus, other than a plane the AF might be working on to replace both aforementioned aircraft by 2030
either way it'll more than likely have roughly the same function as both(acting as a middle child to the two hypothetically speaking) with roughly 45klbs more carry weight than the c130, and all of its malleability though with all of the c17s technological advancements
18 pallets my bad
10 pallets, again, my bad
They drop at full speed out the side of the airplane at 10km altitude thus avoiding AAA. Their parachute is triggered by an altimeter letting them airdrop faster and have tighter landing groups. Their vehicles and equipment drop fully capable of fighting with crew inside them from the same altitudes.
We drop at near stall speed out the back of the airplane at
looks like Stryker is about max that CAN fit in C-130, so should be general MAX-airlift size and weight, with about 10% less weight being more practical.
Ah yes, the round that was so good that the Russians replaced it.
Kenyans aren't dropping shit out of an IL-76. Don't take it personally every time somebody mentions that niggers use Russian stuff without going out of their way to praise a capability Russia developed last year.
They've 60x less money than the west, and invest proportionally less of what they do have into media. You really think I'm more likely to be a paid government controlled Russian shill, than you are to be a paid government controlled shill of any of hundreds of agencies in the West dedicated to just that purpose? The only power RT, a single government controlled channel, has over thousands of government controlled western media outlets is that they occasionally report things that the overlords of western media refuse to look at. Like the fact that not a single western outlet sent even one reporter into Syria for the first three years of the conflict but RT had freaking FPV drone footage of pitched battles since day one.
They've been dropping people out of planes at high speed since WWII. Sometimes without parachutes. The currently used methods predate the afghan war and they're just factually better, airborne freaking wishes it had the techniques of the VDV.
usacac.army.mil
It was good at penetrating cover and going through brush, which is what it was designed for… neither of those rounds yaws at the ranges they're likely to be used at. It was replaced because of mass, the bullet itself is lighter, and the entire firearm which fires it can be made lighter if the bullet is made smaller.
I'm not going to stop pushing you guys up a hill to get some perspective or shoo shoo away some glow in the dark myths.
As a patriot, if I'm being honest, it's obvious Russia spends their money better than we do.
I think you're extremely dedicated to maintaining Canada's Zero-Bant policy.
Interested in sauce. The pdf you linked makes no mentions of afghanistan, altimeters, or drop altitude, and only talks about the IL-76 in context of it being used during an exercise for purposes other than Paradrop.
I never considered that Russian doctrine might surpass NATO doctrine in some areas until you got offended at the term "Slav-tier", thanks for the redpill.
Low quality b8.
They didn't replace it. 7.62x39 is still in service, usually applied for urban to mid range engagements. It's particularly useful in room clearing where riccochets are more common with 5.45 and barrier penetration becomes more of an advantage than squeezing an extra 100 meters out of your rifle. Pic related is what a modern 7.62 hollowpoint does to pigs. I can't imagine chechens fare much better.
Get rekt .22 caliber faggot.
You have way with words, Komrade.
"They've been dropping people out of planes at high speed since WWII. Sometimes without parachutes." Yes, IIRC was almost 12% success rate in the nearly 12% of droppies were considered "combat ready" after drop, which by Soviet terms means could stand on own two legs if threatened with execution.
However, getting back to my USAF Light Attack thread, in addition to powered parachute borne infantry, one reason I suggest using a twin-engine transport based aircraft for CAS is to combine with paratroops (hopefully with parawings, not just potato-sack dumps) or even….wait for it…..wing mounted human pod/paratroops. Something you could stuff a combat soldier into and mount on hardpoint like 500lb bomb. I figure 500lbs is about what it will be with 200lb man, full battle gear, extra ammo, water and food, maybe couple bazooka and bicycle. Something that allows extra fast drop without injury and good control on way down for fast, on-demand, precision insertion of small numbers of troops by CAS.
Who spends their money wiser, a homeless guy who wins a million dollar lottery, or a homeless guy who gets $5 dropped in his tin that day.
You're welcome, I'm glad someone appreciates it.
A gyrocopters propeller basically act as a steel parachute, can carry more weight (heavier weapons,) can fold and unfold on the fly much better than an paraglider, and they're more resistant to weather, fire or damage.
...
Wow, you're actually retarded. Get the fuck out to cuckchan, you dumbfuck noguns brainlet.
The M67 projectile pretty much replicates what 5.45 does anyway and its ~10 years older than 5.45.
that looks real good, especially the contra-rotating blades. I hear that not only does contra-rotating solve hi-speed stall (not a factor here) but more importantly is easier to fly without the need to off-set main rotor toque with little rear spinner (with I hear is quite challenging, can easily "get away from you" and takes 100hr of hours to be able to do as "2nd nature".)
A single esoteric meme non-military loading doesn't make the cartridge good as a whole.
It replicates it's ability to tumble, sure, but it has no where near the barrier/armour penetration capability of 5.45, has ballistics like a rock, has much more recoil, is much heavier, is much larger and is also more expensive.
The only good intermediate cartridges currently in use are 5.45 and Mk 262. 6.5 Grendel would count if Serbia actually adopted it instead of just threatening to.
Russians aren't magically immune to stupid decision and ideas.
5.45mm is the standard infantry round as the infantry is supposed to be fighting with APC/IFV in the great plains of Europe with plenty of distance where average accuracy (for the average grunt), lots of bullets and extra range is paramount.
Specialized infantry units largely still use 7.62x39.
Ease of use is the reason they switched not efficiency of the round, 5.45 shoots very flat while 7.62x39 does the weird "up then down" trajectory.
Most commercial 7.62 loadings mangle anything they touch. The frog made my other points.
this use of retro-RATL(anding) on C-130 looks promising.
youtube.com
Looks like the VTOL components of RATL system didn't fire, which caused it to drop, which busted the wing.
Anyways, IMO the real flaw was something about how a CONVOY of trucks was supposed to sneak through Tehran in wee-hours of the morning, filled with US commandos. Not gonna happen. Even under the Shah they didn't have official roads even in Tehran, "path" would change as diff people would set up shops, markets, etc. And Iranians are notoriously nosy people, who always want to know everyone business. And the whole sprawling city would be CRAWLING with heavily armed ex-Shah's Army guys with good US equip who weren't afraid to die, manning countless Revolutionary Checkpoints on guard for any counter revolutionary spies, much less CONVOY of several hundred US troops, none of who speak a word of Iranian, Arabic or anything but GI Ebonics.
Just drop it at 50 feet out the back
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES