 |
| A C-17 Globemaster III takes off from a degraded airfield Dec. 6, 2014, during the U.S. Air Force Weapons School's Joint Forcible Entry Exercise 14B at the Nevada Test and Training Range. JFEX exercises participants' ability to synchronize aircraft movements from geographically separated bases, command large formations of dissimilar aircraft in high-threat airspace, and tactically deliver and recover combat forces via air drops and combat landings on an unimproved landing strip. The C-17 is assigned to March Air Reserve Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Joshua Kleinholz/Released) |
Well this is a capability you don't see everyday. If the USAF gets serious about this...and if they can include not only the US Army but also the Marine Corps in this planning/exercise then we'll be well on our way to rebuilding our Rapid Deployment Forces again.
An awesome sidenote is that this takes away a huge selling point for the A400M. You won't use either airplane on dirt strips very often but its nice to show that for about the same cost as the turbo prop driven airplane you can get the strategic reach and lift of the C-17.
And a C-17 can carry an Abrams or anything in the service. I have this fantasy of taking the Marine M1A1 and doing like the Israelis turning it into one nearly indestructible IFV. Then you put some hellfire missile racks on the wings of the C-17......then instead of Marines we could go "Colonial Marine" like in the Aliens movie (the 2nd one by Cameron). You come in at tree-top at 500 knots, touch-n-go in some big field and out pops (via drag chute) this juggernaut of an armored vehicle filled with troops armed with state of the art small arms with a 105mm MGS cannon on the roof...
ReplyDeleteBeats the crap out of an Osprey with a stripped down jeep with a .50 on top...I admit it is just a fantasy though.
Now that was an Awesome movie. I got a 1080P HD version of that movie just a couple of months ago.
DeleteYour Military Specification Musings are indeed very do-able.
Same cost?, not so much.
ReplyDeleteThe upfront cost of an aircraft is merely the tip of the iceberg as i am sure you are well aware and the C-17 is anything but cheap to operate. For those less fortunate then the USAF C-17 flight hours are a precious, carefully husbanded commodity. especially when you take into account the fact that the C-17 line has a definite end and once the airframes are gone they truly are gone.
The real draw of the A400M is as I've said before its ability to carry heavier and larger payloads further then the C-130.
The cargo weight that the C-17 can put down onto an unimproved soft landing strip is actually no better then the A400M so what you are gaining buy risking a far more valuable strategic asset in an inherently tactical role is somewhat difficult to ascertain.
Yeah, except the A400M carries less than half the amount of a c17 and only 62% more than a c130. It is overpriced for what it offers.
DeleteUnfortunately that seems to be the way all planes are going, even a new C-130 with all the latest isn't cheap any more. Which makes "forcible entry" moot because you're going to protect these expensive planes with your life. Once gone, no more money to get a new one.
DeleteExercises like these are good for PR, but the reality is that these are too dear to risk in a real "hot" war.
totally disagree. the problem isn't with the concept of forcible entry, the problem is with modern warfare. too many small wars and wars of choice. forcible entry isn't really for that. forcible entry is really for when you are fighting a conflict for either your own or an allies survival. is Falklands a place for US forcible entry ops? i think not. for the UK? maybe, i don't know the politics. is S. Korea losing a war to N. Korea a case for forcible entry? i don't think so and would write my congressman to keep US forces out of that fight but others would disagree. so there you have it. its not for little silly 3rd world conflict. its for saddle up its go time type of fighting.
Deleteand thats' when putting the 82nd on the ground and telling them to hold for 24 hours, with them sustaining 30% killed or injured makes sense. if it isn't for something important then it would never be accepted.
A maybe on UK and a no-no on South Korea ?
DeleteSlowman is gonna be pissed. I take it you are not a believer in the Pivot to the Pacific ?
i'm a believer in a SMART pivot to the pacific. i don't want to see a repeat of US experiences with NATO. what does that mean? well it certainly doesn't mean that the US goes broke while our allies sell us trinkets and nothing on defense. to be clear i want real deal equal defense co-operation. treaties that mean something and aren't an excuse for nations to feel like they're the unofficial 51st state in the US.
Deletei'm not picking on S. Korea but its nonsense for us to have a division worth of troops stationed there. S. Korea has one of the biggest and most advanced forces in the region. short of China invading they can handle there own defense needs. the biggest issue they're gonna have if N. Korea goes insane is the possibility of it turning nuclear (which means all bets are off) or (more likely) Seoul is the subject of intense artillery strikes that level the city before they can react.
either way the war should be over before we can mobilize the 1st MarDiv and an Army Corps to go punch the north in the face.
same applies to Japan against all but China. the real problem is that all the free nations with the exception of Singapore has grudges that go back centuries. the US doesn't need to get in the middle of that.
Solomon, what has me confused is the fact that you criticise the UK and western EU countries saying that you chaps maintain notoriously low force structures and reserves relying completely on the US to defend you. But here in the Pacific, it is the exact opposite with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia maintaining some decent forces with most of them pledging to get even stronger and better. Especially Taiwan which is begging for more "profitable to the US" defence purchases.
DeleteAnd this is the logic that I cant understand. If you blast the EU for not wanting to defend themselves and relying on USA....then surely you must compliment the Pacific by saying that we shall match you strength for strength. The more you do....the more we do. But there again you are saying that since the South Koreans have enough to defend themselves against the north then why should we bother.
In both the EU and Pacific Ocean case, what you are calling for in the end is a Pacifist USA.
first i never have called for a pacifist USA.
Deletesecond. stop reading into my statements. i said what i mean and i mean what i say.
third. Taiwan leaks like a sieve. they have a known faction in the country that favors reunification with China and they have been caught selling secrets to the Chinese. do they rate top line equipment? i think not. its romantic to think that we can undo the betrayal after the 2nd world war but that time has passed.
S. Korea is strong enough to defend itself.
Singapore isn't asking for jack from anyone. they have a go it alone foreign policy.
Japan has a part of its community that HATES US military.
Australia has ties with China.
does any of this make them bad allies? no. does it mean that we should have a mature military relationship that is based on honesty? definitely. so what does that mean? it mean they pull their weight.
my gripe with Europe is a RECENT one. they did hard work in Afghanistan and in Iraq. the Brits, Dutch, and Poles were hooking and jabbing hard. even tiny Georgia put in work. as much as we like to poke the stick at the French they did good too (Afghanistan) .
during the cold war they were all champs and contributed to a united and unified NATO.
since the end of the cold war we've seen their defense budgets sink. that's my bitch with Europe.
so having said all that let me repeat. don't play psychologist. don't interpret my words to fit your meme.
THAT SHIT IS FUCKING ANNOYING>
War Man you seem to think that cost is in direct proportion to capability i can tell you that this is in no way the case, and in fact has never been so.
Deleteyou specify what you want a piece of equipment to do then the MIC manufactures something that approximately fulfills that specification. the fact that there may be another piece of equipment that in one small way exceeds one of your requirements is irrelevant.
You claim that the the A400M is overly expensive for its payload but have you looked at the costing for the newest C-130s lately?, the price difference is maybe 20 or so million and operating costs are pretty much equivalent.
The C-17 does indeed carry a larger payload then then Airbus but not onto unimproved fields and you will never have enough C-17s to perform both the Tactical and Strategic airlift missions at the same time.
The simple fact is that the C-17 is an exceedingly expensive aircraft to purchase and operate, and no single air force beyond the USAF is going to have more then a dozen or so airframes and to my knowledge no air force other then the USAF has ever used its short field landing capabilities as the aircraft are just to precious to risk losing.
The C-130/C-17 mix works for the USAF because they have so many C-17s available that they can divert a dozen or so to support tactical operations, for any other air force this would be their entire fleet.
so when you need to shift a 30-40 ton load tactically but you can't afford to waste C-17 flight hours you would other wise be left a little stuck as thee is no way in the world a C-130 is going to be able to shift it unless you find some way of cutting the payload in half and using twice as many aircraft.
This is what the A400M was designed for, nations that don't have the innumerable resources of the USAF but need to shift things that plain just wont fit in a C-130.
Which i might add is an increasingly long list what with the rise of the MRAP.