So off topic, but Australian spiders eat snakes :) http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/animals/spider-v-snake-redback-spider-wins-snake-dies-from-likely-poisoning-20150303-13tgdf.html
There is a much better solution than this, a C-130 carrier. It has been proven that a meaningfully loaded C-130 could land on and take off from a 300 m runway cruising at 25 knots back in the 60s, so just built C-130 carriers and use these ships to airlift cargo and troops. No need to build a new seaplane with this approach and the turnaround cycle is much faster. Loading, unloading, and refueling is much faster too.
I think the USN should have an oceanic seaplane for TROOP lift. I want to emphasize that it is for pax and ligth freight not big cargo items. Unfortunately NAVAIR and TRANSCOM both MISSED that point so the proposed aircraft is FAR larger than it needs to be. And that also affected range. I think the DOD gave up some good airlift capacity when they let the USAF put the C-141s out of servive in favor of C-17. I would have based a seaplane around that airframe. My seaplane mission would be to fly troops (generic term but Marines and Sailors specifically) from CONUS to seabases. That would allow the USMC to put more men ashore from the seabase without overloading amphibs. IF the MLP work deck had not been so screwed up, it could have taken landed seaplanes onboard. Most semi-submersible ships actually go down on an angle so an amphian could roll right up onto the dry area.
Nice BUT there are not enough CV carriers to do this now, there is not enough troop spaces on a CVcarrier, and I don't think C-130s have the range to go from CONUS to the seabase WHERE the troops are actually needed.
You don't actually think the USN will build new AKVs do you? In this constrained budget area - no freaking way~
Slow, ambitious concept, too ambitious. The USN tried C-130s before, your own video proves it. So why is it not used now? Because it skated so close to the edge as to be dangerous, that was why the Greyhounds were used later on instead. If you reduced your overreach, use the C-2 instead, it becomes a lot more workable.
So off topic, but Australian spiders eat snakes :) http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/animals/spider-v-snake-redback-spider-wins-snake-dies-from-likely-poisoning-20150303-13tgdf.html
ReplyDeletewhat is the ship on slide 18, along the trend below HSS?
ReplyDeletenevermind, found my own answer with a quick search
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_Sea_Service
There is a much better solution than this, a C-130 carrier. It has been proven that a meaningfully loaded C-130 could land on and take off from a 300 m runway cruising at 25 knots back in the 60s, so just built C-130 carriers and use these ships to airlift cargo and troops. No need to build a new seaplane with this approach and the turnaround cycle is much faster. Loading, unloading, and refueling is much faster too.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/uM5AI3YSV3M
I think the USN should have an oceanic seaplane for TROOP lift. I want to emphasize that it is for pax and ligth freight not big cargo items. Unfortunately NAVAIR and TRANSCOM both MISSED that point so the proposed aircraft is FAR larger than it needs to be. And that also affected range.
ReplyDeleteI think the DOD gave up some good airlift capacity when they let the USAF put the C-141s out of servive in favor of C-17. I would have based a seaplane around that airframe.
My seaplane mission would be to fly troops (generic term but Marines and Sailors specifically) from CONUS to seabases. That would allow the USMC to put more men ashore from the seabase without overloading amphibs.
IF the MLP work deck had not been so screwed up, it could have taken landed seaplanes onboard. Most semi-submersible ships actually go down on an angle so an amphian could roll right up onto the dry area.
Nice BUT there are not enough CV carriers to do this now, there is not enough troop spaces on a CVcarrier, and I don't think C-130s have the range to go from CONUS to the seabase WHERE the troops are actually needed.
ReplyDeleteYou don't actually think the USN will build new AKVs do you? In this constrained budget area - no freaking way~
leesea
ReplyDeleteAn C-130 carrier doesn't need arresting gears and catapults. It's simply an oversized LHD without the welldeck.
Slow, ambitious concept, too ambitious. The USN tried C-130s before, your own video proves it. So why is it not used now? Because it skated so close to the edge as to be dangerous, that was why the Greyhounds were used later on instead. If you reduced your overreach, use the C-2 instead, it becomes a lot more workable.
ReplyDeleteNow if only leesea was wrong about the budget.